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

                                                                  EXHIBIT 10.27

                    AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT

   AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT (this "Amendment"), dated as of
November 20, 2002, by and between Plains Exploration & Production Company, a
Delaware corporation ("Company"), and John T. Raymond ("Employee"). Undefined
capitalized terms are defined in the Agreement (as defined below).

   WHEREAS, Company and Employee entered into the Employment Agreement, dated
as of September 19, 2002 (the "Agreement");

   WHEREAS, Company and Employee desire to enter into this Amendment to change
the effective date of the grant of 60,000 restricted shares of Company common
stock;

   NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises and other good and valuable
consideration, the parties hereby agree as follows:

      1.  Section 4(d) of the Agreement is hereby amended by deleting it in its
   entirety and replacing it with the following:

          "(d)  New Grant.  On the Effective Date, Company will grant Employee
       60,000 restricted shares of Company common stock with respect to which
       restrictions will lapse pro rata over a three-year period beginning on
       the first anniversary of the Effective Date and under such other terms
       and conditions as provided in the agreement evidencing such award."

      2.  Effect on the Agreement.  Except as specifically amended or waived by
   this Amendment, all terms and conditions of the Agreement shall remain in
   full force and effect. The term "Agreement" used in the Agreement shall mean
   the Agreement as amended hereby.

      3.  Counterparts.  This Amendment may be executed in counterparts each of
   which shall be deemed to be an original but all of which shall constitute
   one and the same agreement.

      4.  Governing Law.  This Amendment shall be governed by and construed in
   accordance with the laws of the State of Texas, without regard to its
   principles of conflicts of law.



                           [Signature Page Follows]

                                      1

<PAGE>

   IN WITNESS WHEREOF, each of the parties have caused this Amendment to be
executed on its behalf by its officers thereunto duly authorized on the day and
year first written above.

                                              PLAINS EXPLORATION & PRODUCTION
                                              COMPANY

                                              By:     /S/  JAMES C. FLORES
                                                  -----------------------------
                                                         James C. Flores
                                                  Chairman and Chief Executive
                                                             Officer

                                              EMPLOYEE

                                                       /S/  JOHN T. RAYMOND
                                                   -----------------------------
                                                          John T. Raymond

                                      2
#### § 1700.10 Other rights and services.

Nothing in this part shall be construed so as to enlarge, diminish, modify, or alter the powers or authority of the ODNI; or construed to entitle any person, as of right, to any service or to the disclosure of any record to which such person is not entitled under the FOIA.
#### STATE v. HOWARD

No. 285P97

Case below: 122 N.C.App. 754

Petition by defendant for writ of certiorari to review the decision of the North Carolina Court of Appeals denied 2 October 1997. Petition by defendant for discretionary review pursuant to G.S. 7A-31 denied 2 October 1997.
#### Oakgrove Construction, Inc., Appellant, v Genesee Valley Nurseries, Inc., Defendant, and Colonial Surety Company, Respondent.

(Appeal No. 1.)

[832 NYS2d 860]

Appeal from an order and judgment (one paper) of the Supreme Court, Erie County (Eugene M. Fahey, J.), entered August 22, 2005. The order and judgment, insofar as appealed from, granted the motion of defendant Colonial Surety Company for summary judgment and denied that part of the cross motion of plaintiff for partial summary judgment against that defendant.

It is hereby ordered that said appeal be and the same hereby is unanimously dismissed without costs *(see Loafin’ Tree Rest. v Pardi*[appeal No. 1], 162 AD2d 985 [1990]). Present—Martoche, J.P., Smith, Centra, Lunn and Peradotto, JJ.
### Geology and geochronology of Precambrian rocks in the Central Interior region of the United States

By: Rodger E. DenisonE.G. LidiakM. E. BickfordE. B. Kisvarsanyi

                            https://doi.org/10.3133/pp1241C

#### Links

-                                                                                                                             Document:                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  **Report**                                                                                                     (pdf)                                                                                                                                     
- Plate:  **Plate 1**                            (1144 pdf)                        
- Download citation as:  RIS                         |                         Dublin                            Core

#### Abstract

Part or all of this report is presented in Portable Document Format                        (PDF). For best results viewing and printing PDF documents, it is recommended that you download                        the documents to your computer and open them with Adobe Reader. PDF documents opened from your                        browser may not display or print as intended. Download the latest version of Adobe Reader, free of charge. More information                        about viewing, downloading, and printing report files can be found at the common download problems FAQ.
#### In the Matter of the Arbitration between Vincent J. Smith, Inc., Appellant, and B. W. Lauri Trucking, Inc., Respondent.

