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


                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.26

                    SCHEDULE TO EXECUTIVE SEVERANCE AGREEMENT

       The following is a list of our senior executive officers who are party to
an Executive Severance Agreement, the form of which was filed as Exhibit 10.2 to
our Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2002:

                                Mara G. Aspinall;
                                 Mark Bamforth;
                              Earl M. Collier, Jr.;
                                Zoltan A. Csimma;
                              Thomas J. DesRosier;
                               Richard H. Douglas;
                                David D. Fleming;
                               James A. Geraghty;
                               John V. Heffernan;
                            Elliot D. Hillback, Jr.;
                                Alison F. Lawton;
                                Gail J. Maderis;
                               John M. McPherson;
                               C. Ann Merrifield;
                              Richard A. Moscicki;
                              Donald E. Pogorzelski
                                 Alan E. Smith;
                               Sandford D. Smith;
                                Peter T. Traynor;
                               Christine van Heek;
                              G. Jan van Heek; and
                                Michael S. Wyzga.

We are a party to Executive Severance Agreements with the executive officers
named above, under which payments will be made under certain circumstances
following a Change of Control of the Company (as defined in the Executive
Severance Agreements). The Executive Severance Agreements provide that in the
event the officer's employment is terminated by the Company Without Cause (as
defined) or by the officer for Good Reason (as defined) following a Change of
Control, the Company will make a lump sum severance payment to the officer of up
to two times annual salary and bonus. Upon such termination, the Executive
Severance Agreements also provide for (i) a cash payment equal to the additional
retirement benefit which would have been earned under the Company's retirement
plans if employment had continued for two years following the date of
termination, (ii) participation in the life, accident and health insurance plans
of the Company for such period except to the extent such benefits are provided
by a subsequent employer and (iii) in certain circumstances, legal costs and
expenses associated with such termination.
Editorial Note on Part 886
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 886 appear at 73 FR 35341, June 23, 2008.

§ 886.1690 Pupillograph. ( a ) *Identification.* A pupillograph is an AC-powered device intended to measure the pupil of the eye by reflected light and record the responses of the pupil.
( b ) *Classification.* Class I (general controls). The device is exempt from the premarket notification procedures in subpart E of part 807 of this chapter, subject to the limitations in § 886.9.
[55 FR 48442, Nov. 20, 1990, as amended at 59 FR 63013, Dec. 7, 1994; 66 FR 38812, July 25, 2001]
#### STEIN & COMPANY *et al. v.*STATE TAX BOARD *et al.*

No. 8567.

March 16, 1932.

*Jones, Fuller, Bussell & Clapp*and *Hyman M. Morris,*for plaintiffs.

*George M. Napier, attorney-general, T. B. Gress, assistant attorney-general, Lawrence S. Gamp, Carl N. Davie, J. F. Kemp, John A. Smith, B. G. Norman,*and *Paul H. Doyal,*for defendants.

Hill, J.

There is no prayer for injunction or other equitable relief in the present case. The prayer is to compel the repayment of certain 'taxes claimed to have been assessed and collected, and which were not due under the sales-tax act of 1929 (Ga. L. 1929, p. 103). The present suit does not allege facts which would give a- court of equity jurisdiction; and therefore the case is one coming within the jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals, and not of the Supreme Court. The case is accordingly transferred to that Court for consideration and determination.

In the brief counsel for the plaintiffs state that the Supreme Court has jurisdiction of this case, and cite as authority for that statement Ga. L. 1929, p. Ill, section 17; Michie’s Code Supp. 1930, § 993(332). In the act of 1929 it is stated that “appeal *612shall lie to the Supreme Court, as in other causes.” But that act can not change the constitution of the State, which fixes the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court and of the Court of Appeals. Ga. L. 1916, p. 19. There is nothing in the act of 1916, which was ratified by the people and became a part of the constitution of the State, to confer jurisdiction upon the Supreme Court in a case like the present. The case is

*Transferred to the Court of Appeals.*

*All the Justices concur, except Bussell, C. J., who dissents.*
427 A.2d 1232

#### Fischer, Appellant v. Westinghouse Electric Corp.

Argued November 16, 1979.

