alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Dec 19, 2011 8-K Exhibit 10.2






Exhibit 10.2
THIRD AMENDMENT
TO THE 
CO-PROMOTION AND DISTRIBUTION AGREEMENT


This Amendment 3 (this “Amendment”), effective this 30th day of November, 2011 is made to the Co-Promotion and Distribution Agreement dated February 27, 2001, as amended, between ICU Medical Sales, Inc. (“ICU”) and Hospira, Inc. (“Hospira”) (the “Agreement”).


The parties agree to amend the Agreement as follows:


		
	1.
	Incorporation of the Agreement. All capitalized terms which are not defined herein shall have the same meanings as set forth in the Agreement, and the Agreement, to the extent not inconsistent with this Amendment, is incorporated herein by this reference as though the same was set forth in its entirety. To the extent any terms and provisions of the Agreement are inconsistent with the amendments set forth below, such terms and provisions shall be deemed superseded hereby. Except as specifically set forth herein, the Agreement shall remain in full force and effect and its provisions shall be binding on the parties hereto. 




		
	2.
	Extension of Term.  The first sentence of Section 11.1 of the Agreement is hereby deleted in its entirety and replaced with the following:




Unless earlier terminated as provided herein, the Term of this Agreement shall commence on the Effective Date and terminate on December 31, 2018.


		
	3.
	Effectuation. The amendments to the Agreement contemplated by this Amendment shall be deemed effective as of the date first written above upon the full execution of this Amendment and without any further action required by the parties hereto. There are no conditions precedent or subsequent to the effectiveness of this Amendment. 




		
	4.
	Counterparts. This Amendment may be executed in two or more counterparts, each of which shall be deemed to be an original, but all of which together shall constitute one and the same instrument. One or more counterparts of this Amendment may be delivered by facsimile, with the intention that delivery by such means shall have the same effect as delivery of an original counterpart thereof. 






IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties, intending to be bound by the terms and conditions hereof, have caused this Amendment to be signed by their duly authorized representatives. 


	
			
	HOSPIRA, INC.
	 
	ICU MEDICAL SALES, INC.

	By:  /s/ Mike Ball
	 
	By:  /s/ George A. Lopez, M.D.

	  Mike Ball
	 
	  George A. Lopez, M.D.

	  Chief Executive Officer
	 
	  Chief Executive Officer
The State of TexasAppellee/s



# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

February 5, 2014

N o. 04

- 13

- 00818

- CR

Mark Anthony GARCIA

, Appellant

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

Appellee

From the 437th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2009CR2731A

Honorable Lori I. Valenzuela, Judge Presiding



### ORDER

On January 16, 2014, appellant’s attorney filed a motion seeking to withdraw the

previously filed Motion to Withdraw as Counsel and Motion to Abate Appellate Dea dlines. The

motion is granted.

_________________________________ Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said

court on this 5th day of February, 2014

.

___________________________________ Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 175 (Tuesday, September 12, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Page 42808]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-19248]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER17-2429-000]


Just Energy Texas I Corp.; Supplemental Notice That Initial 
Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204 
Authorization

    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding, 
of Just Energy Texas I Corp.'s application for market-based rate 
authority, with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such 
application includes a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR 
part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of 
liability.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the 
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, 
DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's 
Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone 
filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that 
document on the Applicant.
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with 
regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18 
CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of 
liability, is September 26, 2017.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and 
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet 
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an 
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the 
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the 
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 
5 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above-referenced proceeding are accessible in 
the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in 
the above list. They are also available for electronic review in the 
Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an 
eSubscription link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive 
email notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). 
For assistance with any FERC Online service, please email 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#b6f0f3e4f5f9d8dadfd8d3e5c3c6c6d9c4c2f6d0d3c4d598d1d9c0"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="52141700111d3c3e3b3c37012722223d202612343720317c353d24">[email protected]</span></a> or call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, 
call (202) 502-8659.

