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

                                                                 EXHIBIT 10.10.9

February 27, 2001

Mr. Kent Harvey, Sr. Vice President
Chief Financial Officer & Treasurer
Pacific Gas and Electric Company
77 Beale Street, 32/nd/ Floor
San Francisco, CA  94105

Dear Kent:

You are an essential member of our senior executive team and I view your
contribution as vital to getting the Corporation through its current challenges,
achieving the Corporation's objectives, and providing strong returns to
shareholders.

The Board of Directors recently approved a Senior Executive Retention program
which includes you. Under this program, you will receive a grant of phantom PG&E
Corporation restricted stock units granted under the PG&E Corporation Long-Term
Incentive Plan. The amount of your grant is $1,250,000 and it translates into
95,715 units calculated at the closing price of PG&E Corporation common stock on
February 21, 2001, of $13.06 per share. An extremely small number of individuals
are included in this arrangement. For this reason, it is absolutely necessary
for you to restrict any conversation on this subject to me, Brent Stanley, or
Gordon Smith.

Your grant of phantom PG&E Corporation restricted stock units is effective
February 21, 2001, and will vest on December 31, 2004, subject to either one of
the following conditions:

  -  50 percent will automatically vest on December 31, 2004. The remaining 50
     percent will vest on December 31, 2004 only if the Corporation's
     performance, as measured by relative Total Shareholder Return (TSR) on a
     cumulative basis over four years, is at or above the 55th percentile of its
     comparator group; or

  -  if, at the end of the third year of the grant, December 31, 2003, the
     Corporation's performance as measured by relative TSR on a cumulative
     basis, is at or above the 75th percentile of its comparator group, the
     entire grant will vest.

You may elect to defer your actual award payments under the PG&E Corporation
Supplemental Retirement Savings Plan prior to the award cliff-vesting. Such
deferrals will be made in PG&E Corporation phantom stock units on the first
business day of January of the year following vesting. Awards not deferred will
be paid in cash in January of the year following vesting.

Kent, I look forward to your continued strong contributions to PG&E
Corporation's success.

Sincerely,

ROBERT D. GLYNN, JR.
### Jim Wilkinson - Re: Fw d: Hearing notice

The hearing notice is up!

>>> Mary Jane Rutkow ski 11/2/2012 11:26 AM >>> Samantha & Diana May we please have this up today? Ou r managers think we are too close to th e legal time line. This will give us a small cushion. Thanks!

>>> Samantha Kappalman 11/2/2012 11:22 AM >>> Yep. So it should go up Monday, right? Just send Diana or me the link and we can put it up.

Diana: We should not take anything off noti ces & alerts. Just add this to the top.

Samantha Kappalman Director of Communications Maryland Department of the Environment 410-537-3010 443-934-1023 (cell) www.mde.state.md.us

>>> Kathleen Perry 11/2/2012 11:10 AM >>> Hi Samantha,

Would you be able to approve the posting of the atta ched information to the ma in page under Notices and Alerts? We are required to have the notice up for 30 days before the hearing on December 5th.

Thanks, Katy From: Diana Alegre

To: Kappalman, Samantha; Perry, Ka thleen; Rutkowski, Mary Jane

Date: 11/2/2012 12:01 PM Subject: Re: Fwd: Hearing notice

CC: Hu g , Brian; Wilkinson, Jim 

### Pa g e 1 of 1

file://C:\Documents and Setting

... 12/10/2012 4:44:59 PM
James 

### V. O'Toole City

August 20, 2014

Kevin Schlemmer Office ofAviation Analysis US Department ofTransportation 1200 New JerseyAve. SE Washington, D.C 20590
DearMr. Schlemmer: : .,).

