alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 10(bb)

SEALRIGHT CO., INC.
9201 Packaging Drive
DeSoto, Kansas 66018



Carl Walker

Dear Carl:

          The Board of Directors of Sealright has approved
supplementary benefits for key executives.  The Benefits include
a Retention Payment and Severance Enhancements, but do not
otherwise modify your existing agreements or benefits.

Retention Payment

          If you remain in the continuous employment of Sealright
and perform your present duties through May 29, 1998, you will
receive a one time payment of $60,000.  However, if you are asked
to leave before this date without cause, you will receive this
payment.

Severance Enhancements

          If your employment with Sealright or its successor is
terminated without cause you will receive the benefits under the
Severance Pay Plan or your individual agreement plus the
following:

          1.   Payment of COBRA costs for as long as you desire
               such insurance coverage up to 12 months.
          2.   Payment for outplacement services for as long as 
               the services are needed up to 12 months.
          3.   Payment of your base salary for 12 months 
               following the effective date of the termination in
               place of your existing arrangement.

In the event no transaction involving Sealright has been
consummated by December 31, 1998, the Board will review the
Severance Enhancements as well as all other benefits in the
normal course.

          If you have any questions about the foregoing, please
contact Carl Walker or me.


                                   Sincerely,


                                   /s/ Charles F. Marcy
243.204-70-5 Exceptions. ( a ) The limitations in 243.204-70-2, 243.204-70-3, and 243.204-70-4 do not apply to unpriced change orders for the purchase of initial spares.
( b ) The limitations in 243.204-70-4(a) do not apply to unpriced change orders for ship construction and ship repair.
( c ) The head of the agency may waive the limitations in 243.204-70-2, 243.204-70-3, and 243.204-70-4 for unpriced change orders if the head of the agency determines that the waiver is necessary to support— ( 1 ) A contingency operation; or
( 2 ) A humanitarian or peacekeeping operation.
[75 FR 48277, Aug. 10, 2010]
**Exhibit 31.1**

**CERTIFICATION**

I, Steven M.Besbeck, certify that:

1.      I havereviewed this annual report on Form 10-KSB of Creative ComputerApplications, Inc.;

2.      Based onmy knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a materialfact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, inlight of the circumstances under which such statements were made, notmisleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3.      Based onmy knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial informationincluded in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financialcondition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, andfor, the periods presented in this report;

4.      Theregistrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishingand maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

(a)    Designedsuch disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this report is being prepared;

(b)   Evaluatedthe effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by thisreport based on such evaluation; and

(c)    Disclosedin this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fourth fiscalquarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materiallyaffect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and

5.      Theregistrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our mostrecent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to theregistrant’s auditors and the audit committee of registrant’s board ofdirectors:

(a)    Allsignificant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely toadversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize andreport financial information; and

(b)   Any fraud, whether or not material, thatinvolves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting.
| Date: November 19, 2004 | /S/ STEVEN M.  BESBECK                                             |
|------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                         | Steven M. Besbeck                                                  |
|                         | *President, Chief Executive Officer, and  Chief Financial Officer* |

 

----
23.102 Authorities. ( a ) Section 208 of Executive Order 14057, Catalyzing Clean Energy Industries and Jobs Through Federal Sustainability, dated December 8, 2021.
( b ) Paragraph G of section I of the Executive Office of the President's Office of Management and Budget, Council on Environmental Quality, and Climate Policy Office Memorandum M-22-06, Catalyzing Clean Energy Industries and Jobs Through Federal Sustainability, dated December 8, 2021.
( c ) Implementing instructions for Executive Order 14057, Catalyzing Clean Energy Industries and Jobs Through Federal Sustainability, dated August 2022.
( d ) The authorities referenced in 23.107 for statutory purchasing programs.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

BARBARA PRYJDA, )

)

Plaintiff, ) 

)

v. ) No. 12-CV-4206

) 

THE LANDINGS HOMEOWNERS

ASSOCIATION, INC. and THE

LANDINGS CONDOMINIUM

ASSOCIATION FOR BUILDING J, 

INC. 

)

)

) Honorable Sheila M. Finnegan

) 

)

Defendants.

)

)

AGREED ORDER OF DISMISSAL

The parties hereby agree that this case has been settled and that all issues and

controversies have been resolved to their mutual satisfaction. Specifically: 

1. The parties have reached a Settlement Agreement, which is attached as Exhibit A

to this Order. The Settlement Agreement was executed on February 18, 2013. 

2. By consent of the parties the Court shall retain jurisdiction for purposes of

enforcing the terms of the Settlement Agreement. 

3. The above captioned lawsuit is dismissed without prejudice with leave to reinstate

on or before February 20, 2018, solely for the purposes of seeking enforcement of the Settlement

Agreement. 