    Dated: September 6, 2017.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-19248 Filed 9-11-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-6849

ALEXANDER CAMERON, Petitioner - Appellant,

v. COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA, Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. James C. Cacheris, Senior District Judge. (1:08-cv-01346-JCC-IDD)

Submitted: September 22, 2009 Decided: October 6, 2009

Before MICHAEL, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Alexander Cameron, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.PER CURIAM: Alexander Cameron seeks to appeal the district court’s order treating his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion as a successive 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition, and dismissing it on that basis. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006); Reid v. Angelone , 369 F.3d 363, 369 (4th Cir. 2004). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. Miller-El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee , 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Cameron has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. Additionally, we construe Cameron’s notice of appeal and informal brief as an application to file a second or successive petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. United States v. Winestock , 340 F.3d 200, 208 (4th Cir. 2003). In order to

23 obtain authorization to file a successive § 2254 petition, a prisoner must assert claims based on either: (1) a new rule of constitutional law, previously unavailable, made retroactive by the Supreme Court to cases on collateral review; or (2) newly discovered evidence, not previously discoverable by due diligence, that would be sufficient to establish by clear and convincing evidence that, but for constitutional error, no reasonable factfinder would have found the petitioner guilty of the offense. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(2) (2006). Cameron’s claims do not satisfy either of these criteria. Therefore, we deny authorization to file a successive § 2254 petition. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional

process.

DISMISSED
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Stephen J. Markman, Chief Justice

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano 

Richard H. Bernstein

Joan L. Larsen

Kurtis T. Wilder,

Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 September 27, 2017

Order 

Clerk

September 27, 2017

156066(76)

MICHAEL RAMSEY and GLENN DOWDY, Plaintiffs-Appellees, SC: 156066

v COA: 329920

Wayne CC: 10-004708-CD

LABORERS’ LOCAL 1191, d/b/a

ROAD CONSTRUCTION LABORERS OF

MICHIGAN LOCAL 1191, and MICHAEL

AARON, Defendants-Appellants,

and

BRUCE RUEDISUELI, Defendant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Chief Justice, the motion of defendants-appellants to extend the 

time for filing their reply is GRANTED. The reply will be accepted for filing if 

submitted on or before October 30, 2017.
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

21 

TP 12-01403 

PRESENT: SMITH, J.P., FAHEY, VALENTINO, WHALEN, AND MARTOCHE, JJ. 

 

IN THE MATTER OF THOMAS MCFADDEN, PETITIONER, 

V ORDER

BRIAN FISCHER, COMMISSIONER, NEW YORK STATE 

DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND COMMUNITY 

SUPERVISION, RESPONDENT. 

 

WYOMING COUNTY-ATTICA LEGAL AID BUREAU, WARSAW (LEAH R. NOWOTARSKI OF

COUNSEL), FOR PETITIONER.

ERIC T. SCHNEIDERMAN, ATTORNEY GENERAL, ALBANY (FRANK K. WALSH OF

COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT. 

 

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to the

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Fourth Judicial

Department by order of the Supreme Court, Wyoming County [Mark H.

Dadd, A.J.], entered July 27, 2012) to review a determination of

respondent. The determination found after a Tier III hearing that

petitioner had violated an inmate rule. 

It is hereby ORDERED that the determination is unanimously 

confirmed without costs and the amended petition is dismissed. 

