alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Letter Agreement No. 6-1162-ELP-0183



 Exhibit 10.24 

6-1162-IRS-0183 
 United Air Lines, Inc.

 P.O. Box 66100 
 Chicago, IL
60601-0100 
  

			
	Subject:	  	[CONFIDENTIAL MATERIAL OMITTED AND FILED SEPARATELY WITH THE SEC PURSUANT TO A REQUEST FOR CONFIDENTIAL TREATMENT] to the Purchase Agreement
		
	Reference:	  	Purchase Agreement No. 3427 (Purchase Agreement) between The Boeing Company (Boeing) and United Air Lines, Inc. (Customer) relating to Model 787 aircraft
(Aircraft)

 This letter agreement (Letter Agreement) is entered into on the date below, and amends and supplements the Purchase
Agreement. All capitalized terms used herein but not otherwise defined in this Letter Agreement have the same meaning as in the Purchase Agreement. 
  

	1.	Purchase Agreement. 

 [CONFIDENTIAL
MATERIAL OMITTED AND FILED SEPARATELY WITH THE SEC PURSUANT TO A REQUEST FOR CONFIDENTIAL TREATMENT] 
  

 P.A. No. 3427 

[CONFIDENTIAL MATERIAL OMITTED AND FILED SEPARATELY WITH THE SEC PURSUANT TO A REQUEST FOR CONFIDENTIAL TREATMENT] to the Purchase Agreement

 BOEING / UNITED PROPRIETARY 









 United Air Lines, Inc. 

6-1162-IRS-0183 
  


	2.	[CONFIDENTIAL MATERIAL OMITTED AND FILED SEPARATELY WITH THE SEC PURSUANT TO A REQUEST FOR CONFIDENTIAL TREATMENT] 


 

	3.	[CONFIDENTIAL MATERIAL FROM SECTION 3 IN PAGES 6 TO 16 OMITTED AND FILED SEPARATELY WITH THE SEC PURSUANT TO A REQUEST FOR CONFIDENTIAL TREATMENT]


  

	4.	Assignment. 

 The rights
and obligations described in this Letter Agreement are provided to Customer in consideration of Customer becoming the operator of the Aircraft and can only be assigned, in whole or in part, pursuant to Article 9 of the AGTA as amended by Letter
Agreement No. 6-1162-IRS-0184. 
  

 P.A. No. 3427 

[CONFIDENTIAL MATERIAL OMITTED AND FILED SEPARATELY WITH THE SEC PURSUANT TO A REQUEST FOR CONFIDENTIAL TREATMENT] to the Purchase Agreement

 BOEING / UNITED PROPRIETARY 









 United Air Lines, Inc. 

6-1162-IRS-0183 
  


	5.	Confidential Treatment. 


Customer and Boeing understand that certain commercial and financial information contained in this Letter Agreement are considered by
Boeing and Customer as confidential and are subject to the terms and conditions set forth in Letter Agreement No. 6-1162-IRS-0182. 
  

			
	Very truly yours,
	
	THE BOEING COMPANY
		
	By	 	 /s/ Nobuko Wiles

		
	Its	 	 Attorney-In-Fact

	
	ACCEPTED AND AGREED TO this
	
	Date: February 19, 2010
	
	UNITED AIR LINES, INC.


			
		
	By	 	 /s/ Kathryn A. Mikells

		
	Its	 	
Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer



 

 P.A. No. 3427 

[CONFIDENTIAL MATERIAL OMITTED AND FILED SEPARATELY WITH THE SEC PURSUANT TO A REQUEST FOR CONFIDENTIAL TREATMENT] to the Purchase Agreement

 BOEING / UNITED PROPRIETARY
Parraguirre 

appellant's knowing acquiescence in existing conditions, 2and the State 

may suffer prejudice from the delay. Hart v. State, 116 Nev. 558, 563-64, 

1 P.3d 969, 972 (2000). Furthermore, as a separate and independent basis 

for affirming the district court's order, we conclude that appellant failed to 

provide any facts or evidence demonstrating that he was incompetent 

when he entered his guilty plea. Hargrove v. State,100 Nev. 498, 503, 686 

P.2d 222, 225 (1984). Accordingly, we 

ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED. 3 

,J. 