· .. ·

....,

The City of Escanaba joins the Delta County Airport Board and the Delta County Board of Commissioners in their support ofthe bid fi:om Sky'.>vest Airlines. Skywest Airlines proposal offers the same service ourregional airport is currentlyreceiving, and their code share package with DeltaAirlines will maintain the consistency and continuityneeded to increase the already established :Jiequent flyer loyalty in our conununity. The airport's current bank oftime schedule is a key part to the increase ofenplanement numbers, and maintaining a familiar service will allow for these numbers to continue growing. Fmihermore, DeltaAirlines partners have shown a consistenthigh degree ofcustomer service for ourcommunity and visitors. Their reliable schedule provides quick access to Detroit's Network of world connections necessary to assist our community in creating global economic opportunities. Thank you for your consideration in this matter. Sincerely,



# - James V. O'Toole CityManager jotoole@escanaba.org (906) 786-9402

Enhancing tl1e to our citizens.
#### UNITED STATES, Appellee v HANS J. GEHMLICH, Private First Class, U. S. Army, Appellant

17 USCMA 345, 38 CMR 143

No. 20,600

December 22, 1967

*Colonel Daniel T. Ghent, Major Jack G. McKay,*and *Captain Mark Kessel*were on the pleadings for Appellant, Accused.

*Lieutenant Colonel David Rarick*and *Captain William R. Steinmetz*■ were on the pleadings for Appellee, United States.

Opinion of the Court

FERGUSON, Judge:

In this trial by general court-martial for attempted robbery and wrongful appropriation, in violation of Uniform Code of Military Justice, Articles 80 and 121, 10 USC §§ 880, 921, respectively, the accused’s pretrial statement to a member of the Criminal Investigations Detachment was received, although the record discloses the only advice given him regarding counsel was that he “could consult with counsel and *346have counsel present at the time of the interview.” In addition, a statement allegedly made to a military policeman regarding a supposed attempt to visit the East Zone of Germany was likewise received despite a palpably deficient warning regarding counsel. On the showing made, both statements should have been excluded, and it was prejudicial error to receive them. United States v Burns, 17 USCMA 39, 37 CMR 303; United States v Lincoln, 17 USCMA 330, 38 CMR 128; United States v Groover, 17 USCMA 295, 38 CMR 93. Finally, hearsay testimony by the military policeman as to a reported attempt to cross the zonal border should also have been excluded. United States v Wilson, 2 USCMA 248, 8 CMR 48; United States v Smith, 3 USCMA 15, 11 CMR 15.

The decision of the board of review is reversed, and the record of trial is returned to the Judge Advocate General of the Army. A rehearing may be ordered.

Chief Judge Quinn and Judge Kilday concur.
#### Isenberg, Appellant, *v.*Cotton. Fleisher *v.*Isenberg, Appellant.

Argued May 8, 1969.

Before Bell, C. J., Jones, Cohen, Eagen, O’Brien, Roberts and Pomeroy, JJ.

*639
      *George W. Thompson,*with him *Baile, Thompson & Shea,*for appellant.

*Melvin G. Levy,*with him *Stanley R. Kotzen,*and *Levy and Levy,*for appellee.

October 9, 1969:

Opinion

Per Curiam,

Judgments affirmed.
#### Mart Haller *v.*United States

No. 6317.

Entry No. W-229.

Invoice dated Havana, Cuba, May 1943.

Certified May 1943.

Entered at West Palm Beach, Fla., May 19, 1943.

(Decided August 2, 1946)

*John F. Kavanagh*for the plaintiff.

*Paul P. Bao,*Assistant Attorney General *(Dorothy C. Bennett,*special attorney), for the defendant.

Cole, Judge:

This appeal for reappraisement concerns a shipment of chocolate and hard candy from Havana, Cuba, which was entered at West Palm Beach, Fla.-

An examination of the official papers discloses that no advance over plaintiff’s entered value was made by the appraiser, and that the appeal was filed more than 30 days from the date of appraisement.

The appeal is therefore untimely, section 501 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U. S. C. 1940 ed. § 1501). Accordingly, it is dismissed and judgment will be rendered accordingly.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-7881

THOMAS ELMORE BARKSDALE,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

SEWALL B. SMITH, Warden,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

Maryland, at Greenbelt. Peter J. Messitte, District Judge. (CA97-1119-PJM)

Submitted: April 29, 1998 Decided: May 15, 1998

Before MURNAGHAN, NIEMEYER, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Thomas Elmore Barksdale, Appellant Pro Se. John Joseph Curran,

Jr., Attorney General, David Jonathan Taube, Assistant Attorney

General, Ann Norman Bosse, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF

MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals the district court's order denying relief on

his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 & Supp.