Entered: February 1, 2013 Frances E. Cafarell

Clerk of the Court
```

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S.J. Res. 34 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

114th CONGRESS
  2d Session
S. J. RES. 34

  Providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, 
 United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Department of Labor 
   relating to defining and delimiting the exemptions for executive, 
  administrative, professional, outside sales, and computer employees.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                              June 7, 2016

 Mr. Alexander (for himself, Mr. Johnson, Mr. McConnell, Mr. Barrasso, 
  Mr. Boozman, Mr. Cassidy, Mr. Coats, Mr. Cochran, Ms. Collins, Mr. 
 Corker, Mr. Cornyn, Mr. Cotton, Mr. Crapo, Mr. Cruz, Mr. Daines, Mr. 
Enzi, Mrs. Ernst, Mrs. Fischer, Mr. Flake, Mr. Gardner, Mr. Graham, Mr. 
 Hatch, Mr. Heller, Mr. Hoeven, Mr. Inhofe, Mr. Isakson, Mr. Lankford, 
 Mr. Lee, Mr. McCain, Mr. Moran, Ms. Murkowski, Mr. Paul, Mr. Perdue, 
Mr. Risch, Mr. Roberts, Mr. Rounds, Mr. Rubio, Mr. Scott, Mr. Sessions, 
  Mr. Shelby, Mr. Thune, Mr. Tillis, Mr. Vitter, Mr. Wicker, and Mr. 
  Sullivan) introduced the following joint resolution; which was read 
 twice and referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and 
                                Pensions

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION

 
  Providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, 
 United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Department of Labor 
   relating to defining and delimiting the exemptions for executive, 
  administrative, professional, outside sales, and computer employees.

    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled, That Congress disapproves the 
rule submitted by the Department of Labor relating to defining and 
delimiting the exemptions for executive, administrative, professional, 
outside sales, and computer employees under the Fair Labor Standards 
Act of 1938 (published at 81 Fed. Reg. 32391 (May 23, 2016)), and such 
rule shall have no force or effect.
                                 <all>
```
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPI RES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA SECOND DISTRICT

CHARLES E. HARRIS, ) ) Appellant, ) ) v. ) Case No. 2D14-3281 ) STATE OF FLORIDA, ) ) Appellee. ) ___________________________________ ) Opinion filed April 22, 2015. Appeal pursuant to Fla. R. App. P. 9.141(b)(2) from the Circuit Court for Polk County; Reinaldo Ojeda, Judge. Charles E. Harris, pro se.

MORRIS, Judge. Charles E. Harris appeals the summary denial of his motion for postconviction relief filed under Florida Rule of Criminal Proc edure 3.853. We reverse and remand for further proceedings because the postconviction c ourt failed to follow the procedures required by rule 3.853. In 1983, Harris was found guilty of first-degree premeditated murder, attempted first-degree premeditated murder, armed burglary, and armed robbery. Afterfiling two previous facially insufficient rule 3.853 motions, H arris filed the motion at issue here requesting a court order for the examination of several it ems of physical evidence that he alleged would exonerate him. The postconviction court examined the record and denied Harris 's motion on its merits. But if a postconviction court finds that a rule 3.853 motion is facially sufficient, 1 it must order a response from the State. See Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.853(c)(2); Zollman v. State, 820 So. 2d 1059, 1063 n.2 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002). A response is required even when an examination of the record conclusively sh ows that the defendant is not entitled to relief. Id. at 1063 n.2

. Only after the response is received and reviewed is the court to enter an order on the merits of the mo tion or set the motion for hearing. Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.853(c)(3). Accordingly, we reverse the order denying Harris's rule 3.853 motion and remand for the postconviction court to comply with the procedur al requirements of rule 3.853. Reversed and remanded with directions.

WALLACE and KHOUZAM, JJ., Concur.

1 See generally Saffold v. State, 850 So. 2d 574 (Fla. 2d DCA 200 3) (discussing the requirements for a facially sufficient rule 3.8 53 motion).
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
The schedule contains summary financial information extracted from
the Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 1998 and is qualified
in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                          15,790
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   10,064
<ALLOWANCES>                                       102
<INVENTORY>                                        148
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                26,973
<PP&E>                                          13,170
<DEPRECIATION>                                   6,277
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  38,478
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            7,246
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            56
<OTHER-SE>                                      29,825
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    38,478
<SALES>                                         24,103
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                24,103
<CGS>                                            7,481
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   21,579
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                (700)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  3,224
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,175
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              2,049
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     2,049
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .37
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .37
        

</TABLE>
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Roberto ALANIZ, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 07-10735

Summary Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Jan. 18, 2008.

Lisa J. Miller, U.S. Attorney’s Office Northern District of Texas, Dallas, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Jason Douglas Hawkins, John Macintyre Nicholson, Federal Public Defender’s Office Northern District of Texas, Dallas, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, STEWART, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.*

Roberto Alaniz appeals the 33-month sentence he received following his guilty-plea conviction for being a felon in possession of a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g). He argues that the sentence imposed is unreasonable. Specifically, Alaniz contends that the district court failed to give adequate consideration to mitigating factors, failed to articulate adequate reasons under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) for the sentence imposed, and treated the guidelines as mandatory.

