alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 10.2

                              CONSULTING AGREEMENT

      This Consulting Agreement dated December 6, 1999 ("Agreement") is by and
between, FLEETCLEAN SYSTEMS, INC., a Texas corporation ("Company") and THOMAS C.
PRITCHARD, an individual ("Consultant").

                             W I T N E S S E T H:

            WHEREAS, Consultant desires to provide certain consulting services
      to the Company; and

            WHEREAS, the Company and Consultant desire to set forth in writing
      the terms and conditions of their agreement;

            NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises and the mutual
      covenants, agreements, and considerations herein contained, the parties
      hereto agree as follows:

      1. ENGAGEMENT. Subject to the terms and provisions of this Agreement, the
Company hereby affirms the engagement of Consultant, as an independent
contractor, to provide general legal services.

      2. COMPENSATION. For certain services performed by Consultant for the
Company, the Company will issue to Consultant 266,666 shares of common stock of
the Company pursuant to a S-8 Registration Statement.

      3. STATUS REPORTS. At the Company's written request, Consultant shall
prepare and submit to the Company a written status report describing the status
of any sales of the Company Common Stock sold hereby.

      4. TERM. The term of this Agreement shall commence on the date herein and
shall continue in full force and effect for a period of six months.

      5.    MISCELLANEOUS.

            (a) ASSIGNMENT. All of the terms, provisions and conditions of this
      Agreement shall be binding upon and shall inure to the benefit of and be
      enforceable by the parties hereto and their respective successors and
      permitted assigns. This Agreement shall not be assigned or transferred by
      either party, nor shall any interest herein be assigned, transferred,
      pledged or hypothecated by either party without the prior written consent
      of the other party.

            (b) APPLICABLE LAW. This Agreement shall be construed in accordance
      with and governed by the laws of the State of Texas.

<PAGE>
            (c) ENTIRE AGREEMENT, AMENDMENTS AND WAIVERS. This Agreement
      constitutes the entire agreement of the parties hereto and expressly
      supersedes all prior and contemporaneous understandings and commitments,
      whether written or oral, with respect to the subject matter hereof. No
      variations, modifications, changes or extensions of this Agreement or any
      other terms hereof shall be binding upon any party hereto unless set forth
      in a document duly executed by such party or an authorized agent or such
      party.

      IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement as of
the day and year first written above.

                                    FLEETCLEAN SYSTEMS, INC.


                                    By: /s/ KENNETH A. PHILLIPS
                                            KENNETH A. PHILLIPS, PRESIDENT


                                    THOMAS C. PRITCHARD


                                        /s/ THOMAS C. PRITCHARD
#### § 35.203 Equivalent facilitation.

Nothing in this subpart prevents the use of designs, methods, or techniques as alternatives to those prescribed, provided that the alternative designs, methods, or techniques result in substantially equivalent or greater accessibility and usability of the web content or mobile app.
### §1510. Repealed. Pub. L. 104–127, title III, §336(d)(1), Apr. 4, 1996, 110 Stat. 1006

Section, Pub. L. 91–524, title X, §1010, as added Pub. L. 93–86, §1(28), Aug. 10, 1973, 87 Stat. 245; amended Pub. L. 95–313, §16(a)(7), formerly §13(a)(7), July 1, 1978, 92 Stat. 374, renumbered §16(a)(7), Pub. L. 101–624, title XII, §1215(1), Nov. 28, 1990, 104 Stat. 3525, related to authorization of appropriations as well as construction and continuation of programs, contracts, and authorities.
Exhibit 21
     
