alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 6.44Exhibit
10.44

March 25, 2004

Jerome Chicvara, Chief Executive
OfficerFred Bowman, PresidentPortland Brewing Company2730 NW 31st
AvenuePortland, Oregon 97210

Re: Commitment to Lend to
Portland Brewing Company (the Company)

Dear Jerome and Fred:

In
connection with the asset purchase transaction between the Company and Pyramid Breweries
Inc. and an acquisition subsidiary and a concurrent going private transaction (the
Potential Transactions), the individuals and entities listed below (the
MacTarnahan Parties) committed to lend money to the Company according to the
terms and conditions set forth in a letter agreement dated January 24, 2004. In the
January 24 letter agreement, the parties agreed to execute definitive documents consistent
with the terms of the letter agreement within 30 days after the date of execution of the
Asset Purchase Agreement in connection with the Potential Transactions. To date, the
MacTarnahan Parties and the Company have not yet executed such definitive documents. By
this letter, the MacTarnahan parties reaffirm their commitment to lend money to the
Company in accordance with the terms of the January 24 letter agreement, and agree to
extend the period for executing definitive documents until July 31, 2004.

Please
countersign this letter agreement to evidence the Companys and the MacTarnahan
Parties agreement with the terms outlined above.

Very Truly Yours,

/s/ Robert M. MacTarnahan
Robert M. MacTarnahan
On behalf of MacTarnahan Limited Partnership,
Harmer Mill & Logging Co., Robert M. MacTarnahan

/s/ R. Scott MacTarnahan
R. Scott MacTarnahan
On behalf of MacTarnahan Limited Partnership,
Harmer Mill & Logging Co., R. Scott MacTarnahan

Page 1 of 2 pages



Acknowledged:

Portland Brewing Company

/s/ Frederick Bowman
Name: Frederick Bowman
Title: President

cc: Portland Brewing
Company Special Committee

Page 2 of 2 pages
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-1550

TALIN A. TASCIYAN,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

MEDICAL NUMERICS; TEXTRON SYSTEMS; OVERWATCH GEOSPATIAL 

SYSTEMS,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

Maryland, at Greenbelt. Charles B. Day, Magistrate Judge. 

(8:11-cv-01467-CBD)

Submitted: October 28, 2013 Decided: November 6, 2013

Before GREGORY, SHEDD, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Talin A. Tasciyan, Appellant Pro Se. Kenneth Christopher 

Gauvey, TAYLOR & RYAN, LLC, Baltimore, Maryland; Donald James 

Walsh, OFFIT KURMAN, PA, Owings Mills, Maryland, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Talin A. Tasciyan brought suit against Defendants 

asserting gender discrimination and retaliation, in violation of 

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Although the 

district court ultimately dismissed Tasciyan’s gender

discrimination claim, the case proceeded to trial on Tasciyan’s 

retaliation claim.*

 The jury returned a verdict for the 

Defendants. On appeal, Tasciyan contends the magistrate judge 

(1) improperly defined “adverse action” for the jury; (2) 

improperly instructed the jury regarding damages; and (3) 

allowed impermissible hearsay evidence. Tasciyan also argues 

the Defendants’ improper reference to gender discrimination 

during closing argument was prejudicial and misled the jury. 

Having reviewed the transcript of the jury trial in 

light of the parties’ arguments on appeal, we find no reversible 

error. Accordingly, we affirm the magistrate judge’s judgment. 

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal 

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before 

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. 

AFFIRMED

 * The parties consented to a trial before a magistrate 

judge. 28 U.S.C. § 363 (2006).
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                          19,725
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    9,311
<ALLOWANCES>                                     (774)
<INVENTORY>                                      3,458
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                32,870
<PP&E>                                           9,532
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (1,776)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  42,929
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            8,265
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           251
<OTHER-SE>                                      34,413
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    34,664
<SALES>                                         14,645
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                30,701
<CGS>                                           17,042
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   28,531
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                30,801
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   160
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,691
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (29,743)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (29,743)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                  (317)
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (30,060)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (1.40)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
EXHIBIT  32.01

                           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 Pangea Petroleum Corp. (the
"Company")  on  Form  10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2009 as filed with the
Securities  and  Exchange Commission on or about the date hereof ("Report"), the
undersigned,  in  the  capacities  and  on  the  dates  indicated  below, hereby
certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906
of  the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act  of  2002,  that  to  his  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.

