alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 10.8


               AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO SUPPLEMENTAL GUARANTY AGREEMENT



         This Amendment No. 1 to Supplemental Guaranty Agreement  ("Amendment"),
dated as of March  28,  1996 is by and  between  McDonnell  Douglas  Corporation
("Guarantor"), a Maryland corporation, and McDonnell Douglas Finance Corporation
("MDFC"), a Delaware corporation.

                           W I T N E S S E T H:

         WHEREAS,  the Guarantor and MDFC entered into a  Supplemental  Guaranty
Agreement (the "Guaranty"), dated as of December 30, 1993; and

         WHEREAS,  Section 5 of the Guaranty  provides  that the  Guaranty  will
terminate on March 31, 1996 unless,  among other things,  the parties agree that
MDFC's  exposure on its  Continental  portfolio  justifies a continuation of the
Guaranty; and

         WHEREAS,  the  parties  agree that MDFC's  exposure on its  Continental
portfolio justifies a continuation of the Guaranty and the parties deem it to be
in their mutual best interest to extend the termination date of the Guaranty;

         NOW,  THEREFORE,  in  consideration  of the  premises  and for valuable
consideration, the sufficiency and receipt of which are hereby acknowledged, the
parties hereto hereby agree as follows:

         1. The sixth line of Section 5 of the Guaranty is hereby amended to
            read in full as follows:

         "on June 30, 1996 unless (a) an Event of Default which could".

         2. As modified above, the Guaranty shall remain in full force and
            effect in accordance with its terms.

       IN WITNESS  WHEREOF,  the  parties  have caused  their duly  authorized
officers to execute this Amendment.


MCDONNELL DOUGLAS                           MCDONNELL DOUGLAS
FINANCE CORPORATION                         CORPORATION


By:      /s/ THOMAS J. MOTHERWAY            By:      /s/ JAMES F. PALMER
Its:     President                          Its:     Senior Vice President and
                                                     Chief Financial Officer
#### 225.872-8 Subcontracting with qualifying country sources.

In reviewing contractor subcontracting procedures, the contracting officer shall ensure that the contract does not preclude qualifying country sources from competing for subcontracts, except when restricted by national security interest reasons, mobilization base considerations, or applicable U.S. laws or regulations (see the clause at 252.225-7002, Qualifying Country Sources as Subcontractors).
EXHIBIT

2

Case: 1:12-cv-04241 Document #: 1-2 Filed: 05/31/12 Page 1 of 3 PageID #:13
Case: 1:12-cv-04241 Document #: 1-2 Filed: 05/31/12 Page 2 of 3 PageID #:14
Case: 1:12-cv-04241 Document #: 1-2 Filed: 05/31/12 Page 3 of 3 PageID #:15
1843.205-70 NASA contract clauses. The contracting officer may insert a clause substantially as stated at 1852.243-72, Equitable Adjustments, in solicitations and contracts for— ( a ) Dismantling, demolishing, or removing improvements; or
( b ) Construction, when the contract amount is expected to exceed the simplified acquisition threshold and a fixed-price contract is contemplated.
[81 FR 75345, Oct. 31, 2016]
# C_2016384EN.01000301.xml

| 18.10.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 384/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.10.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 384/3

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

1

17 October 2016

(2016/C 384/03)

1 euro =

1 euro =

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,0994 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 114,46 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4400 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,90485 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 9,7028 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,0872 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 9,0315 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 27,024 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 306,93 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 4,3281 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 4,5065 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 3,4017 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,4436 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,4433 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 8,5304 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,5433 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 1,5270 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 253,18 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 15,6533 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 7,4075 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,5065 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 14 355,97 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,6367 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 53,357 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 69,0709 |
| THB | Thai baht | 38,776 |
| BRL | Brazilian real | 3,5147 |
| MXN | Mexican peso | 20,8199 |
| INR | Indian rupee | 73,4565 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,0994

JPY

Japanese yen

114,46

DKK

Danish krone

7,4400

GBP

Pound sterling

0,90485

SEK

Swedish krona

9,7028

CHF

Swiss franc

1,0872

ISK

Iceland króna

NOK

Norwegian krone

9,0315

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CZK

Czech koruna

27,024

HUF

Hungarian forint

306,93

PLN

Polish zloty

4,3281

RON

Romanian leu

4,5065

TRY

Turkish lira

3,4017

AUD

Australian dollar

1,4436

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,4433

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

8,5304

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,5433

SGD

Singapore dollar

1,5270

KRW

South Korean won

1 253,18

ZAR

South African rand

15,6533

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

7,4075

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,5065

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

14 355,97

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,6367

PHP

Philippine peso

53,357

RUB

Russian rouble

69,0709

THB

Thai baht

38,776

BRL

Brazilian real

3,5147

MXN

Mexican peso

20,8199

INR

Indian rupee

73,4565

---

(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.