     Subsidiaries of Registrant
     
<TABLE>
                                                 State of      Percentage
                                               Jurisdiction    of Voting
                                                     of        Securities
                 Company                       Organization      Owned
    <S>                                            <C>           <C>
     Southeast Real Estate Resources
      Corporation                                  Florida       100%
     Southeast Power Corporation                   Florida       100%
     Fiber Optic Services, Inc.                    Florida       100%
     Mamba Engineering Company, Inc.
       (inactive)                                  Florida       100%
     St. Cloud Mining Company                      Florida       100%
     Florida Transport Corporation
       (inactive)                                  Florida       100%
     Steeple Rock Mining Company (inactive)        Florida       100%
     The Goldfield Consolidated Mines       
       Company (inactive)                          Florida       100%
       Subsidiaries of The Goldfield
         Consolidated Mines Company
         Detrital Valley Salt Corporation
           (inactive)                              Florida       100%
         The Lordsburg Mining Company              Florida       100%
</TABLE>
     
     All of the above subsidiaries are included in the consolidated
     financial statements of the Company at December 31, 1997.
### §19m. Repealed. Pub. L. 113–287, §7, Dec. 19, 2014, 128 Stat. 3272

Section, Pub. L. 90–209, §9, Dec. 18, 1967, 81 Stat. 657, related to liability of United States. See section 101119 of Title 54, National Park Service and Related Programs.
### §9203. NIST support for research and standards on generative adversarial networks

#### (a) In general

The Director of the National Institute of Standards and Technology shall support research for the development of measurements and standards necessary to accelerate the development of the technological tools to examine the function and outputs of generative adversarial networks or other technologies that synthesize or manipulate content.

#### (b) Outreach

The Director of the National Institute of Standards and Technology shall conduct outreach—

(1) to receive input from private, public, and academic stakeholders on fundamental measurements and standards research necessary to examine the function and outputs of generative adversarial networks; and

(2) to consider the feasibility of an ongoing public and private sector engagement to develop voluntary standards for the function and outputs of generative adversarial networks or other technologies that synthesize or manipulate content.

(Pub. L. 116–258, §4, Dec. 23, 2020, 134 Stat. 1151.)
#### GUAM MUSIC, INC., Plaintiff v. PEDRO A. E. MANIBUSAN, Director of the Department of Public Safety, Government of Guam, et al., Defendants

Civil Case No. 816-78

Superior Court of Guam

March 15, 1979

ABBATE, *Presiding Judge*

DECISION

In the above-titled matter this case was submitted to the court for a declaratory judgment on the question of whether certain machines as set forth in Paragraph 10 of the Complaint constitute gambling device within the definition of § 64.20(b) of the Criminal and Correctional Code. The deposition taken on January 12, 1979, of Peter F. Whitten was considered in arriving at a decision in this matter.

The plaintiff, Guam Music, Inc., is doing business in the territory of Guam and provides coin-operated amusement devices for various island establishments. From the testimony that is set forth in the deposition, it appears that the machines that were confiscated by law enforcement agents of the territory of Guam do not fall within the meaning of mechanical devices as set forth in § 68.20(b) of the Crim*592inal and Correctional Code. They are electronically operated and contain electronic circuitry. See *People v. Rosa G. Guzman,*Cr. Case No. 33-78, Superior Court of Guam.

In view of the foregoing, this Court holds that the machines confiscated as described in Paragraph 10 of the complaint are not gambling devices and are to be returned to the plaintiff Guam Music, Inc. Plaintiff to submit Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law with notice.

SUBMIT ORDER.
#### § 420.42 Contracts; minimum charge.

Subject to the exclusions for certificates of entitlement and exempt uses, the Executive Director may require contracts for any taking, use, withdrawal or diversion of waters of the basin. Each contract shall provide for a minimum annual payment in accordance with an estimated annual demand schedule, regardless of use, withdrawal or diversion. The failure of any person to execute a contract under this section shall not affect the application of other requirements of this resolution.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-6334