Dated:  August  24,  2009                    /s/  Russell  Ivy
                                             -----------------
                                             Russell  Ivy,
                                             Chief  Executive  Officer
#### STATE of Florida, Appellant, v. Manfred H. LIEFERT, Appellee.

No. 70-421.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

April 16, 1971.

*19James T. Russell, State’s Atty., and F. M. Wells, Jr., Asst. State’s Atty., Clearwater, for appellant.-

Fred L. Bryson, Jr., St. Petersburg, for appellee.

HOBSON, Judge.

Appellant appeals the trial court’s order granting appellee’s Motion to Suppress. Appellee-defendant had been charged by information with driving a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcoholic beverages. A police officer had observed appellee driving his panel truck in a weaving fashion across two lanes of traffic. Appellee had pulled over and had gotten out of his truck when the police officer approached him. Thereupon, the police officer asked for and received appellee’s driver’s license, noticed an odor of an alcoholic beverage and gave appellee the usual Miranda warnings. After appellee acknowledged that he understood these rights, the police officer asked him if he would take some physical sobriety tests and appellee stated that he would.

During trial, appellee’s Motion to Suppress was granted on the basis that although the usual Miranda warnings had been given, the police officer had failed to advise the defendant that he had a right to either take physical tests or refuse to take physical tests and that any conclusions or opinions testified to by the arresting officer which could conceivably have been made as a result of those tests would also be tainted and therefore inadmissible.

We must overrule the trial court’s order since the question of consent concerning such physical tests has been held to be immaterial by the Florida Supreme Court in State v. Mitchell, Fla.1971, 245 So.2d 618. Following the reasoning of the court in *Mitchell,*we hold that the police officer, after having observed appellee drive in a weaving fashion and then noticing the smell of alcohol on his breath, had sufficient cause to believe that appellee had committed a crime in the operation of a motor vehicle and could require him to take part in such physical sobriety tests.

Reversed and remanded for proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.

PIERCE, C. J., and MANN, J., concur.
Bonus Pool Policy


Applied
  Signal Technology, Inc. Bonus Pool Policy

 

1.0 Plan

   The bonus
    pool is based upon the Company's cumulative annual net income. Any bonus amounts
    will be paid annually. This plan applies to all regular employees and educational
    casual employees, as defined by the Human Resources Employee Handbook.

  


2.0
    Disbursement

   The bonus
    pool amount will be evaluated once per year in December in accordance with
    the criteria stated in Section 3.0. The disbursement (if any) will be made
    in check form with appropriate income tax withheld. The disbursement will
    be made the last week of December (approximate) and will be based on the cumulative
    12 months earnings ending 31 October.

  

 3.0
    Criteria

  The bonus
    pool amount is based upon two things: 


      1. The employee's cumulative
        earnings (excluding overtime pay) for the disbursement period.


      2. The Company's net
        income at 31 October (adjusted to add back the bonus expense used to develop
        the plan).


     The
    relationship to the Company's net income is shown in Figure 1. The two defining
    points in Figure 1 are (1) the target net income needed to earn a bonus pool
    of 4% of total payroll (TARGET) and (2) the minimum target net income needed
    to earn a bonus pool of 1% of total payroll (TARGET--$x). These defining points
    will be set by the Board of Directors at the beginning of each fiscal year.
    There will be no bonus if net income is less than the minimum target net income.


 One-half
    of the bonus pool earned will be paid to all eligible employees as a percent
    of their cumulative earnings. To be eligible for a bonus, an employee must
    be employed by the Company on the day of disbursement. The remaining half
    will be distributed to each division director on a pro-rata basis per the
    division payroll. They will distribute bonuses on a discretionary basis. For
    purposes of the plan, "earnings" are defined as an employee's base
    salary.


   The percentage
    shall be calculated as shown in Figure 1.