Lawrence Zurawsky, for appellant;

Foster S. Goldman, Jr., for appellee.

Before CERCONE, P. J., and MONTGOMERY and LI-PEZ, JJ.

Order affirmed.
* After an examination of the briefs and the record, we have concluded that oral

argument is unnecessary. Thus, the appeal is submitted on the briefs and the record. See

Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 

# United 

# States Court of Appeals

For the Seventh Circuit

Chicago, Illinois 60604

Submitted May 21, 2009 *

Decided May 22, 2009

Before

WILLIAM J. BAUER, Circuit Judge

JOHN L. COFFEY, Circuit Judge

DANIEL A. MANION, Circuit Judge

No. 08

‐ 2058

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff

‐ Appellee

,

v.

RICHARD E. WARREN,

Defendant

‐ Appellant

. Appeal from the United States District

Court for the Northern District of

Illinois, Eastern Division.

No. 05 CR 921

Elaine E. Bucklo

Judge

.

O R D E R

Richard Warren used a classic Ponzi scheme in trying to defraud a hedge fund out of

$25 million. The fund manager jumped at the chance to earn a return of 80 to 100 percent in

a few weeks by investing in what Warren described as a no

‐ risk program overseen by the

Federal Reserve. The fund got its money back only after federal investigators intervened. NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION

To be cited only in accordance with

Fed. R. App. P. 32.1No. 08

‐ 2058 Page 2

Eventually a jury found Warren guilty on 11 counts of wire fraud, see 18 U.S.C. § 1343, and

the district court sentenced him to a total of 200 months in prison. Warren, who is pro se,

argues in this direct appeal that the district court lacked both personal and subject

‐ matter

jurisdiction because he is a “citizen of GOD’s Kingdom and not of Earth.” He made the

same frivolous argument 42 times in papers filed in the district court, to no avail. District

courts have subject

‐ matter jurisdiction over any indictment charging a federal crime, 18

U.S.C. § 3231; United States v. Roberts

, 534 F.3d 560, 568 (7th Cir. 2008); United States v.

Hernandez

, 330 F.3d 964, 977

‐ 78 (7th Cir. 2003), as well as personal jurisdiction over any

defendant brought before the court to answer an indictment, United States v. Burke

, 425 F.3d

400, 408 (7th Cir. 2005); United States v. Jones

, 938 F.2d 1425, 1428 n. 6 (7th Cir. 1993). And

since Warren raises no other challenge to his convictions or sentence, the judgment of the

district court is

AFFIRMED.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

__________________________________________________________________ Cause No. DA 23 -0414 **IN THE MATTER OF T.K.B. and N.Z.B**  **. ,** 

Youths in Need of Care .

_________________________________________________________________ **ORDER**

__________________________________________________________________ Upon consideration of Appellant Mother’s Motion to Consolidate, without objection, and good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that DA 23 - 0413 and DA 23 - 0414 are consolidated into DA 23 - 0414 and captioned as above.

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

October 6 2023

10/06/2023
October 19, 2015

Mr. Bryce Witkowski

12918 77th Avenue East

Puyallup, WA 98373

Dear Mr

. Witkowski :

This letter is to inform you that we are unable to process your petition for an exemption from

sections of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR). It explains why we can not

process your request and what you should do in the next 30 days.

Why We Can n o t Process Your Request

We received your exemption request filed in D ocket No

. FAA− 20 15

− 3071 , but we are unable

to process your request any further. Your petition does no t comply with the requirements of

§ 11.81 (copy enclosed). For us to consider the request any further, you must send us all of

the following:

 The specific section or sections of 14 CFR from which you seek relief, the extent of the

relief you seek, and the reason you seek relief.

 The reasons why granting the request would be in the public interest; that is, how it would

benefit the public as a whole

.

 Any additional information, views, or arguments available to support your request.