Case: 1:12-cv-04206 Document #: 39 Filed: 02/21/13 Page 1 of 2 PageID #:137
4. In the event a motion to reinstate is not filed on or before February 20, 2018, the

Court shall relinquish jurisdiction and the case shall be deemed dismissed with prejudice without

further order of the Court. 

 

Honorable Sheila M. Finnegan

February 21, 2013 

Date

2

Case: 1:12-cv-04206 Document #: 39 Filed: 02/21/13 Page 2 of 2 PageID #:138
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 13**  **- 2398** 

JEROME J. BROWN , Plaintiff

- Appellant ,
v. HOFFMAN COMPANY, LLC; PRESIDENT LAUREN K. DOUGLAS , Defendants

- Appellees
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia , at Alexandria
. Leonie M. Brinkema , District Judge. ( 1:13

- cv - 01364

- LMB

- TRJ )

Submitted : February 5, 2014 Decided: February 20, 2014

Before NIEMEYER, SHEDD, and AGEE , Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion
. Jerome Julius Brown, Sr., Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM:
Jerome J. Brown appeals the district court ’s order dismissing his civil complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Brown v. Hoffman Co. , No. 1:13

- cv 01364

- LMB

- TRJ (E.D. Va. filed Nov. 7, 2013; entered Nov. 15, 2013). We grant Brown leave to proceed in forma pauperis. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before th is court and argument would not aid the dec isional process.

AFFIRMED
Case: 1:12-cv-02682 Document #: 7 Filed: 04/12/12 Page 1 of 3 PageID #:64

Case: 1:12-cv-02682 Document #: 7 Filed: 04/12/12 Page 2 of 3 PageID #:65

Case: 1:12-cv-02682 Document #: 7 Filed: 04/12/12 Page 3 of 3 PageID #:66
#### 242.503 Postaward conferences.
*Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except

under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

 

1Plunkett consented to proceed before a magistrate judge.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

_____________________

No. 98-40613

Summary Calendar

_____________________

NOEL EDWARD PLUNKETT,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA;

MICHAEL A. PURDY; J. DIAZ;

L. TEMPLE; J. GERALDI,

Defendants-Appellees.

_________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. C-97-CV-677

_________________________________________________________________

May 27, 1999

Before JOLLY, SMITH, and WIENER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Federal prisoner Noel Edward Plunkett appeals the magistrate

judge’s1 dismissal as frivolous, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e),

of his civil rights lawsuit alleging that a prison guard, Officer

Diaz, labeled him as a “snitch” to other prisoners in retaliation

for his earlier complaints about Officer Diaz and for another

lawsuit that he has filed. Plunkett also argues that the other
2

defendants-appellees, by rejecting his prison grievance complaining

about Officer Diaz’s acts, condoned the retaliation.

Plunkett does not brief any argument in connection with the

dismissal of the United States as a defendant to the lawsuit. His

argument is therefore waived. See Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222,

224-25 (5th Cir. 1993)(arguments not briefed on appeal are waived).

Plunkett has not demonstrated that the magistrate judge abused

her discretion in dismissing his lawsuit. Plunkett has failed to

allege sufficient facts to show that the defendants-appellees

violated his constitutional rights. See Newton v. Black, 133 F.3d

301, 308 (5th Cir. 1998); Thompkins v. Belt, 828 F.2d 298, 303 (5th

Cir. 1997). He has also failed to demonstrate a retaliatory

motive, either through direct evidence or by alleging a chronology

of events from which retaliation may plausibly be inferred. See

Woods v. Smith, 60 F.3d 1161, 1166 (5th Cir. 1995). His

retaliation claims are therefore without arguable basis in law and

fact and were properly dismissed.

Plunkett argues for the first time in his reply brief that he

has been the victim of racial discrimination and retaliation

because of his existing and threatened litigation, in violation of

his rights of equal protection, free speech, and access to the

courts. However, this court will not consider issues raised for

the first time in a reply brief. See United States v. Prince, 868

F.2d 1379, 1386.
 

2The appellant’s motion for appointment of counsel and to file

brief in present form is DENIED.

3

A F F I R M E D.2
II 

115TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 749 

To amend the Higher Education Act of 1965 to require the disclosure of 

the annual percentage rates applicable to Federal student loans. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MARCH 28, 2017 

Mr. ENZI introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to 

the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions 

A BILL 

To amend the Higher Education Act of 1965 to require 

the disclosure of the annual percentage rates applicable 

to Federal student loans. 

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 ‘‘Transparency in Stu5 dent Lending Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. REQUIRED DISCLOSURES. 