Figure 1. Bonus Pool
  vs. Net Income
##### 



EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE
OFFICER

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as
created by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
the undersigned officer of T REIT, Inc. (the
Company) hereby certifies, to his knowledge, that:



| |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          
| | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| | (i) the accompanying Quarterly Report on
    Form 10-Q/A of the Company for the period ended
    March 31, 2004 (the Report) fully complies with
    the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d), as
    applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
    amended; and
|
| | (ii) the information contained in the Report
    fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
    condition and results of operations of the Company.                                                                                                                        



| |                        
| | -----------------------
| | /s/ JACK R. MAURER     
| |                        
| | Jack R. Maurer         
| | Chief Executive Officer

Date: November 22, 2004

The foregoing certification is being furnished
solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, and is not
being filed as part of the Report or as a separate disclosure
document. The signed original of this written statement required
by Section 906 has been provided to T REIT, Inc. and
will be retained by T REIT, Inc. and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA 

TYREE BOHANNON, 

Plaintiff 

V. 

LIEUTENANT TREVETHAN, et al., 

Defendants 

Civil No. 3:23-cv-1312 

(Judge Mariani) 

ORDER 

AND NOW, this ~ y of December, 2024, upon consideration of Defendants' 

motion (Doc. 44) to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), and the 

parties' respective briefs in support of and in opposition to said motion, and for the reasons 

set forth in the accompanying Memorandum, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT: 

1. The motion (Doc. 44) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. 

2. Defendants' motion to dismiss the claims against Defendants Trevethan and 

Berlew based on lack of personal involvement is DENIED. 

3. Defendants' motion is DENIED with respect to Plaintiff's First Amendment 

retaliation claim against Defendants Trevethan and Berlew. 

4. The motion is GRANTED in all other respects. The Clerk of Court is directed 

to NOTE on the docket that Defendants Fagan, Hogan, Moore, Ransom, and 

Little are terminated. 

5. Defendants Trevethan and Berlew shall FILE an answer to the surviving First 

Amendment retaliation claim on or before January 9, 2025. 

Case 3:23-cv-01312-RDM-CA Document 71 Filed 12/23/24 Page 1 of 2
6. On or before January 9, 2025, the parties shall NOTIFY the Court of their 

willingness to consent to the jurisdiction of a United States Magistrate Judge. 

See 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). 

7. Discovery shall be completed on or before March 19, 2025. In accordance 

with Local Rule of Court 5.4 (b), the parties shall refrain from filing discovery 

requests with the Court. 

8. Dispositive motions shall be filed on or before April 18, 2025. 

9. No extensions of the pre-trial schedule shall be granted absent good cause. 

See FED. R. CIv. P. 16(b). 

10. Any motions or briefs filed after the expiration of the applicable deadline, 

without prior leave of court, shall be stricken from the record. 

11. The scheduling of a final pre-trial conference and the trial date of this matter 

is deferred pending disposition of dispositive motions. 

12. Any appeal from this Order is deemed frivolous and not in good faith. See 28 

U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3). 

Robert D. ar:i 

United States District Judge 

Case 3:23-cv-01312-RDM-CA Document 71 Filed 12/23/24 Page 2 of 2
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2788 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 2788

To amend section 3661 of title 18, United States Code, to prohibit the 
           consideration of acquitted conduct at sentencing.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           September 13, 2023

Mr. Durbin (for himself, Mr. Grassley, Mr. Booker, Mr. Lee, Mr. Ossoff, 
  Mr. Kennedy, Ms. Klobuchar, Ms. Lummis, Ms. Baldwin, and Mr. Brown) 
introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the 
                       Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend section 3661 of title 18, United States Code, to prohibit the 
           consideration of acquitted conduct at sentencing.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Prohibiting Punishment of Acquitted 
Conduct Act of 2023''.

SEC. 2. ACQUITTED CONDUCT AT SENTENCING.