1

Source

---
Mr. Dennis DeVany 

Chief, Essential Air Service Division 

Office of Aviation analysis 

US Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue SE 

Washington DC, 20590 

lb 

ICICLE ' 0 fL 

RE: DOT-OST-2000-8556- Continuation of Alaska Airlines EAS Service I Adak, Alaska 

Dear Mr. DeVany, 

'' I /t 

We would like to take this opportunity to express our support for continuation of Alaska 

Airlines as the essential air service provider in Adak. 

Alaska Airlines has the ability to provide both cargo and passenger service with the same 

aircraft twice a week. We have been able to maximize our fresh fish shipments and at the same 

time minimize our costs in terms of crew travel. Our business also relies on dependable air 

service of which we believe Alaska Airlines is the most capable of providing and has a proven 

record over the last several years. 

It is very clear to us that one airline providing both services will best serve the community of 

Adak. We appreciate this opportunity for comment. 

Sincerely, 

ICICLE SEAFOODS, INC. 

~~.)~ Adak Plant Manager 

ICICLE SEAFOODS, INC. 

4019 ·21st Avenue West • Seattle, WA 98199 

P.O. Box 79003 • Seattle, WA 98119 • Tel: 206-282~0988 • Fax: 206-282-7222
#### 217.7301 Policy.

Contractors shall identify their sources of supply in contracts for supplies. Contractor identification of sources of supply enables solicitation, in subsequent acquisitions, of actual manufacturers or other suppliers of items. This enhances competition and potentially avoids payment of additional costs for no significant added value.
**UN PUBLISHED** 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 10**  **- 7562** 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,

v.
WILLIAM TERRENCE CROSS , Defendant

- Appellant

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the East ern District of Virginia , at Norfolk

. Rebecca Beach Smith , District Judge. ( 2:03

- cr - 00010

- RBS

- 1 )

Submitted : February 10, 2011 Decided: February 23, 2011

Before WILKINSON and DAVIS , Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed b y un published per curiam opinion

.
William Terrence Cross, Appellant Pro Se. Laura Pellatiro Tayman, Assistant United States Attorney, Newport News, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM:
William Terrence Cross appeals the district court’s order denying his second motion for reconsidera tion of its previous order denying his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2006) motion
for a sentence reduction. The district court’s order denying
the reduction was e ntered on April 13, 2010

. On October 15,
2010, Cross filed a second motion for rec onsideration of that
order, which the district court denied. As the district court lacked the authority to grant reconsideration of its previous
order, United States v. Goo dwyn , 596 F.3d 233 (4th Cir. ), cert.
denied , 130 S. Ct. 3530 (2010), we affirm the district court’s order denying reconsideration. We deny Cross’s motion to remand for resentencing. We dispense with oral argument as the facts and legal contentions are ad equately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid in the decisional

process.

AFFIRMED
#### (A) Dolores Conroy, Respondent, v. Edward W. Conroy, Appellant. (B) The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Donald Hicks, Appellant.

[In each action] On call of the calendar, there being no appearance by appellant and no record having been filed, on the court’s own motion the appeal is dismissed, without costs. Nolan, P. J., Beldock, Kleinfeld, Pette and Brennan, JJ., concur.
CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906

OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Cagles, Inc. for the period ended December 29, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Form 10-Q), I, J. Douglas Cagle, Chief Executive Officer of Cagles, Inc., certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of my knowledge, that:



1. The Form 10-Q fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, and



2. The information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



Date: February 7, 2008



By: /s/ J. Douglas Cagle

J. Douglas Cagle

Chief Executive Officer



















CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906

OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In connection with the accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Cagles, Inc. for the period ended December 29, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Form 10-Q), I, Mark M. Ham IV, Chief Financial Officer of Cagles, Inc., certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of my knowledge, that:



1. The Form 10-Q fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, and



2. The information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



Date: February 7, 2008



By: /s/ Mark M. Ham IV

Mark M. Ham IV

Chief Financial Officer
#### 225.7009 Restriction on ball and roller bearings.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NORTH CAROLINA
2021

- NCSC

- 3
No. 387A20 Filed 5 February 2021
IN THE MATTER OF: J.T.C.

Appeal pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 7A

- 30(2) from the decision of a divided panel of the Court of Appeals, 847 S.E.2d 452 ( N.C. Ct. App. 2020) , affirming an order entered

on 4 September 2018 by Judge John M. Britt in District Court, Nash County. Heard in the Supreme Court on 13 January 2021.

Mark L. Hayes for petitioner

- appellee mother. Leslie Rawls for respondent

- appellant father.

PER CURIAM

.

AFFIRMED.
July 29, 2014

JUDGMENT

The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

TRAVOY RAMON HOLLIE, Appellant

NO. 14-12-01085-CR V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

________________________________

This cause was heard on the transcripts of the record of the court below, and 

having inspected the record, the Court holds there was no error in the judgment 

requiring reversal, but there was error in the judgment as entered, which is capable 

of reformation by this Court. Therefore, the judgment is MODIFIED to reflect 

court costs of $424.

The Court orders the judgment AFFIRMED as MODIFIED.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.
#### In the Matter of Daniel J. Lipsman, Appellant, v Mary P. Bass, Respondent.

— Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County, entered May 11, 1978 in this article 78 proceeding in the nature of mandamus seeking the release of certain records under the Freedom of Information Law (Public Officers Law, §84 *et seq.),*unanimously reversed to the extent appealed from, on the law, without costs or disbursements, vacated, and the matter remanded for further proceedings. Petitioner, with his wife’s concurrence, sought to compel respondent to release to him (1) the "grade distribution sheet” in every course taken by his wife at the Graduate Center of the City University of New York (CUNY), and (2) two evaluation reports allegedly submitted to CUNY by the "Middle States Association of Colleges & Second*655ary Schools on Borough of Manhattan Community College.” On this record, it cannot be determined whether the grade distribution sheets contain matter which would identify the students involved, and their grades, as claimed by respondent, and, if they do, whether the privacy, of these students could be protected by deleting their names and any other identifying information. An examination of the relevant documents should determine whether there would be an infringement of privacy and, if so, whether the students’ privacy could be protected. As for the relevancy of the evaluation reports to the work of CUNY, this, too, is a matter which can best be explored by the court at nisi prius. Inquiry may also be made as to whether the personal privacy of the former President of Borough of Manhattan Community College would be unjustifiably invaded by disclosure of the contents of these reports, as is alleged. It should be noted that respondent is agreeable to an examination by the court, *in camera,*of the grade distribution sheets. In turn, petitioner has agreed to an examination, *in camera,*of both the grade distribution sheets and the evaluation reports. Concur — Kupferman, J. P., Birns, Lane, Sandler and Sullivan, JJ.
DOCUMENT REMOVED DUE TO REASON[S ] CHECKED BELOW

 DOCUMENT ENTERED IN ERROR

 DOCUMENT WITHDRAWN/REMOVED PER COURT ORDER OF

__________________.

 INCORRECT DOCUMENT LINKED

✔
225.7023-4 Contract clause. Unless an exception applies, use the clause at 252.225-7061, Restriction on the Acquisition of Personal Protective Equipment and Certain Other Items from Non-Allied Foreign Nations, in solicitations and contracts, including solicitations and contracts using FAR part 12 procedures for the acquisition of commercial products, including COTS items, and commercial services, and that— ( a ) Are for the acquisition of covered items;
( b ) Are for use within the United States; and
( c ) Have an estimated value greater than $150,000.
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)





In connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2004 of Boeing Capital Corporation (the
Company) as filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report) and pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, I, Russell A.
Evans, Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify that:

| | (1) | the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
| | --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

| | (2) | the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------





|                  |  |  |  |                                           
|----------------- |  |  |  | ------------------------------------------
|February 28, 2005 |  |  |  | /s/ RUSSELL A. EVANS                      
|                  |  |  |  | Russell A. Evans                          
|                  |  |  |  | Vice President and Chief Financial Officer



A signed original of this written statement
required by Section 906 has been provided to Boeing Capital Corporation and will be retained by Boeing Capital Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA

No. 14

- 0393 Filed October 1, 2014

STATE OF IOWA, Plaintiff

- Appellee,

vs.

JUSTIN M. RAYMOND , Defendant

- Appellant.

________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Black Hawk County, James D. Coil,

District Associate Judge.

A defendant appeals his judgment and sentence. AFFIRMED.

Mark C. Smith

, State Appellate Defender, and Stephan J. Japuntich

, Assistant Appellate Defender, for appellant.

Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Tyler J. Buller , Assistant Attorney

General, Lily Dobson, Student Legal Intern, Thomas J. Ferguson , County

Attorney, and M ichelle Wagner , Assistant County Attorney, for appellee.

Considered by Vaitheswaran, P.J., and Doyle and McDonald, JJ.2

VAITHESWARAN, P.J.