7 Section 455(p) of the Higher Education Act of 1965 

8 (20 U.S.C. 1087e(p)) is amended— 

9 (1) by striking ‘‘Each institution’’ and inserting 

10 the following: 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 749 IS

1 ‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—Each institution’’; and 

2 (2) by adding at the end the following: 

3 ‘‘(2) DISCLOSURE OF APR PRIOR TO DISBURSE4 MENT.—In addition to the disclosures required 

5 under paragraph (1), each institution and contractor 

6 described in such paragraph shall disclose to a bor7 rower before disbursement of a loan made under this 

8 part, in writing and in a form the borrower may 

9 keep, the annual percentage rate applicable to the 

10 loan, taking into account— 

11 ‘‘(A) the amount of the loan; 

12 ‘‘(B) the stated interest rate of the loan; 

13 ‘‘(C) the standard term for a loan of the 

14 same type; 

15 ‘‘(D) any fees or additional costs associ16 ated with the loan; and 

17 ‘‘(E) any capitalization of interest on the 

18 loan.’’. 

Æ 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
IIA 

115TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. J. RES. 32 

Disapproving the rule submitted by the Department of Labor relating to 

savings arrangements established by States for non-governmental employees. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MARCH 6, 2017 

Mr. HATCH (for himself, Mr. INHOFE, Mr. ISAKSON, Mr. MCCONNELL, Ms. 

MURKOWSKI, Mr. PERDUE, Mr. ROBERTS, and Mr. SCOTT) introduced 

the following joint resolution; which was read twice and referred to the 

Committee on Finance 

JOINT RESOLUTION 

Disapproving the rule submitted by the Department of Labor 

relating to savings arrangements established by States 

for non-governmental employees. 

1 Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives

2 of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 That Congress disapproves the rule submitted by the De4 partment of Labor relating to ‘‘Savings Arrangements Es5 tablished by States for Non-Governmental Employees’’ 

6 (published at 81 Fed. Reg. 59464 (August 30, 2016)), 

7 and such rule shall have no force or effect. 

Æ 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with BILLS
* This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of

law of the case, res judicata and collateral estoppel. The court generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Filed 7/5/96 TENTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,
v. ADRIAN H. MEYER, and KURTIS FRANCIS MEYER,

Defendants-Appellants. Nos. 95-6349, 95-6451 Nos. 95-6350, 95-6452 (W. Dist. of Oklahoma) (D.C. No. CR-95-75-T)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
Before ANDERSON , BARRETT , and MURPHY , Circuit Judges.
After examining the briefs and appellate record, th is panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materiallyassist the determination of this appeal. **See** Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. This case is therefore submitted without oral argument.2

Defendants Adrian and Kurtis Meyer appeal their con victions for making false statements to a federal agency in violation o f 18 U.S.C. § 1001 and 15 U.S.C. § 714m(a). Defendants argue that the distri ct court lacked jurisdiction over them because the “Court of Last Resort establi shed by ‘We the People’” had previously found them not guilty of the crimes with which they were charged. In essence, defendants seeks to substitute the “Findin gs of Facts and Judgment of the People” of their “Court of Last Resort” for the jury findings in their respective cases. Upon careful review of the briefs and the r ecord on appeal, we find defendants arguments to be without merit. The judgment of the United States District Court fo r the Western District of Oklahoma is AFFIRMED
. ENTERED FOR THE COURT
Michael R. Murphy Circuit Judge
West Branch Canal Creek, Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland 

Appendix 6A. Hydrograph showing water levels in upland monitoring well CC27A, August 2004-05, 

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

7.0

Jul-04 Aug-04 Oct-04 Dec-04 Jan-05 Mar-05 May-05 Jun-05 Aug-05 Sep-05

FEET ABOVE MEAN SEA LEVEL
 West Branch Canal Creek, Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland 

Appendix 6B. Hydrograph showing water levels in piezometer pair PTZ4, seep 3-4W reactive mat pilot test area, September 2004-05, 

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

7.0

Aug-04 Oct-04 Dec-04 Jan-05 Mar-05 May-05 Jun-05 Aug-05 Sep-05

FEET ABOVE MEAN SEA LEVEL 

PTZ4A PTZ4C
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

THOMAS J. KROB, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) Case No. 12 C 4975

)

CHICAGO POLICE DEPARTMENT, et al., )

)

Defendants. )

MEMORANDUM ORDER

Thomas Krob ("Krob") has sued the Chicago Police Department ("Department") and the

City of Chicago ("City"), invoking the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment

Rights Act of 1994 and the similar Illinois statute because of the asserted failure to reemploy him

after he was discharged from active duty in the Illinois Air National Guard. Although this Court

is contemporaneously issuing its customary initial scheduling order, this memorandum order is

issued sua sponte because of a procedural flaw in Krob's Complaint.

As its name indicates, Department is not a legal entity with power to sue and be sued --

indeed, Complaint ¶5 essentially recognizes that. That being the case, the City is Krob's

employer and will be treated as the sole defendant here.

