alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
| Exhibit 10.14(a) |
|------------------|

EXPRESSJET AIRLINES, INC.

1600 SMITH

HOUSTON, TX   77002

April 24, 2002

Dear Mr. Coble:

            You currently have Flight Privileges pursuant to youremployment agreement with ExpressJet Airlines, Inc. (the “Company”), to which Continental Airlines, Inc.(“Continental”) is a party for certain purposes. Capitalized terms used in this letter agreement are used with the samemeanings ascribed to them in your employment agreement.

            The last paragraph contained in Section 4.4 of youremployment agreement is hereby amended to read in its entirety as follows:

            “Flight Privileges are intended to be used solely forpersonal reasons and may not be used for business purposes (other than, with respect to Flight Privileges on the CO system,business purposes on behalf of the Company (during the term of the Capacity Purchase Agreement between the Company and Continental)or Continental, and with respect to Flight Privileges on the System (excluding the CO system), business purposes on behalf ofContinental (during the term of such Capacity Purchase Agreement) or the Company). Accordingly, notwithstanding any provisionherein to the contrary, credit availability on Employee’s UATP card (or any Similar Card) may be suspended, andEmployee’sUATP card (or any Similar Card) may be revoked or cancelled, if Employee’s UATP card (or any Similar Card) isused for business purposes (other than as described above) and, after receiving written notice from the Company (or Continental ifsuch non-allowable usage is on Continental or any of its affiliates or any successor or successors thereto) to cease such usage,Employeeagain uses his UATP card (or any Similar Card) for any business purpose (other than as described above). The parties heretoagree that Continental’s obligations regarding Flight Privileges are limited to each airline operated by Continental or anyof its affiliates or any successor or successors thereto (the “CO system”), and that the Company’s obligationsregarding Flight Privileges extend to the System other than the CO system.”

            If you agree with the foregoing, please sign the enclosedcopy of this letter agreement, whereby this letter agreement shall be a binding agreement among you, the Company and Continental and shall amend your employment agreement accordingly.

Sincerely,

|   EXPRESSJET AIRLINES, INC.                    |           | CONTINENTAL AIRLINES, INC.                                                     |
|-----------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   By:______________________                    |           |   By:______________________                                               |
| James B. Ream President and Chief Executive Officer |                     | Michael H. Campbell  Senior Vice President Human Resources and Labor Relations |

Agreed:

_____________________

----
Editorial Note on Part 120
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 120 appear at 72 FR 50039, Aug. 30, 2007.

§ 120.829 Job Opportunity average a CDC must maintain. ( a ) A CDC's portfolio must maintain a minimum average of one Job Opportunity per an amount of 504 loan funding that will be specified by SBA from time to time in a Federal Register notice. Such Job Opportunity average remains in effect until changed by subsequent Federal Register publication. A CDC is permitted two years from its certification date to meet this average.
( b ) A CDC must indicate in its annual report the Job Opportunities actually or estimated to be provided by each Project.
( c ) If a CDC does not maintain the required average, it may retain its certification if it justifies to SBA's satisfaction its failure to do so in its annual report and shows how it intends to attain the required average.
[61 FR 3235, Jan. 31, 1996, as amended at 68 FR 57981, Oct. 7, 2003]
HomeAbout NRCRadiation ProtectionHow the NRC Protects YouHealth Physics Positions Based on 10 CFR Part 20

# Exceptions for EcoTek, Inc., as a Decommissioning Contractor

## HPPOS-281 PDR-9306160199

See the memorandum from R. E. Cunningham to J. P. Stohr dated February 4, 1993.

The memo states: (1) decommissioning contractors may operate under their own license when they are providing the radiation safety programs under which the work is being done at a temporary job site; and (2) decommissioning contractors may be exempted from financial assurance requirements to the extent that the licensed materials remain at the temporary job site or are transferred to another licensee for disposal. This is a change in NRC policy. The previous NRC policy was that contractors who perform decommissioning activities at NRC licensed facilities do not require separate licenses, but rather perform these operations under the current NRC license for the facility.

After receiving the position paper from EcoTek dated September 23, 1992, concerning application of the financial assurance requirements to their service license, the NMSS staff met with the LLWM and OGC staffs to discuss the policy of issuing service licenses for work at temporary job sites. As a result of this meeting, we concluded that there are cases where the radiation safety programs in place at an NRC licensed facility may not be broad enough to ensure the safety of decommissioning activities performed by a service contractor. In such instances, it is appropriate for service contractors to operate under their own license when they are providing the radiation safety programs under which the work is being performed. This differs from the policy established in 1989 concerning licenses for decommissioning contractors (see Enclosure 2). Before starting work, contractors should establish a written agreement with their customers specifying which activities will be performed under the contractor's license and supervision, and which activities will be performed under the customer's license and supervision. This will assure that responsibility for job site radiation safety is clearly defined, provide for further assurance that operations will be conducted safely by the customer and the contractor, and identify the responsible licensee for purposes of inspection and enforcement.