ROBERT D. DRINKARD, JR., Plaintiff - Appellant, versus DIRECTOR, VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; VERNON SMITH, M.D., CHARLES E. THOMPSON, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, District Judge. (CA-02-168) Submitted: July 25, 2002 Decided: August 12, 2002 Before WILLIAMS and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Robert D. Drinkard, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).* Drinkard’s complaint also alleged good time credits were taken from him in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. The district court found this claim was not cognizable under § 1983 and dismissed the claim without prejudice to Drinkard’s rights to refile the claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000). Drinkard does not challenge the district court’s dismissal without prejudice of this claim on appeal. Thus, appellate review of this portion of the district court’s order is waived. 4th Cir. R. 34(b). 2 PER CURIAM: Robert D. Drinkard, Jr., a Virginia inmate, appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his medical treatment complaint filed under 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 2001), for failure to state a claim. * See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A (2000). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Drinkard v. Director, Virginia Dep’t of Corrections, No. CA-02-168 (E.D. Va. Feb. 12, 2002). 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
§ 2.29 Release on parole. ( a ) A grant of parole shall not be deemed to be operative until a certificate of parole has been delivered to the prisoner.
( b ) An effective date of parole shall not be set for a date more than nine months from the date of the hearing. Residence in a community corrections center as part of a parole release plan generally shall not exceed one hundred and twenty days.
( c ) When an effective date of parole falls on a Saturday, Sunday, or legal holiday, the Warden of the appropriate institution shall be authorized to release the prisoner on the first working day preceding such date.
[42 FR 39809, Aug. 5, 1977, as amended at 44 FR 3407, Jan. 16, 1979; 60 FR 51350, Oct. 2, 1995; 68 FR 41530, July 14, 2003]
Order entered September 2 5 , 2019

In t he 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05
- 19
- 00444
- CR BRANDON GORDY, Appellant

V. STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the 283rd Judici al District Court

Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. F18
- 00751
- T



### O RDER Before the Court is court reporter Vearneas Faggett’s request for extension of time until Monday September 23, 2019 to file the reporter’s record. We GRANT the request to the extent

we ORDER the reporter’s record received September 24, 2019 filed as of that date. Because the reporter’s record has been filed, we VACATE our September 16, 2019 order
to the extent it orders Vearneas Faggett not sit as a court reporter.
We DIRECT the Clerk to send copies of this order to the Honorable Lela Mays, Presiding Judge, 283rd Judicial District Court; Vearneas Faggett, official court reporter, 283rd Judicial District Court; to the Dallas County Auditor’s Office; and counsel for all parties.
/s/ CORY L. CARLYLE JUSTICE
June 17, 2011

Engine Certification Issues

With the GHG/FE Rule

Parent and Child Ratings

The Agencies should require that all engines in a family deploy equivalent GHG control 

technologies. Those equivalent hardware and software technologies may vary consistent with 

engine power, but must not involve removing critical parent rating technology from child engine 

ratings in a manner that would unnaturally increase GHG emissions.

Engine Families

The Agencies should eliminate the proposed requirement that manufacturers use the same 

engine families for GHG and criteria pollutants. Manufacturers should be able to establish GHG 

engine families that are not linked to criteria pollutant families.

Early Credits

The Agencies should provide an alternative to the proposed requirement that a 

manufacturer must certify its entire U.S.-directed production volume within an averaging set to 

generate early (MY13) credits. Manufacturers should be able to certify individual families 

without the 1.5x early credit multiplier.

50217_3
CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

We consent to the  incorporation by reference in the  Registration  Statement on
Forms S-3 No.  333-74473-01  of FINOVA Capital  Corporation (a subsidiary of The
FINOVA  Group Inc.) of our report dated  January 19,  2000,  with respect to the
consolidated  financial  statements of FINOVA Capital  Corporation  included and
incorporated  by  reference  in this Annual  Report Form 10-K for the year ended
December 31, 1999.

March 8, 2000
/s/ Ernst & Young LLP
Phoenix, Arizona
#### Radford v. Beall *et al.*

June 18, 1910.

Injunction. Before Judge Martin. Laurens superior court.

October 6, 1909.

*Minter Wimberly*and *Jesse Harris,*for plaintiff in error.

*S. W. Sturyis*and *Blackshear Flyut.*contra.

Atkinson, J.

The evidence was of such, character as to show no abuse of discretion in granting the injunction in this case.