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court which denied a motion for a stay of arbitration. The case involves a dispute between the general contractor on a very large building construction project and a subcontractor. Between the two was a complicated, lengthy and detailed written contract. Specified therein is an item which provides that the subcontractor will be paid $30 per cubic yard for rock excavation in “ trench and footings ” and $20 per cubic yard for “ mass rock excavation”. The fact that the provision fixing $20 per cubic yard for mass rock excavation was inked with pen in an otherwise printed contract is of no consequence, because eoneededly the “inked in” provision was initialed in the *764margin opposite it by a responsible official for both parties. The contract contained a broad arbitration clause as to disputes under the contract, but, of course, did not consent to arbitration to reform, remake or change it. The contract also contained a provision that all prior negotiations, oral or otherwise, are superseded by the written contract when executed, and “No modification of this Agreement shall be binding unless the same is in writing signed by the Contractor and Subcontractor.” The demand for arbitration, so far as this appeal is concerned, lists as the nature of the dispute, “Reform contract re mass rock unit price.” The only question before us is whether such a dispute is arbitrable. No case has been cited which goes this far, and eases dealing generally with arbitration are of little help. Arbitration cannot change $20 to $30 when the written contract clearly provides for $20 without going completely outside the contract signed by both parties and relying upon oral testimony relating to prior negotiations and subsequent alleged “ understandings ”. If arbitration can result in “reforming” or changing the terms of the contract itself there would be no need of having one in the first place. Order reversed, with $10 costs, and motion granted. Bergan, P. J., Coon, Reynolds and Taylor, JJ., concur; Herlihy, J., dissents and votes to affirm on the authority of *Matter of Exercycle*(Maratta) (9 N Y 2d 329, 334-335).
NASA LogoNTRSNTRS - NASA Technical Reports ServerSearchmore_vertCollectionsAboutNewsHelpLogin Back to ResultsNew applications for phosphoric acid fuel cellsNew applications for phosphoric acid fuel cells were identified and evaluated. Candidates considered included all possibilities except grid connected electric utility applications, on site total energy systems, industrial cogeneration, opportunistic use of waste hydrogen, space and military applications, and applications smaller than 10 kW. Applications identified were screened, with the most promising subjected to technical and economic evaluation using a fuel cell and conventional power system data base developed in the study. The most promising applications appear to be the underground mine locomotive and the railroad locomotive. Also interesting are power for robotic submersibles and Arctic villages. The mine locomotive is particularly attractive since it is expected that the fuel cell could command a very high price and still be competitive with the conventionally used battery system. The railroad locomotive's attractiveness results from the (smaller) premium price which the fuel cell could command over the conventional diesel electric system based on its superior fuel efficiency, and on the large size of this market and the accompanying opportunities for manufacturing economy.Document ID19840010689Acquisition SourceLegacy CDMSDocument TypeContractor Report (CR)AuthorsStickles, R. P.*(Little (Arthur D.), Inc. Cambridge, MA, United States)*Breuer, C. T.*(Little (Arthur D.), Inc. Cambridge, MA, United States)*Date AcquiredSeptember 4, 2013Publication DateNovember 1, 1983Subject CategoryEnergy Production And ConversionReport/Patent NumberNASA-CR-168203NAS 1.26:168203DOE/NASA/0291-1ADL-88036Accession Number84N18757Funding Number(s)PROJECT: RTOP 778-17-01CONTRACT_GRANT: DE-AI21-80ET-17088CONTRACT_GRANT: DEN3-291Distribution LimitsPublicCopyrightWork of the US Gov. Public Use Permitted.Available DownloadsNameType19840010689.pdfSTIcloud_downloadcontent_copyvisibilityRelated RecordsThere are no records associated with this record.visibility_offNo Preview Available
 No Fear Act | Freedom of Information Act | Office of the Inspector General | Agency Financial ReportsNASA Web Privacy Policy and Important Notices | NASA Guidelines for Quality of InformationDisclaimers, Copyright, Terms of Use | Accessibility | NASA OCIO | USA.gov | NASA.govContact Us | Site MapSTI LogoNASA Official: JoAnne R. Calhoun Site Curator: STI Compliance and Distribution Services Last Modified: September 12, 2024
§ 61.28 Policy. In accordance with subpart A of this part and DoD Instruction 6400.06, it is DoD policy to: ( a ) Develop PSs and critical procedures for the FAP that reflect a coordinated community response to domestic abuse.
( b ) Address domestic abuse within the military community through a coordinated community risk management approach.
( c ) Provide appropriate individualized and rehabilitative treatment that supplements administrative or disciplinary action, as appropriate, to persons reported to FAP as domestic abusers.
#### § 770.28 Entry restrictions.