Justin Raymond pled guilty to domestic abuse assault

- strangulation, in

violation of Iowa Code section 708.2A(2)(d) (2013). T he district court sentenced

Raymond to a prison term not exceeding two years

, with all but seven days

suspended. On appeal, Raymond contends the court abused its discretion in

declining to grant his request for a deferred judgment.

The district court is not required “ to specifically acknowledge each claim of

mitigation urged by a defendant. ” State v. Boltz

, 542 N.W.2d 9, 11 (Iowa Ct.

App. 1995). “Even a succinct and terse statement of reasons may be sufficient

as long as the brevity di splayed does not prevent us from reviewing the exercise

of the trial court’s sentencing discretion.” Id

.
T he district court gave the following reasons for Raymond’s sentence :
Well, Mr. Raymond, I do believe that the sentence is appropriate based upon the nature and circumstances of this offense as well as you as an offender. I think you

— it's to your credit certainly, Mr. Raymond, that you have gone through substance abuse treatment. I've reviewed the letter

. . . f rom Pathways Behavioral Services. I think that

. . . certainly shows that

. . . you are committed to getting some substance abuse treatment and following up hopefully with your mental health treatment as well.

The court essentially accepted the State’s prior assertion that the serious nature
of this offense militated against a deferred judgment. See Boltz , 542 N.W.2d at

11 (“ [I] t is apparent the sentencing court’s general reasons related to the more

specific reasons previously articulated by the attorneys.”). The district court ’s

deci sion to weigh this factor more heavily than Raymond’s efforts at rehabilitation

was not clearly untenable or unreasonable and, accordingly, did not evince an

abuse of discretion. Id.3

We affirm Raymond’s sentence.

AFFIRMED.
Chart 11433HOME | ABOUT             US | CONTACT             | REGIONAL             MANAGERSNautical             Charts & Pubs Surveys             & WrecksGIS             & Other ProductsResearch             & DevelopmentCustomer             ServiceBusiness             OpportunitiesEducation      Chart:       11433          Edition:       14          Edition       Date: March       2005          Clear       Dates: NM - 7/3/2010     LNM -       6/29/2010      Download RNCNotice ListingFind A Chart       Site-               Click the +/- buttons               and drag the slider tool (solid triangle) to zoom in and out.                             
-               Click the arrow               buttons to pan left/right and up/down.              
-               Drag the navigation               box in the upper left hand corner to move around the chart image.               This chart display or derived product can be used as a               planning or analysis tool and may not be used as a navigational               aid. NOTE: Use the official, full scale NOAA nautical               chart for real navigation whenever possible. These are available               from authorized NOAA nautical chart sales agents. Screen captures               of the on-line viewable charts available here do NOT fulfill chart               carriage requirements for regulated commercial vessels under               Titles 33 and 46 of the Code of Federal Regulations.  Adobe Flash Player  is required to view the chart               image.Powered by  Zoomify .
Privacy  |         Disclaimer  |         NOAA's       National Ocean Service  |   NOAA  |         U.S. Department       of Commerce
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 95-7758

ROBERT MORRIS COCHRAN,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

CHARLES MASSENBURG; BRYON HERBEL, Dr.,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, District

Judge. (CA-95-883-5-BO)

Submitted: January 18, 1996 Decided: February 8, 1996

Before HAMILTON and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges, and CHAPMAN, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Robert Morris Cochran, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals from the district court's order dismissing

his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1988) action as frivolous pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 1915(d) (1988). We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly,

although we grant Appellant's motion to proceed in forma pauperis,

we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Cochran v.

Massenburg, No. CA-95-883-5-BO (E.D.N.C. Oct. 20, 1995). 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
Functional Statements >  Office of the Deputy Secretary

## Office of the Deputy Secretary (ODS)

- ODS Functional Statement
- ODS Organization Chart    PDF (91KB)
- ODS Delegations of Authority
Order Form (01/2005)

United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois

Name of Assigned Judge

or Magistrate Judge

John W. Darrah Sitting Judge if Other

than Assigned Judge

CASE NUMBER 12 C 4222 DATE 8/28/2012

CASE

TITLE

AF Holdings LLC, v. John Doe

DOCKET ENTRY TEXT

Status hearing held. Defendant’s motion to quash [10] is entered and briefed as follows: a response is on file,

a reply is due by 9/12/12. Status hearing date stated on the record of 10/18/12 is re-set to 11/13/12 at 9:30

a.m. 

Docketing to mail notices.

00:05

 Courtroom Deputy

Initials:

MF

12C4222 AF Holdings LLC, v. John Doe Page 1 of 1

Case: 1:12-cv-04222 Document #: 15 Filed: 08/28/12 Page 1 of 1 PageID #:105