1997). We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion

and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of

appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. Barksdale v. Smith, No. CA-97-1119-PJM (D. Md. Nov.

21, 1997). 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.

DISMISSED
#### Peter Y. Christian, *Respondent, v*William J. Glen, *Appellant.*

— New trial ordered, costs to abide event. Opinion by Barker, J.
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING

MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

OF FLORIDA

SECOND DISTRICT

R.J. REYNOLDS TOBACCO COMPANY, )

)

Appellant, )

)

v. ) Case No. 2D16-4024

)

MARLENE NALLY, as personal )

representative of the Estate of Joseph )

Nally, Sr., deceased, )

)

Appellee. )

)

Opinion filed September 28, 2018.

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Polk

County; John M. Radabaugh, Judge.

Marie Attaway Borland and Troy A.

Fuhrman of Hill Ward Henderson,Tampa;

Charles R.A. Morse of Jones Day, New 

York; and Michael A. Carvin of Jones Day, 

Washington, District of Columbia, for 

Appellant.

George A. Vaka and Richard N. Asfar 

of Vaka Law Group, Tampa, and Brent

Bigger of Knopf Bigger, Tampa, and

C. Todd Alley, James D. Clark, and 

Don Greiwe of Alley Clark Greiwe,

Tampa, for Appellee. 

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. 
- 2 -

SLEET, LUCAS, and SALARIO, JJ., Concur.
#### Sarah Brien, *Administratrix, etc., Respondent, v.*Timothy Brien, *Appellant.*

— Judgment reversed and new trial granted, costs to abide event; order of reference vacated. Opinion by Dykman, J.
No. 47463.

#### Protest 999145-G of Ciba Co., Inc. (New York).

Opinion by

Oliver, P. J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel the “Ultra-von W. C. Pat.” in question was held taxable at 3)4oo of 3 cents per pound on the entire weight of the merchandise in accordance with the provisions of section 701 of the revenue act, as claimed.
<PAGE>   1
                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.56

VIA FACSIMILE: (303) 268-5251

December 22, 2000



Mr. David Taylor, President
ORICA USA Inc.
9781 South Meridian Boulevard
Englewood, Colorado 80112

         RE:      Letter of Intent

Dear David:

         This Letter of Intent is to confirm that ORICA USA Inc. ("ORICA")
intends to purchase certain assets of El Dorado Chemical Company ("EDC"), and
EDC intends to sell to ORICA certain fixed assets used to service customers of
EDC who purchase low density ammonium nitrate from EDC. The total purchase price
for the fixed assets is to be approximately $3.9 million. Inventory values are
to be negotiated. Such purchase is subject to definitive agreements to be signed
by the parties, which shall include, among other items, agreements for ORICA to
continue to service certain of EDC's customers with low density ammonium
nitrate, and EDC to supply to ORICA ammonium nitrate, and various regulatory and
corporate approvals.

         The parties intend to finalize a definitive agreement on or before
December 29, 2000.


                                                  By:
                                                     ---------------------------
                                                      El Dorado Chemical
Company
AGREED to:


------------------------------------
ORICA USA Inc.

<PAGE>   2


December 22, 2000

Jim Wewers, President
El Dorado Chemical Company
Box 1373
Oklahoma City, OK  73101

Dear Jim:

With respect to the Letter of Intent entered into by El Dorado Chemical Company
and Orica USA Inc. dated December 22, this will confirm our agreement that the
Letter of Intent;

         a) is non-binding, and;

         b) is subject to the approval of the Boards of Directors of both
companies, and;

         c) is subject to the parties developing and implementing a satisfactory
plan to transaction service to certain of EDC's customers, and;

         d) contemplates an effective date of December 29, 2000, which may be
different from the actual date of closing, and;

         e) and its terms and conditions are confidential and no public release
will be made of either the letter of intent or this transaction without the
consent of both parties.