Because the sentence Alaniz received fell within the correctly calculated guidelines range, it is presumptively reasonable. *United States v. Alonzo,*435 F.3d 551, 554 (5th Cir.2006). The district court’s proper consideration of the § 3553(a) factors is inferred. *See United States v. Mares,*402 F.3d 511, 519 (5th Cir.2005), *cert. denied,*546 U.S. 828, 126 S.Ct. 43, 163 L.Ed.2d 76 (2005). Alaniz has not overcome the presumption of correctness attached to his sentence.

The district court’s judgment is affirmed. The Government’s motion for summary affirmance or, alternatively, for an extension of time to file an appellate brief is denied.

AFFIRMED; MOTION DENIED.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
Exhibit 8

List of Subsidiaries



|                                                   |  |                         
|-------------------------------------------------- |  | ------------------------
|Name of Subsidiary                                 |  | Country of
Incorporation
|Aerolíneas Galápagos Aerogal, S.A.                 |  | Ecuador                 
|Aerovias del Continente Americano, S.A.            |  | Colombia                
|Líneas Aéreas Costaricenses S.A.                   |  | Costa Rica              
|Nicaragüense de Aviación, S.A.                     |  | Nicaragua               
|Taca International Airlines, S.A.                  |  | El Salvador             
|Tampa Cargo S.A.S.                                 |  | Colombia                
|Trans American Airlines, S.A.                      |  | Peru                    
|Aerotaxis La Costeña, S.A.                         |  | Nicaragua               
|Isleña de Inversiones, S.A. de C.V.                |  | Honduras                
|Servicios Aéreos Nacionales S.A.                   |  | Costa Rica              
|Aerospace Investments, Limited                     |  | Bahamas                 
|Aviation Leasing Services (ALS), Inc.              |  | Panama                  
|Aviation Leasing Services, Investments (ALS), S.A. |  | Panama                  
|AVSA Properties II, Inc.                           |  | Panama                  
|AVSA Properties, Inc.                              |  | Panama                  
|Intercontinental Equipment Corp.                   |  | Bahamas                 
|Little Plane, Limited                              |  | Bahamas                 
|Little Plane Six, Limited                          |  | Bahamas                 
|Little Plane Two, Limited                          |  | Bahamas                 
|Southern Equipment Corp.                           |  | Bahamas                 
|Turboprop Leasing Company, Limited                 |  | Bahamas                 
|Technical & Training Services, S.A. de C.V.        |  | El Salvador             
|Grupo Taca Holdings, Limited                       |  | Bahamas                 
|Ronair N.V.                                        |  | Curaçao                 
|Avianca Inc.                                       |  | USA                     
|LifeMiles Corp.                                    |  | Panama                  
|Tampa Cargo Logistics, Inc.                        |  | USA                     
|Getcom International Investments, SL               |  | Spain                   
|Avianca Leasing, LLC                               |  | USA                     
|Turbo Aviation Two, Limited                        |  | Ireland
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

JUAN PABLO VAZQUEZ,

Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 310 MAL 2017

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from 

the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 22nd day of August, 2017, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal

is DENIED.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-1386

MARY LOU RECCHIA, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus ERICSSON, INCORPORATED, Defendant - Appellee.Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Lynchburg. Norman K. Moon, District Judge. (CA-99-95-6) Submitted: July 31, 2001 Decided: August 24, 2001 Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Mary Lou Recchia, Appellant Pro Se. Bayard Easter Harris, DianeMarie Baun, Daniel Clayton Summerlin, III, WOODS, ROGERS & HAZLEGROVE, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Mary Lou Recchia appeals the district court’s order grantingEricsson, Incorporated’s motion for summary judgment in her employment discrimination action. We have reviewed the record and thedistrict court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, although we deny Ericsson’s motion to dismiss for failure to prosecute, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Recchia v. Ericsson, Inc. , No. CA-99-95-6 (W.D. Va. Feb. 20, 2001).We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED