alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>




                                   EXHIBIT 10.26


<PAGE>


THE ROBERSON COMPANY   SINCE 1963

FAX TRANSMISSION


FROM THE DESK OF:                 JAMES D. ROBERSON              DATE: 2/1/97

TO:                               DICK MORA
                                  COASTCAST CORPORATION

FAX NUMBER:                       310-631-3715
PHONE NUMBER:

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

Pages:      1
Re:         SERP Amendment



                      SECOND AMENDMENT TO COASTCAST CORPORATION
                       SUPPLEMENTAL EXECUTIVE RETIREMENT PLAN

     Whereas, the Company desires to credit Mr. Richard Mora with a new
schedule for purposes of the vesting of benefits provided by the Coastcast
Corporation Supplemental Executive Retirement Plan.

     Now, therefore, for purposes of calculating the Target Retirement
Benefits under paragraph 3.1 of the Plan and for all other purposes under the
Plan, Richard W. Mora shall be credit with two (2) Years of Participation,
each year, as such term is defined in paragraph 1.16 of the Plan.


                                         COASTCAST CORPORATION


                                         By    /s/Hans H. Buehler
                                              --------------------

                                         Its    Chairman   CEO
                                              --------------------

                                         Date    2-18-97
                                              --------------------


         4199 CAMPUS DRIVE, SUITE 730, IRVINE, CALIFORNIA 92612-2698
                VOICE: (714) 509-2940  FAX: (714) 509-2945
### **CHAPTER 95—MICROENTERPRISE TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE AND CAPACITY BUILDING PROGRAM**

Sec.
6901.
Definitions.
6902.
Establishment of program.
6903.
Uses of assistance.
6904.
Qualified organizations.
6905.
Allocation of assistance; subgrants.
6906.
Matching requirements.
6907.
Applications for assistance.
6908.
Recordkeeping.
6909.
Authorization.
6910.
Implementation.
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.2

           CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 AS ADOPTED
           PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


The undersigned, Allen G. Sugerman, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer of The
MIIX Group, Incorporated (the "Company"), has executed this certification in
connection with the filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission of the
Company's Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2004
(the "Report").

The undersigned hereby certifies that to the best of his knowledge:

        (1)     The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a)
                or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
        (2)     The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
                material respects, the financial condition and results of
                operations of the Company.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this certification as of the
15th day of November, 2004.


                                          /s/ Allen G. Sugerman
                                          -------------------------------------
                                          Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer
                                          November 15, 2004


                                                                              27
§ 806.25 Water conservation standards. Any project sponsor whose project is subject to Commission approval under this part proposing to withdraw water either directly or indirectly (through another user) from groundwater or surface water sources, or both, shall comply with the following requirements: ( a ) *Public water supply.* As circumstances warrant, a project sponsor of a public water supply shall: ( 1 ) Reduce distribution system losses to a level not exceeding 20 percent of the gross withdrawal.
( 2 ) Install meters for all users.
( 3 ) Establish a program of water conservation that will: ( i ) Require installation of water conservation devices, as applicable, by all classes of users.
( ii ) Prepare and distribute literature to customers describing available water conservation techniques.
( iii ) Implement a water pricing structure which encourages conservation.
( iv ) Encourage water reuse.
( b ) *Industrial.* Project sponsors who use water for industrial purposes shall: ( 1 ) Designate a company representative to manage plant water use.
( 2 ) Install meters or other suitable devices or utilize acceptable flow measuring methods for accurate determination of water use by various parts of the company operation.
( 3 ) Install flow control devices which match the needs of the equipment being used for production.
( 4 ) Evaluate and utilize applicable recirculation and reuse practices.
( c ) *Irrigation.* Project sponsors who use water for irrigation purposes shall utilize irrigation systems properly designed for the sponsor's respective soil characteristics, topography and vegetation.
( d ) *Effective date.* Notwithstanding the effective date for other portions of this part, this section shall apply to all groundwater and surface water withdrawals initiated on or after January 11, 1979.
NO. 07-06-0280-CR

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AT AMARILLO

PANEL D

OCTOBER 17, 2008

______________________________

JERRY WAYNE BANNISTER,

Appellant

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, 

Appellee

_________________________________

FROM THE COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 2 OF HENDERSON COUNTY;

NO. 2005-0854CL2; HON. NANCY PERRYMAN, PRESIDING

_______________________________

Concurring Opinion

________________________________

Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and PIRTLE, JJ.

I concur in the decision to reverse and remand the cause for the following reason.