We also concluded that decommissioning contractors may be exempted from the requirement to establish decommissioning financial assurance to the extent that licensed materials remain at the temporary job site or are transferred to another licensee for disposal. We have suggested changes to the EcoTek license to address these and other issues (see Enclosure 1) if EcoTek wishes to proceed with a formal request for an exemption. A policy and guidance directive will be developed for reviewing applications for service licenses, and a draft of this directive will be provided to the Regions for comment.

**Regulatory references:**10 CFR 30, 10 CFR 40, 10 CFR 70, License Conditions

**Subject codes:** 5.8, 11.2, 12.19

**Applicability:** Byproduct, Source, and Special Nuclear Materials

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Monday, October 30, 2017
Exhibit 12.1
**Certification for 20F**
**I, Aditya Puri, certify that:**
1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 20-F of HDFC Bank; 2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statementof a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make thestatements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statementswere made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by thisreport; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financialinformation included in this report, fairly present in all materialrespects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows ofthe company as of, and for, the periods presented in this report; 4. The company’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (asdefined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the company andhave:
 (a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or causedsuch disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under oursupervision, to ensure that material information relating to thecompany, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known tous by others within those entities, particularly during the periodin which this report is being prepared;  (b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the company’s disclosurecontrols and procedures and presented in this report our conclusionsabout the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures,as of the end of the period covered by this report based on suchevaluation; and  (c) Disclosed in this report any change in the company’s internalcontrol over financial reporting that occurred during the periodcovered by the annual report that has materially affected, or isreasonably likely to materially affect, the company’s internalcontrol over financial reporting; and
5. The company’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based onour most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting,to the company’s auditors and the audit committee of the company’s boardof directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions)
 (a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in thedesign or operation of internal control over financial reportingwhich are reasonably likely to adversely affect the company’sability to record, process, summarize and report financialinformation; and  (b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves managementor other employees who have a significant role in the company’sinternal control over financial reporting.
Date: September 28, 2004                                                           /s/ Aditya Puri   Aditya Puri   **Managing Director**
IPM Files -- MATS Policy Case: 5 of 6 12/09/2011 04:48 PM From: Erich Eschmann/DC/USEPA/US Sort List...

To: Cortney_Higgins@omb.eop.gov

Cc: RobertJ Wayland/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Bill Maxwell/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Kevin Culligan/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Sam Napolitano/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Jeb Stenhouse/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Mikhail Adamantiades/DC/USEPA/US@EPA

Erich Eschmann Clean Air Markets Division U.S. EPA, Office of Air and Radiation

202 343-9128 Phone

202 343-2359 Fax eschmann.erich@epa.gov

MATS Policy Case_5.zip
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM
     CYCLO3PSS CORPORATION'S FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS 
     ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1
<CURRENCY>                                     554,015
       
<S>                             <C>            
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              FEB-28-1997
<PERIOD-START>                                 JUN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                   AUG-31-1997
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                1
<CASH>                                         554,015
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  83,387
<ALLOWANCES>                                   64,750
<INVENTORY>                                    129,253
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               831,405
<PP&E>                                         299,352
<DEPRECIATION>                                 178,328
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 2,071,733
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          205,023
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          356
<PREFERRED>                                    19
<COMMON>                                       13,889
<OTHER-SE>                                     1,540,731
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   2,071,733
<SALES>                                        249,228
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               249,228
<CGS>                                          178,184
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  864,253
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               42,852
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             9,279
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (648,598)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (648,598)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      (38,958)
<NET-INCOME>                                   (687,556)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  (.05)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (.05)
        


</TABLE>
#### Beol, Inc., Appellant, v. H. S. Dorf Co., Inc., Respondent.

No opinion. Present — Glennon, J. P., Dore, Cohn, Callahan and Shientag, JJ.
HomeAbout NRCRadiation ProtectionHow the NRC Protects YouHealth Physics Positions Based on 10 CFR Part 20

# Authority to Penalize Willful False Exposure of Personnel Monitoring Device and Other Hoaxes

## HPPOS-176 PDR-9111210268

See the memorandum from J. Lieberman to J. R. Metzger dated August 26, 1980, and the incoming request from J. P. Stohr dated May 7, 1980.