Please signify your agreement by signing and returning one copy of this letter.

Yours truly,

ORICS USA Inc.


-----------------------------
David P. Taylor

Agreed to:
El Dorado Chemical Company


-------------------------------
James L. Wewers
#### Stroheim & Romann *v.*United States

No. 7487.

Entry No. 742257.

Invoice dated Edinburgh, Scotland, February 9, 1942.

Certified February 9, 1942.

Entered at New York, N. Y., March 12, 1942.

(Decided December 19, 1947)

*Strauss & Hedges (Hadley S. King*of counsel) for the plaintiff.

*Paul P. Rao,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Kincheloe, Judge:

This appeal for reappraisement has been submitted for decision upon the following stipulation of counsel for the parties hereto:

(Stipulation omitted.)

On the agreed facts I find the export value, as that value is defined in section 402 (d) of the Tariff Act of 1930, to be the proper basis for the determination of the value of the merchandise here involved, and that such values are the appraised values, less the additions made by the importer on entry because of advances by the appraiser in similar cases.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
Exhibit 32.1
 
 **CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO**
 **18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**
 **AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**
 **SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2003**
 
 In connection with the Quarterly Report of Brighton Investment Holding Co., Inc. on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended September 30, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Michael Curtis, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:
 
 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 results of operations of the Company. 
 
 /s/ Michael CurtisMichael Curtis, Chief Executive Officer, Chief Financial OfficerNovember 17, 2004
August 17, 1942

No. 47457.

Suit 4363.

#### United *States*v. *William Brand & Co.*

Abstract 45730 reversed. C. A. D. 211.
November 17 , 2016



### JUDGMENT 

## The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

JEROME FISHER PLEASA NT , Appellant

NO. 14

- 15

- 00970

- CR V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

________________________________ This cause was heard on the transcript of the record of the court below. Having considered the record, this Court holds that there was no error in the judgment. The Court orders the judgment AFFIRMED

.

We further order this decision certified below for o bservance.
**EXHIBIT 10.5.1**

 

**FIRST AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT**

 

This First Amendment to Employment Agreement is made this 29th day of March 2004, by Highland Hospitality, L.P., a Delawarelimited partnership (the “Company”), and Highland Hospitality Corporation, a Maryland Corporation (the “REIT”), each with its principal place of business at 8405 Greensboro Drive, Suite 500, McLean, VA 22102 and Douglas W.Vicari, residing at 464 Oradell Avenue, Oradell, New Jersey 07649 (the “Executive”). 

 

**WHEREAS,** the Company and the REIT entered into that certain Employment Agreement dated October 24, 2003 (the “Employment Agreement”) with the Executive; 

 

**WHEREAS,** the parties have agreed to amend the Employment Agreement toreflect the fact that the REIT is the employing entity regularly paying the compensation to the Executive and the employing entity with primary responsibility for taking action with respect to Executive’s employment under the EmploymentAgreement; and 

 

**WHEREAS,**the parties desire to correct areference in Section 6(d)(vii)(C) of the Employment Agreement. 

 

**NOW THEREFORE,** the parties agree as follows: 

 

1. References in Sections 1, 4, 5 and 6 of the Employment Agreement to actions required or permitted to be taken by the “Company” shall be required or permitted to be taken by the “Company Group”. 

 

2. The word “Company” in Section 6(d)(vii)(C) shall be replacedwith the word “REIT”. 

 

3. Section 11(d) is amended toread as follows: 

 

“(d) Amendment. This Agreementmay be amended or modified only by a written instrument executed by both the REIT and the Executive, which amendment or modification is consented to by the Company.” 

 

4. Section 11(g) is amended to read as follows: 

 

“(g) Waiver. No delays or omission by the Company, the REIT or the Executive in exercising any right under thisAgreement shall operate as a waiver of that or any other right. A waiver or consent by the REIT shall not be effective unless consented to by the Company. A waiver or consent given by the Company Group or the Executive on any one occasion shall beeffective only in that instance and shall not be construed as a bar or waiver of any right on any other occasion.” 