The court in Harris v. State, 227 S.W.3d 83, 85 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) outlined what a

defendant must show in order to be granted a Franks hearing. That is a defendant must

1) allege deliberate falsehood or reckless disregard for the truth by the affiant, specifically

pointing out the portion of the affidavit claimed to be false, 2) accompany these allegations
with an offer of proof stating the supporting reasons, and 3) show that when the portion of

the affidavit alleged to be false is excised from the affidavit, the remaining content is

insufficient to support issuance of the warrant. Id.

In the case at bar, appellant pointed out the portion of the affidavit that he believed

was false; he contended that the pictures attached to the affiant’s affidavit were not of

appellant’s house as stated in the affidavit. Appellant then accompanied his allegations

with an offer of proof consisting of pictures of his actual home which home appears to be

different from the one in the affiant’s pictures. And, finally, in excising the pictures of the

house at which appellant allegedly possessed drug paraphernalia from the affidavit, the

remaining content of the affidavit is insufficient to support the issuance of the warrant

based on the fact that there is probable cause that drug paraphernalia would be found at

appellant’s home. Therefore, I conclude that appellant established his right to and the trial

court should have held a Franks hearing. Harris, 227 S.W.3d at 85. 

Accordingly, I reverse the judgment and remand the case for further proceedings.

Brian Quinn

 Chief Justice

Do not publish.
### §8308. Memorandum

(a)(1) The Commodity Futures Trading Commission and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission shall, not later than 180 days after July 21, 2010, negotiate a memorandum of understanding to establish procedures for—

(A) applying their respective authorities in a manner so as to ensure effective and efficient regulation in the public interest;

(B) resolving conflicts concerning overlapping jurisdiction between the 2 agencies; and

(C) avoiding, to the extent possible, conflicting or duplicative regulation.

(2) Such memorandum and any subsequent amendments to the memorandum shall be promptly submitted to the appropriate committees of Congress.

(b) The Commodity Futures Trading Commission and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission shall, not later than 180 days after July 21, 2010, negotiate a memorandum of understanding to share information that may be requested where either Commission is conducting an investigation into potential manipulation, fraud, or market power abuse in markets subject to such Commission's regulation or oversight. Shared information shall remain subject to the same restrictions on disclosure applicable to the Commission initially holding the information.

(Pub. L. 111–203, title VII, §720, July 21, 2010, 124 Stat. 1657.)
UNITED STATES AIR FORCE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

UNITED STATES

v.

Airman Basic TRAVIS L. MCBRYDE

United States Air Force

ACM 38828

18 February 2016

Sentence adjudged 17 March 2015 by G CM convened at Joint Base

Andrews NAF Washington, Maryland . Military Judge: Joshua Kastenberg

(sitting alone).

Approved S entence: Dishonorable discharge and confinement for 102

months

.

Appellate Counsel for the Appellant: Major Isaac C. Kennen

.

Appellate Counsel for the United States: Lieutenant Colonel Katherine E.

Oler.

Before

ALLRED, MITCHELL, and MAYBERRY

Appellate Military Judges

This opinion is issued as an unpublished opinion and, as such, does not serve as precedent

under Rule of Practice and Procedure 18.4

.



### PER CURIAM :

The approved findings and sentence are correct in law and fact, and no error

materially prejudicial to the substantial rights of the appellant occurred.  

### Article 66(c),

UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. § 866(c); United States v. Reed , 54 M.J. 37, 41 (C.A.A.F. 2000).

 The c ourt notes that the c ourt

- m artial o rder (CMO), dated 5 Jun 2015

, incorrectly states the date of sentencing as

20 Mar 2015 instead of 17 Mar 2015. The c ourt orders the promulgation of a corrected CMO.ACM 3 8828 2 

### Accordingly, the approved findings and sentence are

AFFIRMED.

FOR THE COURT

LEAH M. CALAHAN

Clerk of the Court
### §790d. Repealed. Pub. L. 104–66, title I, §1051(k), Dec. 21, 1995, 109 Stat. 717

Section, Pub. L. 93–275, §55, as added Pub. L. 94–385, title I, §142, Aug. 14, 1976, 90 Stat. 1137; amended Pub. L. 95–91, title VII, §709(a)(4), Aug. 4, 1977, 91 Stat. 608, related to annual performance audit review of Office of Energy Information and Analysis procedures and methodology by Professional Audit Review Team.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA 

WESTERN DISTRICT 

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, 

 Respondent 

 v. 