    (a) Use of Information for Sentencing.--
            (1) Amendment.--Section 3661 of title 18, United States 
        Code, is amended by inserting ``, except that a court of the 
        United States shall not consider, except for purposes of 
        mitigating a sentence, acquitted conduct under this section'' 
        before the period at the end.
            (2) Applicability.--The amendment made by paragraph (1) 
        shall apply only to a judgment entered on or after the date of 
        enactment of this Act.
    (b) Definitions.--Section 3673 of title 18, United States Code, is 
amended--
            (1) in the matter preceding paragraph (1), by striking 
        ``As'' and inserting the following:
    ``(a) As''; and
            (2) by adding at the end the following:
    ``(b) As used in this chapter, the term `acquitted conduct' means--
            ``(1) an act--
                    ``(A) for which a person was criminally charged and 
                adjudicated not guilty after trial in a Federal, State, 
                or Tribal court; or
                    ``(B) in the case of a juvenile, that was charged 
                and for which the juvenile was found not responsible 
                after a juvenile adjudication hearing; or
            ``(2) any act underlying a criminal charge or juvenile 
        information dismissed--
                    ``(A) in a Federal court upon a motion for 
                acquittal under rule 29 of the Federal Rules of 
                Criminal Procedure; or
                    ``(B) in a State or Tribal court upon a motion for 
                acquittal or an analogous motion under the applicable 
                State or Tribal rule of criminal procedure.''.
                                 <all>
```
A.J. Muldoon 

Post Office Box 1569 

Carlsbad, NM 88221-1569 

(575) 887-1191 

1-800-658-2713 

www.cityofcarlsbadnm.com 

Office of Aviation Analysis 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

EAS@dot.gov 

Dear Mr. Muldoon: 

February 23, 2015 

DALEJANWAY 

MAYOR 

STEVE MCCUTCHEON 

CITY ADMINISTRATOR 

As the mayor of Carlsbad, New Mexico, I'm writing in support of Boutique Air for the EAS 

contract in Carlsbad. I have reviewed the matter and have spoken with the Leadership of our 

EAS committee; I agree that Boutique's proposal will significantly enhance the travel needs of 

Carlsbad's citizens. Boutique's presentation was excellent, and many of us are familiar with the 

Pilatus PC-12 and think it is a beautiful and serviceable plane. 

One of the significant strengths of this community is the diversity of its economy. The oil and 

gas industry, potash, tourism and the Department of Energy's Waste Isolation Pilot Plant all 

play essential roles in our economy. Over the course of a year, we have cabinet members, 

senators and other officials from across the nation come to Carlsbad because of the Waste 

Isolation Pilot Plant. Air service is an essential component to many elements of this economic 

tapestry, and an air service system offering more options is tremendously beneficial. 

Carlsbad is the fastest growing community in the state, and Eddy County has the state's second 

highest per capita income. We believe a high quality service, such as the one offered by 

Boutique, will be used extensively, and we hope to see a daily flight to Albuquerque and a daily 

flight to Dallas/Fort Worth. One of our top priorities is that Carlsbad offers a flight to 

Albuquerque, to assist our veterans who need health care. 

Thank you for your consideration on an EAS contract for this remote but highly-significant 

community. 

Wardl 

lUCK: G. SALCIDO 

WardZ 

SAlmRA :L BUKLEY 

Sincerely, 

D a I e Jl?i arrnn".:nr-__... 

Mayor 

COUNCILORS 

Ward3 

JASON G. SHIRLEY 

Ward4 

JA1ULL E. WHITLOCK:
##### 



Exhibit 12.1 Computation of Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges(dollars in thousands) Years Ended December 31,2004
    
    
    2003
    
    
    2002
    
    
    2001
    
    
    2000Earnings:Income (loss) before income taxes and minority interest
    
    
    $9,151
    
    
    
    $(3,483
    )
    
    
    $318
    
    
    
    $765
    
    
    
    $(5,052
    )Plus: Fixed Charges
    
    
    7,495
    
    
    
    5,561
    
    
    
    7,564
    
    
    
    1,589
    
    
    
    1,590Less: Minority interest in pretax income with no
incurred fixed charges
    
    
    (95
    )
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    Earnings (loss), adjusted
    
    
    $16,551
    
    
    
    $2,078
    
    
    
    $7,882
    
    
    
    $2,354
    
    
    
    $(3,462
    )Fixed Charges:Interest and debt amortization expensed and capitalized
    
    
    $7,089
    
    
    
    $5,305
    
    
    
    $7,212
    
    
    
    $1,299
    
    
    
    $1,346Estimated interest within rental expense
    
    
    406
    
    
    
    256
    
    
    
    352
    
    
    
    290
    
    
    
    244Total fixed charges
    
    
    $7,495
    
    
    
    $5,561
    
    
    
    $7,564
    
    
    
    $1,589
    
    
    
    $1,590Ratio of earnings to fixed charges
    
    
    2.21
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    1.04
    
    
    
    1.48
    
    
    
    Shortfall
    
    
    
    
    
    
    $(3,483
    )
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    $(5,052
    )