*Judgment a/firmed.*

*All the, Justices concur.*
_____________ 

AMERIFLIGHT, LLC 

4700 EMPIRE AVENUE 

HANGAR #1 

BURBANK, CA 91505 

(818) 847-0000

PETITION FOR RENEWAL OF AMERIFLIGHT, LLC EXEMPTION 8396 

This petition follows the requirements for inclusion in such documents set forth in the 

order presented in 14 CFR Part 11.81 

(a) Your name and mailing address and, if you wish, other contact information such as a 

fax number, telephone number, or e-mail address; 

Mr. Andrew Lotter 

President 

Ameriflight, LLC 

4700 Empire Avenue, Hangar One 

Burbank, CA 91505 

818-847-0000 

alotter@ameriflight.com 

(b) The specific section or sections of 14 CFR from which you seek an exemption; 

14 CFR Part 135.85 

(c) The extent of relief you seek, and the reason you seek the relief; 

To allow Ameriflight and its pilots to transport FAA-certified airmen who are employed 

as flight crewmembers by another Part 121 or 135 certificate holder without complying 

with certain Part 135 passenger-carrying requirements. This is a renewal of Ameriflight 

exemption 8396. 

(d) The reasons why granting your request would be in the public interest; that is, how it 

would benefit the public as a whole; 

There is no change to public interest since last renewal. 

(e) The reasons why granting the exemption would not adversely affect safety, or how 

the exemption would provide a level of safety at least equal to that provided by the rule 

from which you seek the exemption; 

There is no change to the safety aspects since last renewal. 

(f) A summary we can publish in the Federal Register, stating: 
_____________ 

AMERIFLIGHT, LLC 

4700 EMPIRE AVENUE 

HANGAR #1 

BURBANK, CA 91505 

(818) 847-0000

(1) The rule from which you seek the exemption; 

14 CFR Part 135.85 

(2) A brief description of the nature of the exemption you seek; 

To allow Ameriflight and its pilots to transport FAA-certified airmen who are employed 

as flight crewmembers by another Part 121 or 135 certificate holder without complying 

with certain Part 135 passenger-carrying requirements. This is a renewal of Ameriflight 

exemption 8396. 

(g) Any additional information, views or arguments available to support your request; 

No additional support since last renewal. 

(h) If you want to exercise the privileges of your exemption outside the United States, 

the reason why you need to do so. 

Yes
N 

CJ 

CJ 

CJ 

CJ 

-

-

- -

2023 RMA Crops' Indemnities 

No Indemnity ($0.00)

$0.01 - $1,000,000.00

$1,000,000.01 - $10,000,000.00 

$10,000,000.01 - $25,000,000.00 

$25,000,000.01 - $50,000,000.00 

$50,000,000.01 - $80,802,124.00 

MapCre ationDate :Augus t16,2023

Laye r Cre dits :USDA&USCe ns us Bure au

Source :USDARis kManage me ntAge ncy -Summary ofBus ine s s

DataCurre ntDate :Augus t14,2023

This map depicts weekly crop insurance indemnity data by county as of the data current date denoted on the map MapProje ction:USAContiguous Albe rs Eq ualAre aConic

RMA Risk Management Services Division

The informationdisplaye dinthis mapis inte nde dtos e rve as anaidindis playingdataprovide dor s tore dby the Ris kManage me ntAge ncy.Itdoe s notmodify,re place or s upe rs e de any USDApublishe dpolicy provis ions or proce dure s.

Maps cre ate dby USDARis kManage me ntAge ncy are for s patialandvis ualconte xtfor de pictingthe bas icinformationfor “whe re ”.Maps are notcons ide re das urve y.Ge ne ralRe fe re nce Only. 

-PublicInformationand is published biweekly.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Marilyn Kelly

Stephen J. Markm an Diane M. Hathaway

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

, Justices

I, Corbin R. Dav is, 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.

_________________________________________ Clerk December 9, 2011

d1206 

# Order

December 9, 2011

143552

CITY OF ROOSEVELT PARK,

Plaintiff

- Appellant,

v SC: 143552

COA: 295588

Muskegon CC: 09

- 046817

- CL

POLICE OFFICERS LABOR COUNCIL,

Defendant

- Appellee.