BENJAMIN J. DENNERLEIN, 

 Petitioner 

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 494 WAL 2015 

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from 

the Order of the Superior Court 

ORDER 

PER CURIAM 

AND NOW, this 24th day of March, 2016, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is 

DENIED. 

Justice Wecht did not participate in the consideration or decision of this matter.
1

Filed 1/16/15 P. v. Adams CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT

(Sacramento)

----

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

LONNIE B. ADAMS,

Defendant and Appellant. C074836

(Super. Ct. No. 96F00018)

Defendant Lonnie B. Adams appeals from an order denying petitions to recall

his so

- called “three strikes” sentence of 26 years to life, brought pursuant to the

provisions of the Three Strikes Reform Act of 2012 (the Act), codified at Penal Code

section 1170.126 (undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code)

. 1 (See Teal v.

Superior Cou rt (2014) 60 Cal.4th 595.)

Defendant ’s petitions to recall his sentence and for resentencing and his motion to

reconsider were denied upon determination that he was not eligible for relief under the

Act because the commitment offense was making criminal threats and because he was

1 Defendant filed petitions for writ of habeas corpus, which were construed to be petitions to recall his sentence. He thereafter filed a petition to recall his sentence.2

armed with a deadly weapon in the course of commission of the offense. (See §§ 667,

subd. (e)(2)(C)(iii), 1170.12, subd. (c)(2)(C)(iii), 1170.126, subds. (b) & (e)(1), 1192.7,

subd. (c) (38).)

Counsel was appointed to represent defendant on appeal. Counsel filed a n

opening brief setting forth the facts of the case and requesting this court to review the

record and determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. ( People v. Wende

(1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Counsel advised defendant of his right to file a sup plemental

brief within 30 days of the date of filing of the openi ng brief.

Defendant timely filed a supplemental brief, arguing that since making criminal

threats was not defined as a serious or violent felony at the time he committed the

offense, the con viction cannot be used to render him ineligible for relief under the Act.

The issue is now pending review by the California Supreme Court. (See People v.

Johnson (2014) 226 Cal.App.4th 620, review granted July 30, 2014 , S219454 ; Braziel v.

Superior Court (2014) 225 Cal.App.4th 933, review granted July 30, 2014 , S218503 .)

However, defendant remains ineligible for resentencing under the Act, as the

determination that he was armed with a deadly weapon during the commission of the

offense disqualifies him fo r relief. (See People v. Bradford (2014) 227 Cal.App.4th

1322, 1336

- 1340; People v. Elder (2014) 227 Cal.App.4th 1308, 1314

- 1317.)

Having undertaken an examination of the entire record, we find no arguable error

that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant.

DISPOSITION

The judgment (order) is affirmed.

RAYE , P. J.

We concur:

BLEASE , J.

NICHOLSON , J.
#### § 381.218 Criminal offenses.

The Act contains criminal provisions with respect to numerous offenses specified in the Act, including but not limited to forcible assaults on, or other interference with, any person while engaged in, or on account of the performance of, his official duties under the Act. Criminal provisions with respect to gifts or offers of bribes to such persons and related offenses are contained in the general criminal code (18 U.S.C. 201).
### §8006. Education and awareness program

#### (a) In general

The Commission shall establish and carry out an education and awareness program to inform the public of methods to prevent drowning and entrapment in swimming pools and spas. In carrying out the program, the Commission shall develop—

(1) educational materials designed for swimming pool and spa manufacturers, service companies, and supply retail outlets, including guidance on barrier and drain cover inspection, maintenance, and replacement;

(2) educational materials designed for swimming pool and spa owners and operators, consumers, States, and Indian Tribes; and

(3) a national media campaign to promote awareness of swimming pool and spa safety.

#### (b) Authorization of appropriations

There are authorized to be appropriated to the Commission for fiscal year 2023 $2,500,000 to carry out the education and awareness program authorized by subsection (a).

(Pub. L. 110–140, title XIV, §1407, Dec. 19, 2007, 121 Stat. 1799; Pub. L. 117–328, div. BB, title IV, §403, Dec. 29, 2022, 136 Stat. 5563.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

2022—Pub. L. 117–328 amended section generally. Prior to amendment, section related to establishment of a pool and spa safety education program.