For more detailed information relating to submitting petitions for exemption, please visit

http://aes.faa.gov/petition/index.html . This website helps the petitioner to meet Federal

Aviation A dministration (FAA) requirement outlines in § 11.81 and helps answer any

questions you may have.

What You Should Do

If you want us to process your request any further, you must submit the requested information

within 30 days. Please note that § 11.63(d) requires you to send your petition for exemption

at least 120 days before the proposed effective date of the exemption.2

If We Do Not Hear From You

If we do not receive the information, we will close the docket without notif ying you further.

If you have any questions you may call the 333 Information Line (202) 267

- 2999.

Sincerely,

/s/

Brittany Newton

Program Analyst, Airmen and

Airspace Rules Division

Enclosure s34
NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
FRANK CLIFORD MORETTI MOROTE, Petitioner,
v. ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General, Respondent. No. 11-73593 Agency No. A073-753-835
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER *

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Argued and Submitted August 28, 2014 Seattle, Washington Before: HAWKINS, GRABER, and GOULD, Circuit Judges. Petitioner Frank Cliford Moretti Morote (“Mo retti Morote”) seeks review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his re quest for deferral of removal under the Convention Against To rture (“CAT”). Moretti Morote also contends the BIA failed to address his clai m of ineffective assi stance of counsel. We deny his petition for review. 

# FILED
SEP 04 2014 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s determination that Moretti Morote did not bear his burden of establishing eligibility for CAT protection. Although some small factions of the Sendero Luminoso continue to exist in Peru (now largely as narcotics traffickers in re mote areas), the evidence doe s not compel the conclusion that, after nearly twenty years, Moretti Morote would more likely than not be tortured on account of his family’s past associations with that group. 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c). 1 Moretti Morote also attempts to bri ng a claim for ineffective assistance of counsel because his criminal attorney failed to advise him of the immigration consequences of his guilty plea. Howeve r, his isolated, passing reference in a supplement to his BIA brief was insufficient to put the agency on notice that this was an issue in the case, and therefore he fa iled to exhaust his administrative remedies. See Zara v. Ashcroft , 383 F.3d 927, 930 (9th Cir. 2004). As such, we dismiss this claim for lack of jurisdiction. Sola v. Holder , 720 F.3d 1134, 1136 (9th Cir. 2013) (per curiam).

PETITION DENIED IN PART, DISMISSED IN PART.

1 We grant the government’s Motion to Strike and deny Moretti Morote’s Motion to Remand to the BIA to consider new country conditions reports and other evidence not previously pres ented to the BIA; however, this denial is without prejudice to Moretti Morote’s ability to ask the BIA to consider such evidence in a motion to reopen. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c); Go v. Holder , 744 F.3d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 2014). 2
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> CT
<CIK> 0000815024
<NAME> AMERICAN AFFORDABLE HOUSING II LIMITED PARTNERSHIP
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1995
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 4602133
<COMMON>                                             0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   4602133
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                   358
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (996,425)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (996,067)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
Editorial Note on Part 892
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 892 appear at 73 FR 35341, June 23, 2008.

§ 892.1960 Radiographic intensifying screen. ( a ) *Identification.* A radiographic intensifying screen is a device that is a thin radiolucent sheet coated with a luminescent material that transforms incident x-ray photons into visible light and intended for medical purposes to expose radiographic film.
( b ) *Classification.* Class I (general controls). The device is exempt from the premarket notification procedures in subpart E of part 807 of this chapter subject to § 892.9.
[53 FR 1567, Jan. 20, 1988, as amended at 65 FR 2323, Jan. 14, 2000]
Shale Water Conference

GreenHunter Energy, Inc. is a publicly traded Company. (NYSE MKT symbol : GRH and GRH.PRC) Investor Contact Jonathan D. Hoopes President and Chief Operating Officer GreenHunter Energy, Inc. 1048 Texan Trail Grapevine, TX 76051 Phone: (972) 410

- 1044 Fax: (972) 410

- 1066 GreenHunter Water, LLC is a wholly owned subsidiary of GreenHunter Energy, Inc.

www.greenhunterenergy.com www.greenhunterwater.com

# Water is a Valuable Resource

 Water covers approximately 72% of globe

 Fresh Water is only 2.5% of this amount

2

# Water Used for Fracking

 Item of debate  How much is it really?