It is an OELD opinion that using licensed materials for malicious purposes or obtaining false dosimeter readings is not authorized by licenses. A person who does so is conducting activities without a license. Depending on the circumstances, such a person could be subject to enforcement sanctions.

Region II pointed out the apparent deliberate exposure of five personnel dosimeter devices (film badges) at Whittaker Memorial Hospital to between 38 and 71 rem as representative of false alarms and hoaxes that have exercised licensees, NRC Regional Offices, and State Agencies with increasing frequency in recent years. This results in the dilution of safety programs and the waste and misdirection of limited resources. The question involves NRC authority to penalize this type of behavior.

It is an OELD opinion that a person conducting activities without a license is in violation of the Atomic Energy Act. A person as used here could mean a licensee, employee, etc. It must not be construed that licensees should always be cited for something an employee does in the way of hoaxes, where the licensee has no control and no regulatory requirement exists. Of course, this should be determined on a case-by-case basis.

One case mentioned by OELD involved two employees damaging some fuel bundles with corrosive material. Some 68 allegations were made and an investigation showed none of them to be valid. An extensive search of the Atomic Energy Act by OELD indicated that the licensee could not be found in violation of the Act because of what the employees had done. In this case, the licensee pressed charges and the employees were found guilty and sentenced to jail terms.

Hoaxes, willful false dosimeter exposures, or other similar events should be brought to the attention of HQ. It may be that the licensee was at fault, such as failure to follow approved security measures. If an employee commits an offense against the licensee, there may be something NRC can do depending on the circumstances, but it is doubtful. The most likely course of action would be for the licensee to dismiss the employee or to ask for local police assistance and press charges if the licensee desires.

**Regulatory references:** 10 CFR 30.3

**Subject codes:** 3.8

**Applicability:** All

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Monday, October 16, 2017
#### § 302.12 Project administration, operation and maintenance.

EDA shall approve Investment Assistance awards only if, as determined in its sole discretion, the Project for which such Investment Assistance is awarded will be properly and efficiently administered, operated and maintained.
### part 2—other studies
#### The People of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee, *v.*Kenneth J. Meyer, Defendant-Appellant.

(No. 73-109;

Third District

July 18, 1974.

Richard Steck, of State Appellate Defender’s Office, of Ottawa, for appellant.

Edward Drolet, State’s Attorney, of Kankakee, for the People.

Mr. JUSTICE DIXON

delivered the opinion of the court:

Kenneth J. Meyer was indicted for the murders of Jacqueline Meyer and Linda Legacy. After plea negotiations, defendant plead guilty, to one count charging both murders, in the Circuit Court of Kankakee County. On March 20, 1970, he was sentenced to a term of not less than 30 nor more than 50 years. He did not appeal.

On July 18, 1972, defendant filed a pro se petition under the Post-Conviction Hearing Act. Counsel was appointed to represent defendant. On February 23, 1973, the State filed a motion to dismiss and on the same day defendant’s appointed counsel filed a motion to withdraw and a pro se amendment to the petition. The State again moved to dismiss. On March 13, 1973, defendant, in a pro se motion, requested change of counsel. He complained that counsel had not filed an *Anders*brief with his motion to withdraw. A hearing with defendant present was held March 19, 1973. The trial judge examined each allegation of defendant’s post-conviction petitions and concluded that the petitions were frivolous. *1033He granted counsel’s motion to withdraw and the State’s motion to dismiss.

 Defendant appeals from the dismissal of his petition contending first, that appointed counsel’s motion to withdraw from a post-conviction proceeding must conform with the standards for withdrawal from a direct appeal as announced in *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738. After defendant’s brief was printed this court held in *People v. McCarty, 17*Ill.App.3d 796; 308 N.E.2d 655, that *Anders*was not compulsorily applicable to proceedings at the trial-court level.

Defendant also contends that he had a substantial constitutional claim because his sentence ignores the constitutional objective of restoring him to useful citizenship. The full applicable text of article 1, section 11 of the Constitution of 1970 is, “All penalties shall be determined both according to the seriousness of the offense and with the objective of restoring the offender to useful citizenship. * * *”

 This exact issue was recently decided adversely to defendant in *People v. Seidler,*18 Ill.App.3d 705, 310 N.E.2d 421. We agree with the decision in that case and hold that the defendant has not raised an issue of constitutional dimension. (See also *People v. Rife,*18 Ill.App.3d 602, 310 N.E.2d 179, 186.) And further, just as in *Seidler*the sentencing issue was not raised by the post-conviction petition and need not be considered on an appeal from the dismissal of the petition.

For the foregoing reasons we affirm the judgment of the Circuit Court of Kankakee County dismissing the post-conviction petition.