 

-1- 

**IN WITNESS WHEREOF**, the parties have executed this First Amendment to Employment Agreement as ofthe day and year first above written. 

 

HIGHLAND HOSPITALITY, L.P.
By: 
HHC GP Corporation, its general

partner
By: 
/s/    James L. Francis
    
James L. Francis

President and Chief ExecutiveOfficer

DOUGLAS W. VICARI

/s/    Douglas W. Vicari

HIGHLAND HOSPITALITY CORPORATION
By: 
/s/    James L. Francis
    
James L. Francis

President and Chief ExecutiveOfficer

 

-2-
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-6903

UGANDA WILSON, Petitioner - Appellant,

v. STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA; ATTORNEY GENERAL OF SOUTH CAROLINA, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. R. Bryan Harwell, District Judge. (4:05-cv-03231) Submitted: February 19, 2008 Decided: July 2, 2008 Before WILKINSON, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Uganda Wilson, Appellant Pro Se. William Edgar S alter, III, Donald John Zelenka, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF SOUTH CAROLINA, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.- 2 - PER CURIAM: Uganda Wilson seeks to appeal the district court’s orders accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition, and denying his motion for reconsideration under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e). The orders are not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. Miller-El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee , 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Wilson has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny his motion for a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. 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. DISMISSED
No. 46810.

#### Protests 35569-K, etc., of Rosenthal Wittig & Co., Inc. (New York).

*439Opinion by

Tilson, J.

It was shown by the record that the silk mufflers in question are made of a woven material, hemmed, and block-printed by hand, and that they were imported subsequent to the effective date of the said trade agreement. In accordance therewith the claim at 35 percent under paragraph 1209 was sustained as to certain of the items.
#### Diane Kozlowski, Respondent, v Alexander Kozlowski, Appellant.

[633 NYS2d 523]

—In an action for a divorce and ancillary relief, the defendant husband appeals, as limited by his brief, from stated portions of a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Rigler, J.), dated June 10, 1993, which, after a nonjury trial, *inter alia,*granted the plaintiff wife a divorce on the ground of cruel and inhuman treatment and awarded her 100% of the marital residence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The trial court’s finding that the wife is entitled to a divorce from the husband on the grounds of cruel and inhuman treatment is supported by the record and we see no reason to disturb its determination *(see, Mahlab v Mahlab,*143 AD2d 116).

In addition, the trial court properly distributed 100% of the parties’ interest in the marital residence to the wife. The bulk of the funds used in purchasing the parties’ interest in the house was the wife’s separate property *(see,*Domestic Relations Law § 236 [B] [1] [d] [2]). The record also indicates that the husband has a history of dissipating assets by gambling. Based upon the husband’s minimal contribution to the purchase and maintenance of the house, as well as his dissipation of the parties’ assets *(see,*Domestic Relations Law § 236 [B] [5] [d] [11]), the trial court’s equitable distribution award was proper *(see, Mahlab v Mahlab, supra).*

The husband’s remaining contentions are without merit. Ritter, J. P., Pizzuto, Santucci and Krausman, JJ., concur.
<PAGE>   1
                                                                   Exhibit 10.35



January 10, 2001


Mr. Jerry E. Aron

Re: Employment Agreement

Dear Jerry:

This letter confirms an amendment to your May 31, 2000 letter/employment
agreement. The Company has agreed to give you ninety (90) days advance notice of
termination rather than sixty (60) days advance notice of termination as
provided in Paragraph 1 of the May 31 letter/employment agreement.

Very truly yours,


/s/ Leon F. Maraist
---------------------------------
Leon F. Maraist
President and Chief Executive Officer

AGREED TO AND ACKNOWLEDGED BY:


/s/ Jerry E. Aron
---------------------------------
Jerry E. Aron
May 23, 1960

No. 64249.

Suit 4970.

#### Ciba Pharmaceutical Products, Inc. *v.*United States.

C.D. 1999. (Appeal dismissed April 7, 1960.)