• 6

- 12 million gallons per frac

• Sounds like a lot

• Less water than it takes to irrigate one section of corn for a season in Texas

34 

# Texas

Source: Water Supply Options and Perspectives on Frac Water Usage in the Eagle Ford Shale

- Darrell T. Brownlow, Ph.D.

# Texas Aquifers

5 Source: Texas Water Development Board Report 3806 

# Water Table Drop

Source: Texas Water Development Board Report 380

# Texas Disposal Regulations

 Increasing scrutiny on commercial disposal wells.
 50,000 injection wells of which 11,000 are disposal wells
 Still a very favorable state for disposal operations.
 Many operators convert existing wells to private disposal wells

7

# Barnett

• Trinity Aquifer water table dropped more than 800’ in past 50 years

• Water is still readily available

• Fresh water wells from Trinity Aquifer

• City of Fort Worth sells water for fracking

• Currently very little drilling

• Reuse is done by a few operators

• Increasing activity due to liquids, reuse may be viable depending on ‘recipe’ of frac. May use fresh water (little to no treatment options viable for economic reasons) heavy brine, reuse is possible.

89 

# Barnett

Source: Fort Worth Basin Barnett Shale Water Assessment 200910 

# Barnett

Source: Fort Worth Basin Barnett Shale Water Assessment 2009

# Eagle Ford

 Water from Carizo W ilcox  Study by TX RRC and TWDB “plenty of water to support frac operations.”

 Reuse / Treatment

• Cost for frac water can be high due to additives such
as KCl

– promotes reuse for economic benefit

11

# Permian

 Vast area covering 2 states, 75,000 sq miles  Localized drought issues in a few counties  Edwards

- Trinity A quifer  Pecos Valley Aquifer

 Reuse  Localized difficulties in getting water for large drilling programs promote reuse, not on a large scale basis.

12

# Infrastructure

 No significant large area water pipelines yet....
 Localized water pipelines in large drilling areas
 Fresh water delivery
 Flowback to central pit or MAG Tank setup
 Produced water hauled to disposal

13Investor Contact Jonathan D. Hoopes President and Chief Operating Officer GreenHunter Energy, Inc. 1048 Texan Trail Grapevine, TX 76051 Phone: (972) 410

- 1044 Fax: (972) 410

- 1066 www.greenhunterenergy.com www.greenhunterwater.com GreenHunter Water, LLC is a wholly owned subsidiary of GreenHunter Energy, Inc.

GreenHunter Energy, Inc. is a publicly traded Company. (NYSE MKT symbol : GRH and GRH.PRC) Shale Water Conference
Editorial Note on Part 880
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 880 appear at 73 FR 35341, June 23, 2008.

§ 880.2700 Stand-on patient scale. ( a ) *Identification.* A stand-on patient scale is a device intended for medical purposes that is used to weigh a patient who is able to stand on the scale platform.
( b ) *Classification.* Class I (general controls). The device is exempt from the premarket notification procedures in subpart E of part 807 of this chapter, subject to the limitations in § 880.9. The device also is exempt from the current good manufacturing practice requirements of the quality system regulation in part 820 of this chapter, with the exception of § 820.180, with respect to general requirements concerning records, and § 820.198, with respect to complaint files.
[45 FR 69682, Oct. 21, 1980, as amended at 66 FR 38803, July 25, 2001]
Exhibit 32.1

                          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 Quarterly Report of American HealthChoice, Inc.  (the
 "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the  period ending December 31, 2003 as  filed
 with the  Securities  and  Exchange  Commission  on  the  date  hereof  (the
 "Report"), I, Dr.  J. W.  Stucki, Chief  Executive Officer  of the  Company,
 certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. S 1350, as  adopted pursuant to S 906 of  the
 Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge and belief:

           (1)  The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section
           13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

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



 /s/ Dr. J. W. Stucki


 Dr. J. W. Stucki

 Chief Executive Officer

 February 17, 2004
# L_2019316EN.01003401.xml

| 6.12.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 316/34 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.12.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 316/34

---

COUNCIL DECISION (EU, Euratom) 2019/2078

of 2 December 2019

appointing a member, proposed by the Federal Republic of Germany, of the European Economic and Social Committee

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 302 thereof,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Atomic Energy Community, and in particular Article 106a thereof,

Having regard to the proposal of the German Government,

Having regard to the opinion of the European Commission,

Whereas:

| (1) | On 18 September 2015 and 1 October 2015, the Council adopted Decisions (EU, Euratom) 2015/1600 (1) and (EU, Euratom) 2015/1790 (2) appointing the members of the European Economic and Social Committee for the period from 21 September 2015 to 20 September 2020. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

On 18 September 2015 and 1 October 2015, the Council adopted Decisions (EU, Euratom) 2015/1600 (1) and (EU, Euratom) 2015/1790 (2) appointing the members of the European Economic and Social Committee for the period from 21 September 2015 to 20 September 2020.

| (2) | A member's seat on the European Economic and Social Committee has become vacant following the end of the term of office of Mr Günter LAMBERTZ, |
| --- | --- |

(2)

A member's seat on the European Economic and Social Committee has become vacant following the end of the term of office of Mr Günter LAMBERTZ,

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Article 1

Ms Freya LEMCKE, Managing Director DIHK Brussels, is hereby appointed as a member of the European Economic and Social Committee for the remainder of the current term of office, which runs until 20 September 2020.

Article 2

This Decision shall enter into force on the date of its adoption.

Done at Brussels, 2 December 2019.

For the Council

The President

M. OHISALO

---

(1)  Council Decision (EU, Euratom) 2015/1600 of 18 September 2015 appointing the members of the European Economic and Social Committee for the period from 21 September 2015 to 20 September 2020 (OJ L 248, 24.9.2015, p. 53).

1

(2)  Council Decision (EU, Euratom) 2015/1790 of 1 October 2015 appointing the members of the European Economic and Social Committee for the period from 21 September 2015 to 20 September 2020 (OJ L 260, 7.10.2015, p. 23).

2

---
- All
            - Title
            - Author
            - Subject
            - Date
            - Full-Text

            -                              Explore                            ******                - Educational Resources
              - Archival Collections
              -                                      Themes                                    ******                  - Economic Data
                - Federal Reserve
                - View all 
              - Timelines 
            -                              Browse                            ******                - Titles
              - Authors
              - Subjects
              - Dates 
            -                              About                            ******                - About FRASER
              - FAQ
              - Contact Us
              -                                      FRASER API                                    ******                  - REST API
                - OAI-PMH 
            - Inside FRASER Blog

            - **

Home                 > Browse by Title > Employment, Growth, and Price Levels

              																	United States. Congress. Joint Economic Committee, 1956-					 and 	Douglas, Paul H., 1892-1976. 						*Employment, Growth, and Price Levels : Index to Hearings Before the Joint Economic Committee, Congress of the United States, with Tables of Contents of Study Papers and Staff Report*,										1961,									https://fraser.stlouisfed.org/title/1241,			accessed on September 22, 2024.						    

        - **FRASER**
        - About
        - FAQ
        - Legal and Privacy
        - FRASER API

          -                              @FedFRASER 
          - ** Contact Us
          -  **  What's New  
          -  **  Inside FRASER
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

May 26, 2016

No. 04-16-00119-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF L.R.L., A CHILD,

From the 37th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2015-PA-01591

Honorable Charles E. Montemayor, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

The appellee’s motion for extension of time to file brief is hereby GRANTED. Time is 

extended to June 6, 2016.

_________________________________

Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 26th day of May, 2016.

___________________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court