_________________________________________/

On order of the C ourt, the application for leave to appeal the May 12, 2011

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
<PAGE>   1

                                                                  Exhibit 10.9.3



December 29, 1999



Keith Dolliver
Microsoft Corporation
One Microsoft Way
Redmond, WA 98052

                         EXERCISE OF WARRANT TO PURCHASE
                   ORDINARY SHARES OF COMMTOUCH SOFTWARE LTD.

Dear Keith:

Pursuant to our discussions, this letter agreement (the "Letter Agreement") sets
forth the understanding of Commtouch Software Ltd. ("Commtouch") and Microsoft
Corporation ("Microsoft") with respect to the exercise by Microsoft of that
certain warrant previously issued to Microsoft to purchase ordinary shares of
Commtouch at the price and on the terms as more specifically set forth therein
(the "Warrant").

It is the understanding of the parties that:

        1. Microsoft shall exercise its option to purchase all of the ordinary
shares represented by the Warrant on December 29, 1999.

        2. Commtouch shall use best efforts to (i) as soon as is reasonably
practicable, but no later than January 5, 2000, update and amend its most recent
registration statement (the "Registration Statement") currently on file with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (the "SEC") to include therein the ordinary
shares purchased by Microsoft pursuant to the Warrant and (ii) cause the
Registration Statement to be declared effective by the SEC as soon as reasonably
practicable.

        3. Commtouch hereby represents that, to its knowledge, there are no
facts or circumstances relating to its operations, accounting practices, or
otherwise that would cause any delay by the SEC in declaring the effectiveness
of its Registration Statement.

        4. The provisions of this Letter Agreement shall be governed by the laws
of the State of Washington and the sole venue for any litigation or disputes
arising under this Letter Agreement shall be the courts situated in the City of
Seattle, Washington.

Please indicate your acceptance of and agreement with the foregoing by
countersigning this Letter Agreement as set forth below. We appreciate the
opportunity to do business with Microsoft and look forward to continuing our
relationship with you.



                                       22
<PAGE>   2

                                            Sincerely,




                                            /s/ G. MANTEL
                                            ------------------------------------
                                            COMMTOUCH SOFTWARE LTD.
                                            By:    Gideon Mantel
                                            Its:   Chief Executive Officer


ACCEPTED AND AGREED ON BEHALF OF MICROSOFT:


By: /s/ KEITH DOLLIVER
    -------------------------------
Title: Corporate Attorney
      -----------------------------
Date: December 29, 1999
      -----------------------------



                                       23
II 

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 96 

To revise the authorized route of the North Country National Scenic Trail 

in northeastern Minnesota and to extend the trail into Vermont to 

connect with the Appalachian National Scenic Trail, and for other purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JANUARY 10, 2019 

Ms. KLOBUCHAR (for herself, Mr. HOEVEN, Ms. STABENOW, Mr. LEAHY, Ms. 

BALDWIN, Ms. SMITH, Mr. SANDERS, Mr. PETERS, and Mrs. GILLIBRAND) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

A BILL 

To revise the authorized route of the North Country National 

Scenic Trail in northeastern Minnesota and to extend 

the trail into Vermont to connect with the Appalachian 

National Scenic Trail, and for other purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘North Country Na5 tional Scenic Trail Route Adjustment Act’’. 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
2 

•S 96 IS

1 SEC. 2. ROUTE ADJUSTMENT. 

2 Section 5(a)(8) of the National Trails System Act (16 

3 U.S.C. 1244(a)(8)) is amended in the first sentence— 

4 (1) by striking ‘‘thirty two hundred miles, ex5 tending from eastern New York State’’ and inserting 

6 ‘‘4,600 miles, extending from the Appalachian Trail 

7 in Vermont’’; and 

8 (2) by striking ‘‘Proposed North Country Trail’’ 

9 and all that follows through ‘‘June 1975.’’ and in10 serting ‘‘ ‘North Country National Scenic Trail, Au11 thorized Route’ dated February 2014, and numbered 

12 649/116870.’’. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS