alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Form of Executive Agreement for certain executive officers



 Exhibit 10.1 

Schedule Identifying Material Details of 

Executive Agreements Substantially Similar to Exhibit 10.3 to Huntington’s 

Current Report on Form 8-K dated November 28, 2012 
  

			
	 Name
	 	 Effective Date

	 David S. Anderson
	 	June 20, 2013
	 Richard A. Cheap
	 	November 28, 2012
	 James E. Dunlap
	 	November 28, 2012
	 Paul G. Heller
	 	November 28, 2012
	 Helga S. Houston
	 	November 28, 2012
	 Mary W. Navarro
	 	November 28, 2012
	 Daniel J. Neumeyer
	 	November 28, 2012
	 Keith D. Sanders
	 	November 28, 2012
	 Nicholas G. Stanutz
	 	November 28, 2012
	 Mark E. Thompson
	 	November 28, 2012

 Schedule Identifying Material Details of 

Executive Agreements Substantially Similar to Exhibit 10.2 to Huntington’s 

Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the Period Ended June 30, 2013. 
  

			
	 Name
	 	 Effective Date

	 Barbara H. Benham
	 	July 16, 2013
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-7030

ANGELO LEWIS FORD-BEY,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

DOCTOR FRY, Medical Physician; MRS. HANCOCK;

NURSE HARVALL; MRS. MOON; MRS. HOGGIN,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert R. Merhige, Jr, Senior

District Judge. (CA-96-474-3)

Submitted: November 19, 1996 Decided: December 17, 1996

Before HAMILTON, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Angelo Lewis Ford-Bey, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
* Pub. L. No. 104-134, 110 Stat. 1321 (1996).

2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals from a magistrate judge's order entered for

payment of fees pursuant to the Prison Litigation Reform Act* and

the district court's order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1994)

complaint. We have reviewed the record and the district court's

opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm both

orders on the reasoning of the district court. Ford-Bey v. Fry, No.

CA-96-474-3 (E.D. Va. June 12 and 28, 1996). 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. We deny Appellant's motion for summary

judgment.

AFFIRMED
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.3

RE:  Radiologix, Inc.
     Election Form

To Brokers, Dealers, Commercial Banks,
Trust Companies and Other Nominees:

    We are enclosing herewith the materials listed below relating to the
Election Form as described in and subject to conditions set forth in the Proxy
Statement/Prospectus dated [           ], 2000, which describes the Amended and
Restated Agreement and Plan of Merger dated as of September 12, 2000, as
amended, between Radiologix, Inc., SKM-RD Acquisition Corp. and SKM-RD LLC.

    Subject to the proration procedures described in the Proxy Statement,
pursuant to the Election Form, record holders of shares of Radiologix common
stock are entitled to make an election on or prior to 5:00 p.m., New York City
time, on October   , 2000 to receive for each share of Radiologix common stock
$7.25 per share in cash (a "Cash Election") or to retain 1.1224 shares of
Radiologix common stock (a "Stock Election"). To be elibible to retain shares, a
holder must (1) own more than 3,000 shares immediately before the merger, and
(2) make a stock election with respect to at least 3,000 of those shares. A
holder who owns 3,000 or fewer shares will not be able to make a stock election
but will receive $7.25 per share in cash and will not be subject to proration.
Holders may also elect no preference as to the Cash Election or the Stock
Election (a "Non-Election"). Such election must be made by properly executing
and submitting the enclosed Election Form.

    Enclosed are copies of the following documents:

    1.  Election Form for your use and for the information of your clients.

    2.  A printed form of letter which may be sent to your clients for whose
       accounts you are your nominee hold Radiologix common stock as the
       registered holder with space provided for obtaining such clients'
       instructions with regard to any Election.

YOUR PROMPT ACTION IS REQUIRED, WE URGE YOU TO CONTACT YOUR CLIENTS AS SOON AS
POSSIBLE. THE PERIOD IN WHICH A ELECTION CAN BE MADE WILL EXPIRE AT 5:00 P.M.,
NEW YORK CITY TIME, ON OCTOBER [  ], 2000.

ANY QUESTIONS OR REQUESTS FOR ASSISTANCE CONCERNING THE ELECTION OR THE PROXY
STATEMENT SHOULD BE DIRECTED TO [                                 ] AT THE
FOLLOWING TOLL-FREE TELEPHONE NUMBER: [__________].

                                          Very truly yours,
                                          RADIOLOGIX, INC.
Exhibit 32.1

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. 1350,**

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEYACT OF 2002**

In connection with the annual report of JA Energy Inc. (the“Company”) on Form 10-Q for the months ended May 31, 2014, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission onthe date hereof (the “Report”), I, Edward Zimbardi, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, to the best ofmy knowledge and belief, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,that:

i.	The Report fully complieswith the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m(a) or 78o(d)); and

ii.	The information containedin the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

Date: July 20, 2014

 

 

 

/s/ Barry Hall	

Barry Hall,

(Principal Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer)
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-41742

Summary Calendar

YSIDRO VALENCIA,

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

BRYAN COLLIER; CHARLES M. BELL, Warden; HUNTSVILLE 

CLASSIFICATION COMMITTEE; MAJOR BUTCHER; DIRECTOR REVIEW 

COMMITTEE; GERALD GULLEDGE, Lieutenant,

Defendants-Appellees

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Texas

USDC No. 9:13-CV-212

Before DAVIS, SOUTHWICK, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Ysidro Valencia, Texas prisoner # 743105, appeals the district court’s 

dismissal of his lawsuit filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983, the Americans with 

Disabilities Act, and the Rehabilitation Act. Valencia has failed to challenge 

the district court’s determination that his complaint was repetitious. Although 

pro se briefs are afforded liberal construction, Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 

 

* 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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

May 1, 2017

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 15-41742 Document: 00513973947 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/01/2017
No. 15-41742

2

520 (1972), even pro se litigants must brief arguments in order to preserve 

them. Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 224-25 (5th Cir. 1993). Failure to 

identify an error in the district court’s analysis is the same as if Valencia had 

not appealed the judgment. See Brinkmann v. Dallas County Deputy Sheriff 

Abner, 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir. 1987). Valencia therefore is not entitled to 

relief. See id. at 748.

Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

 Case: 15-41742 Document: 00513973947 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/01/2017
### -77.8 -77.6 -77.4 -77.2 -77.0 -76.8 -76.6 -76.4 -76.2

38.4 38.6 38.8 39.0 39.2 39.4


## ★ ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲



## ★ ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲ 

### 500 1000 1500 100 18 12 06 00 07/08 

## NOAA HYSPLIT MODEL 

# Backward trajectory ending at 2300 UTC 08 Jul 07

EDAS Meteorological DataSource★at 38.90 N 76.65 WMeters AGL 

## ★ ■ ■ ■ ■



## ★ ■ ■ ■ ■ 

## ★ ●



## ★ ● ● ● ●
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA 

EASTERN DISTRICT 

 ADONIUS WOOLARD,     Petitioner     v.   COURT OF COMMON PLEAS COUNTY OF PHILADELPHIA ET AL., SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA EASTERN DISTRICT ET AL., ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR THE COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA ET AL.,     Respondents 

No. 108 EM 2015    

ORDER 

PER CURIAM 

AND NOW, this 22nd day of October, 2015, the Application for Leave to File 

Original Process is GRANTED.  To the extent the Petition for Writ of Mandamus and/or 

Extraordinary Relief seeks to compel the common pleas court’s compliance with the 

Superior Court’s January 29, 2015, remand order, that petition is GRANTED.  The 

Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County is DIRECTED to comply with the 

Superior Court’s remand order within 30 days.
EXHIBIT 32


CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, I, the
undersigned officer of the Alderwood Acquisition Corporation
(the "Company"), hereby certify to my knowledge that:

The Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31,
2011 of the Company fully complies, in all material respects,
with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, and the information contained in the
Report fairly represents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

A signed original of this written statement required by Section
906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by
the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission or its staff upon request.


                             /s/ James M. Cassidy
                                 President, Director,
                                 Chief Executivie Officer,
                                 Chief Financial Officer and
                                 Principal Accounting Officer
Date: May 13, 2011
#### Walter J. WHITE, Petitioner, v. Charles WHITMORE et al., Respondents.

No. 40596.

Supreme Court of Florida.

March 9, 1971.

Rehearing Denied April 13, 1971.

Certiorari denied.

ROBERTS, C. J., and ERVIN, BOYD, McCAIN and DEKLE, JJ., concur.
### IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA DA 21 - 0112

_________________ ST ATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee, v. MARK JAY PRICHARD,

Defendant and Appellant. O R D E R

_________________ Pursuant to the Internal Operating Rules of this Court, this cause is classified for submission on briefs to a five - justice panel of this Court. The Clerk is directed to provide a copy hereof to Mark Jay Prichard, to all counsel of r ecord , and to the Honorable Mi chael F. McMahon , District Judge . For the Court,

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

November 3 2021

11/03/2021
Case Number: DA 21-0112
Case 2:05-cv-00319-PGC Document 7 Filed 06/08/2005 Page 1 of 35Case 2:05-cv-00319-PGC Document 7 Filed 06/08/2005 Page 2 of 35Case 2:05-cv-00319-PGC Document 7 Filed 06/08/2005 Page 3 of 35Case 2:05-cv-00319-PGC Document 7 Filed 06/08/2005 Page 4 of 35Case 2:05-cv-00319-PGC Document 7 Filed 06/08/2005 Page 5 of 35Case 2:05-cv-00319-PGC Document 7 Filed 06/08/2005 Page 6 of 35Case 2:05-cv-00319-PGC Document 7 Filed 06/08/2005 Page 7 of 35Case 2:05-cv-00319-PGC Document 7 Filed 06/08/2005 Page 8 of 35Case 2:05-cv-00319-PGC Document 7 Filed 06/08/2005 Page 9 of 35Case 2:05-cv-00319-PGC Document 7 Filed 06/08/2005 Page 10 of 35Case 2:05-cv-00319-PGC Document 7 Filed 06/08/2005 Page 11 of 35Case 2:05-cv-00319-PGC Document 7 Filed 06/08/2005 Page 12 of 35Case 2:05-cv-00319-PGC Document 7 Filed 06/08/2005 Page 13 of 35Case 2:05-cv-00319-PGC Document 7 Filed 06/08/2005 Page 14 of 35Case 2:05-cv-00319-PGC Document 7 Filed 06/08/2005 Page 15 of 35Case 2:05-cv-00319-PGC Document 7 Filed 06/08/2005 Page 16 of 35Case 2:05-cv-00319-PGC Document 7 Filed 06/08/2005 Page 17 of 35Case 2:05-cv-00319-PGC Document 7 Filed 06/08/2005 Page 18 of 35Case 2:05-cv-00319-PGC Document 7 Filed 06/08/2005 Page 19 of 35Case 2:05-cv-00319-PGC Document 7 Filed 06/08/2005 Page 20 of 35Case 2:05-cv-00319-PGC Document 7 Filed 06/08/2005 Page 21 of 35Case 2:05-cv-00319-PGC Document 7 Filed 06/08/2005 Page 22 of 35Case 2:05-cv-00319-PGC Document 7 Filed 06/08/2005 Page 23 of 35Case 2:05-cv-00319-PGC Document 7 Filed 06/08/2005 Page 24 of 35Case 2:05-cv-00319-PGC Document 7 Filed 06/08/2005 Page 25 of 35Case 2:05-cv-00319-PGC Document 7 Filed 06/08/2005 Page 26 of 35Case 2:05-cv-00319-PGC Document 7 Filed 06/08/2005 Page 27 of 35Case 2:05-cv-00319-PGC Document 7 Filed 06/08/2005 Page 28 of 35Case 2:05-cv-00319-PGC Document 7 Filed 06/08/2005 Page 29 of 35Case 2:05-cv-00319-PGC Document 7 Filed 06/08/2005 Page 30 of 35Case 2:05-cv-00319-PGC Document 7 Filed 06/08/2005 Page 31 of 35Case 2:05-cv-00319-PGC Document 7 Filed 06/08/2005 Page 32 of 35Case 2:05-cv-00319-PGC Document 7 Filed 06/08/2005 Page 33 of 35Case 2:05-cv-00319-PGC Document 7 Filed 06/08/2005 Page 34 of 35Case 2:05-cv-00319-PGC Document 7 Filed 06/08/2005 Page 35 of 35
252 La. 833

#### Robert R. BOUCHER et al. v. F. C. DOYAL, Jr., Administrator of the Division of Employment Security of the Department of Labor, State of Louisiana, et al.

No. 49348.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Oct. 3, 1968.

In re: Mrs. Ethel D. Gueymard, widow of Jules Gueymard applying for certiorari, or writ of review to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, Parish of East Baton Rouge. 210 So.2d 75.

Writ refused. The judgment is correct.
Exhibit 10.2




AMENDMENT NO. 2 TO THE EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT
 
 This AMENDMENT NO. 2 to the Employment Agreement dated as of June, 2002 is by and between SkillSoft Corporation , a Delaware corporation and SkillSoft Limited, an Irish Private Company (collectively the “Company”), and Jerry Nine (the “Executive”).
 
 WHEREAS, the Company and Executive are parties to that certain Employment Agreement dated as of June 2002 (the “Employment Agreement”);
 
 WHEREAS, the Company and the Executive have previously amended the Employment Agreement on December 23, 2008 (such amendment, “Amendment No. 1”).
 
 WHEREAS, the Company and the Executive desire to enter into Amendment No. 2 to the Employment Agreement;
 
 NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises and the mutual covenants and agreements herein contained, the parties hereto agree as follows:
 
 1.
Section 7(b) of the Employment Agreement shall be deleted in its entirety.
 2.
Unless otherwise specifically defined in this Amendment No. 2, each term used herein that is defined in the Employment Agreement shall have the meaning assigned to such term in the Employment Agreement.
 3.
Except as set forth expressly herein, all terms of the Employment Agreement shall remain in full force and effect without change.
 4.
This Amendment may be executed in one or more counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original, and all of which, when taken together, shall constitute one and the same instrument.
 
 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Amendment No. 2, effective as of June 10, 2011.
 
 SkillSoft Corporation
 
 
 By:       /s/ Tom McDonald
 Tom McDonald
 
 SkillSoft Limited
 
 
 By:       /s/ Tom McDonald
 Tom McDonald
 
 JERRY NINE
 
 
 /s/ Jerry Nine
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18. U.S.C. SECTION 1350
                    AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE
                           SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



     The undersigned  executive  officers of the Registrant  hereby certify that
this  Annual  Report  on Form 10-K for the year  ended  December  31,  2002 (the
"Report") fully complies with the  requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities  Exchange Act of 1934,  and the  information  contained in the Report
fairly presents,  in all material respects,  the financial condition and results
of operations of the Registrant.



                              By: /s/ Frederick Willetts, III
                                  ----------------------------------------------
                                  Title:   President and Chief Executive Officer



                              By: /s/ Todd L. Sammons
                                  ----------------------------------------------
                                  Title:   Senior Vice President and Chief
                                           Financial Officer

Date: March 12, 2003
Exhibit 23.1

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PETROLEUM ENGINEERS

Ralph E. Davis Associates, Inc. hereby
consents to the reference to our firm and to its having prepared a report of DOMINION RESOURCES BLACK WARRIOR TRUST (the Company), and an estimate of the proved gas reserves for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2011. We hereby
further consent to the use of the report dated March 9, 2012 appearing in the Companys Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2011 and in all current and future registration statements of the Company that incorporate by reference
such Form 10-K.



RALPH E. DAVIS ASSOCIATES, INC.By:

/s/ Allen C. BarronName: Allen C. BarronTitle: President


March 15, 2012

Consultants to the Oil and Natural Gas Industries Since the 1920s
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3667 Introduced in House (IH)]

103d CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 3667

 To redesignate the Federal building located at Ninth and Pennsylvania 
Avenue, NW., Washington, DC, and known as the ``J. Edgar Hoover Federal 
     Bureau of Investigation Building'' as the ``Federal Bureau of 
                       Investigation Building''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           November 22, 1993

  Mr. Murphy introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
              Committee on Public Works and Transportation

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To redesignate the Federal building located at Ninth and Pennsylvania 
Avenue, NW., Washington, DC, and known as the ``J. Edgar Hoover Federal 
     Bureau of Investigation Building'' as the ``Federal Bureau of 
                       Investigation Building''.

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

SECTION 1. DESIGNATION AND RENAMING OF THE FEDERAL BUREAU OF 
              INVESTIGATION BUILDING.

    (a) Redesignation.--The Federal building located at Ninth and 
Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC, and known as the ``J. Edgar 
Hoover Federal Bureau of Investigation Building'' shall be known and 
designated as the ``Federal Bureau of Investigation Building''.
    (b) Signs.--The Administrator of the General Services shall cause 
all signs and engravings designating or otherwise referring to the J. 
Edgar Hoover Federal Bureau of Investigation Building to refer to the 
``Federal Bureau of Investigation Building''.
    (c) Legal References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, 
document, paper, or other record of the United States to the Federal 
building referred to in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a 
reference to the ``Federal Bureau of Investigation Building''.

                                 <all>
```
<PAGE>

                                   EXHIBIT 23

                          INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT


         We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration
Statement Nos. 33-19180, 33-89896, 33-25244 and 33-87626 of Analysts
International Corporation on Form S-8 of our report dated August 21, 2000,
incorporated by reference in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Analysts
International Corporation for the year ended June 30, 2000.




/s/ Deloitte & Touche LLP

Minneapolis, Minnesota
September 28, 2000










                                      26
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3847 Introduced in House (IH)]

103d CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 3847

  To require the Secretary of Defense to release the requirements and 
   reversionary interest on certain property in Baltimore, Maryland.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           February 10, 1994

  Mr. Cardin introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Armed Services

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To require the Secretary of Defense to release the requirements and 
   reversionary interest on certain property in Baltimore, Maryland.

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

SECTION 1. RELEASE OF REQUIREMENTS AND REVERSIONARY INTEREST ON CERTAIN 
              PROPERTY IN BALTIMORE, MARYLAND.

    (a) In General.--The Secretary of Defense shall release the 
requirements and the reversionary interest of the United States that 
are described in section 2 of the Act entitled ``An Act granting a site 
for a dry-dock in the city of Baltimore upon certain conditions'', 
approved June 19, 1878 (Chapter 310; 20 Stat. 167).
    (b) Additional Terms and Conditions.--The Secretary of Defense may 
require any additional term or condition in connection with the release 
under this section that the Secretary determines appropriate to protect 
the interests of the United States.
    (c) Time and Manner of Release.--Within 6 months after the date of 
the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Defense shall execute and 
file in the appropriate office appropriate instruments effectuating the 
release under this section.

                                 <all>
```