Each commander is responsible for the security of his/her command. Therefore, entry onto a command or into part of a command may be controlled by the commander through the imposition of such restrictions as may be required by attendant circumstances. Within the State of Hawaii, entry into a naval installation is not permitted without the permission of the responsible commander.
EXHIBIT 99

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

In connection with the annual report of Quixote Corporation (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended December 31, 2002, as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission as of the date hereof (the "Report"), each of the officers of the Company certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to such officer's knowledge:



|Date: February 11, 2003 |  | /s/LESLIE J. JEZUITLeslie J. Jezuit, Chief Executive Officer
|----------------------- |  | ------------------------------------------------------------
|Date: February 11, 2003 |  | /s/DANIEL P. GOREYDaniel P. Gorey, Chief Financial Officer  

The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 and is not being filed as part of the Report or as a
separate disclosure document.

---

QuickLinks
#### § 243.1 Purpose.

The Secretary of Defense (Secretary) is required to determine a fair and reasonable rate of payment for airlift services provided to the Department of Defense (DoD) by civil air carriers and operators (hereinafter collectively referred to as “air carriers”) who are participants in the Civil Reserve Air Fleet program (CRAF). This regulation provides the authority and methodology for such ratemaking and designates the United Stated Transportation Command (USTRANSCOM) as the rate setter for negotiated uniform rates for DoD airlift service contracts in support of the CRAF. This methodology supports a viable CRAF mobilization base that ensures sufficient capacity in time of war, contingency and humanitarian relief efforts.
EXHIBIT 31.2

Certification Pursuant to Rule 13a-14 under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934

I, M. Keith Waddell, certify that:



|1. | I have reviewed this report on Form 10-K/A of Robert Half International Inc.; and
|-- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|2. | Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in
light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report.
|-- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: October 15, 2009



|                                                                     
|---------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                     
|/s/ M. Keith Waddell                                                 
|M. Keith Waddell Vice Chairman, President and Chief Financial Officer
N OTE : This disposition is nonprecedential.



# United States **Court of Appeals**  **for the Federal Circuit**

______________________

TEELA NORRIS,
Petitioner

v.

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, Respondent

______________________

2021

- 2142

______________________

Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection
Board in No. DC

- 0752

- 19

- 0724 -I- 3.

______________________

JUDGMENT

______________________

E JIKE O BINECHE

, Obineche Law Firm, LLC, Greenbelt, MD, argued for petitioner.

K

ARA W ESTERCAMP

, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC, argued for respondent. Also represented by
B RIAN M. B OYNTON

, T ARA K. H OGAN

, P ATRICIA M.
M C C ARTHY

.

______________________

T HIS C AUSE ha ving been heard and considered, it is Case: 21-2142 Document: 36 Page: 1 Filed: 11/07/2022O RDERED and A DJUDGED :

P ER C URIAM (D YK

, T ARANTO

, and H UGHES

, Circuit Judges ).

AFFIRMED. See Fed . Cir. R. 36.

E NTERED BY O RDER OF THE C OURT

November 7, 2022
Date /s/ Peter R. Marksteiner
Peter R. Marksteiner
Clerk of Court Case: 21-2142 Document: 36 Page: 2 Filed: 11/07/2022
##### 



1.
    
    I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Erie Family Life Insurance
Company;2.
    
    Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a
material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made,
in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading
with respect to the period covered by this report;3.
    
    Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information
included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial
condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the
periods presented in this report;4.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing
and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules
13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:
 a.
    
    Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such
disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to
ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its
consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities,
particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;b.
    
    Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls
and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the
effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the
period covered by this report based on such evaluation; andc.
    
    Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal
control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most
recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to
materially affect, the registrants internal control over financial reporting;
and
 5.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most
recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants
auditors and the audit committee of registrants board of directors:
 a.
    
    All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or
operation of internal control over financial reporting, which are reasonably
likely to adversely affect the registrants ability to record, process,
summarize and report financial information; andb.
    
    Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the registrants internal control over
financial reporting.
  /s/ Philip A. GarciaPhilip A. Garcia, Executive Vice President & CFO 35
#### GLEASON v. THIRD NAT. BANK.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department.

November 24, 1903.)

Action by Fred W. Gleason against the Third National Bank.

No opinion. Motion to dismiss appeal denied, with $10 costs.
First Department,

September, 1963

(September 11, 1963)

#### In the Matter of Francis H. Bloeth, Petitioner, v. Supreme Court of the State of New York, New York County, et al., Respondents.

Petition pursuant to article 78 of the Civil Practice Act for an order in the nature of a writ of prohibition to restrain the Supreme Court, New York County, from proceeding1 with the trial of the second count of a three-count indictment denied, without costs. Petitioner contends that he should not be tried upon the second count, charging him with violation of subdivision 2 of section 1044 of the Penal Law (felony murder), on the ground that such trial would constitute double jeopardy. A County Court jury, on May 14, 1960, found petitioner guilty of Count ] (murder in the first degree contrary to subdivision 1 of the Penal Law), guilty of Count 3 (robbery in the first degree) and acquitted him of the afore-mentioned Count 2. This judgment of conviction was unanimously affirmed by the Court of Appeals (9 N Y 2d 211), motion for leave to reargue was denied (9 N Y 2d 827) and certiorari was denied by the United States Supreme Court (368 U. S. 868). After a second application for reargument was denied by the Court of Appeals (11 N Y 2d 798), petitioner sought habeas corpus relief in the United States District Court. This application was denied, as was an application for reargument (204 F. Supp. 263). Thereafter, a majority of the Judges of the United States Court of Appeals sitting *mi banc*held that petitioner had not received a fair trial because of adverse newspaper publicity and directed the issuance of a writ of habeas corpus “ conditioned to permit retention in custody for the purpose of retrial on the indictment before a proper jury” (313 F. 2d 364, 374). The People’s application to the United States Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari was denied, and petitioner has been brought to trial in Supreme Court, New York County. This trial is now in progress and is at the stage *786of selection of a jury. The petition before us raises serious questions in the difficult area of double jeopardy and Federal habeas corpus which, we do not believe should be decided at this time in this proceeding. Whether their resolution will be eventually required is contingent upon the outcome of the pending trial. If the questioned count stood alone, such a consideration would lack force. But concededly a trial on the remaining counts, unchallenged in this proceeding and which arise from the same general factual context, cannot in any event be avoided; and under all the circumstances, an appropriate exercise of discretion requires denial of the petition. Concur — Botein, P. J., Breitel, Rabin, Eager and Steuer, JJ.
§ 905.701 General. ( a ) Sections 700.5, 700.11, 700.12, 700.13, 700.14, 700.15 and part 701 of this chapter shall apply to coal exploration and surface coal mining and reclamation operations in California.
( b ) Beginning on the effective date of this program, each surface coal mining and reclamation operation in California shall comply with subchapter B of this chapter until issuance of a permanent program permit under the provisions of subchapter C of this chapter.
( c ) Records required by § 700.14 of this chapter to be made available locally to the public shall be made available in the OSMRE Albuquerque Field Office.
#### § 1803.35 Action by appeals authority.

Action by the Director, NACIC. The Coordinator shall provide a summation memorandum for consideration of the Director, NACIC; the complete record of the request consisting of the request, the document(s) (sanitized and full text) at issue, and the findings of the originator and interested parties. The Director, NACIC shall personally decide each case; no personal appearances shall be permitted without the express permission of the Director, NACIC.
§ 2002.6 CUI Executive Agent (EA). ( a ) Section 2(c) of the Order designates NARA as the CUI Executive Agent (EA) to implement the Order and to oversee agency efforts to comply with the Order, this part, and the CUI Registry.
( b ) NARA has delegated the CUI EA responsibilities to the Director of ISOO. Under this authority, ISOO staff carry out CUI oversight responsibilities and manage the Federal CUI program.
§ 2001.49 Special access programs. ( a ) *General.* The safeguarding requirements of this Directive may be enhanced for information in special access programs (SAP), established under the provisions of section 4.3 of the Order by the agency head responsible for creating the SAP. Agency heads shall ensure that the enhanced controls are based on an assessment of the value, critical nature, and vulnerability of the information.
( b ) *Significant interagency support requirements.* Agency heads must ensure that a Memorandum of Agreement/Understanding is established for each SAP that has significant interagency support requirements, to appropriately and fully address support requirements and supporting agency oversight responsibilities for that SAP.