#### **Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries**

#### Effective Date

Section effective on the date that is 1 day after Dec. 19, 2007, see section 1601 of Pub. L. 110–140, set out as a note under section 1824 of Title 2, The Congress.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
consolidated balance sheet of Global Marine Inc. and subsidiaries as of
12-31-96 and the related consolidated statement of operations for the year
ended 12-31-96, and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such
financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                              JAN-1-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                          92,900
<SECURITIES>                                    27,500
<RECEIVABLES>                                  105,700
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,300
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               246,500
<PP&E>                                         732,900
<DEPRECIATION>                                 255,500
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 807,800
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           87,600
<BONDS>                                        225,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        16,900
<OTHER-SE>                                     442,200
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   807,800
<SALES>                                         12,900
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               680,700
<CGS>                                            6,100
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  521,600
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              30,900
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                119,700
<INCOME-TAX>                                  (60,400)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            180,100
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   180,100
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.06
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.03
        

</TABLE>
#### Henry C. Briggs, Appellant, v. Wickes Brothers, Respondent.

Judgment of the Municipal Court affirmed, with costs. No opinion. Woodward, Jenks, Gaynor, Rich and Miller, JJ., concurred. "
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JAN-31-1999
<CASH>                                           4,966
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   53,735
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    262,121
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               338,030
<PP&E>                                         863,318
<DEPRECIATION>                                 113,474
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 6189443
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          125,675
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                      968,9595
<OTHER-SE>                                   (3625827)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   6189443
<SALES>                                         153873
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                153873
<CGS>                                           101034
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  1041074
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (961170)
<INCOME-TAX>                                       100
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (961270)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (961270)
<EPS-BASIC>                                    (.14)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.14)


</TABLE>
SHE WANTS TO HANG OUT WITH FRIENDS 

OUTSIDE OF SCHOOL.

Help her plan to resist peer pressure.

Fifty-three percent of people ages 12 to 17 got prescription pain relievers from a friend or relative. 

Talk to your children about having an “exit plan” if they are offered prescription pain relievers that 

don’t belong to them. Having a plan to avoid drug misuse can help children make better choices.

For tips on how—and when—to begin the conversation, visit:

www.underagedrinking.samhsa.gov

SMA-18-5091PSTCRD
Exhibit






Exhibit 10.35
Amendment to Severance Benefits Agreement (Amendment C)


Ronald L. Sargent
c/o Staples, Inc.
500 Staples Drive
Framingham, MA 01702




Dear Mr. Sargent,


You are a party to that certain Second Amended and Restated Severance Benefits Agreement, dated March 10, 2006 and amended on December 22, 2008 and on January 13, 2015 (the “Agreement”) with Staples, Inc. and/or one of its subsidiaries (“Staples”). Under the Agreement, Staples agrees to provide you with the severance benefits set forth in the Agreement if your employment is terminated under the circumstances described in the Agreement.


This Amendment memorializes our recent discussions regarding Staples’ severance policy and related changes to your Agreement. You hereby agree that the Agreement shall be revised as set forth below, and shall otherwise remain in full force and effect in accordance with its terms. This Amendment shall be effective as of October 12, 2015.


Specifically, you and Staples agree to add the following paragraph (k) to Section 3 of the Agreement:


(k) Notwithstanding paragraphs (a) through (j) of this Section 3, in accordance with the Company’s Severance Policy, adopted by the Board of Directors on October 12, 2015 (“the Severance Policy”), Staples will not pay any “severance benefits” (as defined in the Severance Policy and as set forth below) that exceeds 2.99 times the sum of (x) your annual base salary and (y) your target annual cash incentive award without shareholder approval. 


“Severance benefits” means the following cash payments paid in connection with a termination of employment (other than death or permanent disability):


		
	•
	Payments representing continued salary, whether paid in a lump sum or over


		
	•
	time;


		
	•
	Payments representing bonus amounts, based on a multiple of amounts earned or paid in prior years, whether paid in a lump sum or over time;


		
	•
	Payments in lieu of continued benefits (including any perquisites); and


		
	•
	Payments to offset the tax liability in respect of any of the foregoing.




For purposes of this paragraph (k) and consistent with the Severance Policy, equity and the continuation of benefits are excluded from the definition of “severance benefits” and the 2.99x limitation.


If this letter sets forth our agreement, kindly sign and return to Staples the enclosed copy of this letter.


Sincerely,


STAPLES, INC.
By:   /s/ Paul F. Walsh        
       Chairman of the Compensation
       Committee of the Board of Directors


I have been advised of my right to consult with counsel regarding this letter and the Agreement and have decided to sign below knowingly, voluntarily, and free from duress or coercion.


Agreed to this 19th day of November, 2015.


/s/ Ronald L. Sargent        
Ronald L. Sargent