_________________________________________

Milton I. Shadur

Senior United States District Judge

Date: June 26, 2012.

Case: 1:12-cv-04975 Document #: 4 Filed: 06/26/12 Page 1 of 1 PageID #:9
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.1

                  CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER
       FURNISHED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, John J. Holland, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Butler Manufacturing
Company, certify pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18
U.S.C. Section 1350, that:

(1) The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarterly period
    ended September 30, 2003 (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements
    of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 (15
    U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and

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




                      November 14, 2003     /s/ John J. Holland
                      -----------------     -------------------
                      Dated                 John J. Holland
                                            Chairman and Chief Executive
                                            Officer




A SIGNED ORIGINAL OF THIS WRITTEN STATEMENT REQUIRED BY SECTION 906 HAS BEEN
PROVIDED TO BUTLER MANUFACTURING COMPANY AND WILL BE RETAINED BY THE COMPANY AND
FURNISHED TO THE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION OR ITS STAFF UPON REQUEST.
EXHIBIT 10.2

November
22, 2002

To
each of the Lenders
parties to the Credit Agreement
(as defined below) and to Citibank N.A.,
as Agent for such Lenders

Ladies
and Gentlemen:

Reference
is made to the 364-Day Credit Agreement dated as of November 22, 2002, among The Boeing Company, the lenders parties thereto, JPMorgan Chase Bank, as syndication agent,
Salomon Smith Barney Inc. and JPMorgan Securities, Inc., as joint lead arrangers and joint book managers, and Citibank, N.A., as Agent for such lenders (as amended or modified from time to time, the
"Credit Agreement"). Capitalized terms used in this letter that are not defined herein have the respective meanings specified in the Credit Agreement.

Please
be advised that the Company hereby designates its undersigned Subsidiary, Boeing Capital Corporation (the "Subsidiary Borrower"),
as a "Subsidiary Borrower" under and for all purposes of the Credit Agreement.

The
Subsidiary Borrower, in consideration of each Lender's agreement to extend credit to it under and on the terms and conditions set forth in the Credit Agreement, does hereby assume
each of the obligations imposed upon a "Subsidiary Borrower" as a "Borrower" under the Credit Agreement and agrees to be bound by the terms and conditions of the Credit Agreement. In furtherance of
the foregoing, the Subsidiary Borrower hereby represents and warrants to each Lender as follows:



---



| |  | Very truly yours,         
| |  | --------------------------
| |  | THE BOEING COMPANY        
| |  | By                        
| |  |                           
| |  |                           
| |  |                           
| |  | BOEING CAPITAL CORPORATION
| |  | By                        
| |  |                           
| |  |                           
| |  |                           

2

---

QuickLinks
# C_2017120EN.01001601.xml

| 13.4.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 120/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.4.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 120/16

---

New national side of euro coins intended for circulation

(2017/C 120/08)

Image

Euro coins intended for circulation have legal tender status throughout the euro area. For the purpose of informing the public and all parties who handle the coins, the Commission publishes a description of the designs of all new coins (1). In accordance with the Council conclusions of 10 February 2009 (2), euro-area Member States and countries that have concluded a monetary agreement with the European Union providing for the issuing of euro coins are allowed to issue commemorative euro coins intended for circulation, provided that certain conditions are met, particularly that only the 2-euro denomination is used. These coins have the same technical characteristics as other 2-euro coins, but their national face features a commemorative design that is highly symbolic in national or European terms.

1

2

Issuing country
  : Portugal

Issuing country

Subject of commemoration
  : 150 Years of Public Security

Subject of commemoration

Description of the design
  : The design shows human figures and buildings, symbolic representations of citizens and cities, where the public security is mainly assured and the simplified police symbol. The legends include the year ‘1867’ and the year of issue ‘2017’, the country of issue ‘PORTUGAL’, the subject of commemoration (‘SEGURANÇA PÚBLICA’ – Public Security), the three main issues related to citizenship (‘DIREITOS’, ‘LIBERDADES’ e ‘GARANTIAS’ – Rights, Freedoms and Warranties), and the author’s name JOSÉ DE GUIMARÃES.

Description of the design

The coin’s outer ring depicts the 12 stars of the European flag.

Number of coins to be issued
  :

Number of coins to be issued

Date of issue
  : July 2017

Date of issue

---

(1)  See OJ C 373, 28.12.2001, p. 1 for the national faces of all the coins issued in 2002.

1

(2)  See the conclusions of the Economic and Financial Affairs Council of 10 February 2009 and the Commission Recommendation of 19 December 2008 on common guidelines for the national sides and the issuance of euro coins intended for circulation (OJ L 9, 14.1.2009, p. 52).

2

---