Affirmed.

SCOTT, P. J., and ALLOY, J., concur.
# FILED January 28, 1998 Cecil W. Crowson Appellate Cou rt Clerk 

### IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE MIDDLE SECTION AT NASHVILLE
CHARLES JACKSON, ) ) Petitioner/Appellant, ) ) Davidson Chancery ) No. 95-1889-I VS. ) ) Appeal No. ) 01-A-01-9606-CH-00276 CORRECTIONS CORPO RATION OF ) AMERICA, et al., ) ) Respondent/Appellee. )



## ORDER CORRECTED JUDGMENT

For good cause shown, the opinion filed by this Court on March 12, 1997, and the judgment entered the same

date are corre

cted and modified

as follows:
Said opinion and judgment are corrected by chang ing the caption to read: CHARLES JACKSON, Petitioner/Appellant VS. CORRECTIONS CORPORATION OF AMERICA, et al., Respondent s /Appellee s . The last parag

raph of said opinio

n is hereby m

odified to read a

s follows: The judgme nt of the Trial Court is reversed and vacated, and the cause is remanded to the Trial Court for further proc eedings in conf ormity with the

opinion of this Court. All costs, accrued in the Trial Court and this Court are assessedagainst the Respondent , Correct ions Corporation of America.Said judgment is he reby modifi

ed to read as foll

ows: In accordance with the opinion of the Court fil ed herein, the j ud gment of the Trial Court is reversed and vacated. All costs accrue d in th is Court and the Trial Court are assessed agai

nst the respondent/appellee, Corrections Corporation of America. The cause is remanded to the Trial Courtfor further procee

dings in conformity with the opinion of this Court. ENTER __________________

___________________________________ HENRY F. TODD PRESIDING JUDGE, MIDDL E SECTION

___________________________________ SAMUEL L. LEWIS, JUDGE

___________________________________ BEN H. CANTRELL, JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

Miami Division

Case No.: 1:20-cv-22603-GOODMAN

[CONSENT]

Erik Chavez, individually, and on behalf of 

others similarly situated,

Plaintiff,

vs.

Grill Enterprises, LLC, a Florida limited 

liability company, d/b/a “Los Parrilleros” and 

“Parrilleros Tavern”, and; 

Ruben Sierra, individually,

Defendants.

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO PERMIT

ELECTRONIC DEVICES IN COURTROOM FOR USE DURING TRIAL

THIS CAUSE came before the Court on Defendants’ Motion to Permit Electronic Devices 

in Courtroom for Use During Trial, filed herein on May 3, 2023, and it is ORDERED AND 

ADJUDGED as follows:

1. The Motion is hereby GRANTED.

2. The following electronic devices and their custodian(s) are permitted to enter the 

courthouse from the commencement of the trial period in this matter, currently scheduled for 

May 8, 2023, through the duration of the trial period:

Owner Electronic Equipment

Brian H. Pollock, Esq. Cellular Phone w/charging cord

Laptop w/ charging cord

Todd W. Shulby, Esq. Cellular Phone w/charging cord

Laptop w/ charging cord

Ruben Sierra Cellular Phone w/charging cord

Case 1:20-cv-22603-JG Document 163 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/03/2023 Page 1 of 2
2

Vanessa Carillo Cellular Phone w/charging cord

Yeison Gonzalez Cellular Phone w/charging cord

Denysse Carillo Cellular Phone w/charging cord

Melody Blanco

(Legal assistant to Brian H. 

Pollock)

Cellular Phone w/charging cord

Lynn Langford

(Legal assistant to Todd W. 

Shulby)

Cellular Phone w/charging cord

3. A copy of this Order shall accompany and be furnished by the custodian of the

above-listed electronic devices at the time the devices are screened by courthouse security 

personnel and upon any such further request by courthouse personnel.

DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers in Miami, Florida, this __ day of May, 2023.

JONATHAN GOODMAN

U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE

cc: Counsel of record

3rd

Case 1:20-cv-22603-JG Document 163 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/03/2023 Page 2 of 2
#### § 147.105 Does this part apply to me?

(a) Portions of this part apply to you if you are either—

(1) A recipient of an assistance award from the SBA; or

(2) A(n) SBA awarding official. (See definitions of award and recipient in §§ 147.605 and 147.660, respectively.)

(b) The following table shows the subparts that apply to you:

| If you are . . . | see subparts . . . |
| --- | --- |
| (1) A recipient who is not an individual | A, B and E. |
| (2) A recipient who is an individual | A, C and E. |
| (3) A(n) SBA awarding official | A, D and E. |