Hardesty 

2Appellant previously filed post-conviction petitions for a writ of 

habeas corpus in 2007 and 2008. Davis v. State, Docket No. 49451 (Order 

of Affirmance, October 3, 2007); Docket No. 51723 (Order of Affirmance, 

August 18, 2009). He failed to demonstrate why the claim raised in his 

current motion could not have been raised in his previous petitions. 

3We have reviewed all documents that appellant has submitted in 

proper person to the clerk of this court in this matter, and we conclude 

that no relief based upon those submissions is warranted. To the extent 

that appellant has attempted to present claims or facts in those 

submissions which were not previously presented in the proceedings 

below, we have declined to consider them in the first instance. 

2 
cc: Hon. Carolyn Ellsworth, District Judge 

Matthew A. Davis 

Attorney General/Carson City 

Clark County District Attorney 

Eighth District Court Clerk 

3
agreement


EXHIBIT 10.2







AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO

AGREEMENT

 

This Amendment No. 1 (the “Amendment No. 1”) to that certain Agreement (the “Agreement”) made by and between Selga Auto, LLC, a Georgia limited liability company (the “Agent”), and Selga Inc., a Nevada corporation (the “Corporation”) is made this 27th day of April, 2010.    




WHEREAS, the parties entered into the Agreement on January 9, 2010;




WHEREAS, the parties wish to amend the Agreement, as set forth herein.




NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of covenants and agreements contained herein and such other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged by each of the parties hereto, the parties agree as follows:




1.  Definitions.  Unless the context otherwise provides, all defined terms used herein shall have the meaning assigned to them in the Agreement, and the Agreement shall continue to apply and be effective unless as amended hereby.




2.  Amendment to Section 2 of the Agreement.  Section of the Agreement is hereby amended to add the following sentence:




“In the event that the Agent and the Corporation bid for the purchase of the same automobile or otherwise compete, then the Agent must immediately withdraw its bid and not compete with the Corporation for the purchase of such automobile and not otherwise compete with the Corporation.”




3.  Continuing Effect of the Agreement.  Except as specifically set forth herein, the Agreement shall remain in full force and effect and shall not be waived, modified, superseded or otherwise affected by this Amendment No. 1.  This Amendment No. 1 is not to be construed as a release, waiver or modification of any of the terms, representations, warranties, covenants, rights or remedies set forth in the Patent License Agreement, except as specifically set forth herein.




4.  Governing Law.  This Amendment No. 1 shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of Georgia.




5.  Counterparts.  This Amendment No. 1 may be executed in several counterparts, by telecopied facsimile and scanned e-mail attachment, and each such executed counterpart, telecopied facsimile or scanned e-mail attachment shall constitute one and the same Amendment No. 1.






1 | Page










6.  Effective Date.  This Amendment has been executed by the parties hereto as of the day and year first written.




7.  Entire Agreement.  The Agreement and this Amendment No. 1 contain all of the terms and conditions agreed upon by the parties relating to the subject matter of the Agreement and supersede all prior agreements, negotiations, correspondence, undertakings, and communications of the parties, whether oral or written, respecting that subject matter.




IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Agent and the Corporation have executed this Amendment No. 1 in duplicate originals by their respective officers. 














		
	SELGA AUTO, LLC.

	SELGA INC.


	





By:    /s/    Eduard Magelis

	





By:    /s/    Olegs Petusko


	Name:  Eduard Magelis

	Name: Olegs Petusko


	Title:  LLC Manager and CEO

	Title:  President





















2 | Page
**Exhibit31.2**

**Certificationof Chief Financial Officer**

I, Scott M. Horvitz, certify that:

1.  I havereviewed this quarterly report of Robcor Properties, Inc.;

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

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

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

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

(b)        [Paragraphomitted pursuant to SEC Release Nos. 33-8238 and 34-47986];

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

(d)        Disclosedin this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financial reportingthat occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (theregistrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and

5.  Theregistrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on ourmost recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to theregistrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board ofdirectors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

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

(b)        Anyfraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees whohave a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting.

Date: May 15, 2007
| /s/ Scott M. Horvitz |   |
|----------------------|--------|

Scott M. Horvitz

Chief Financial Officer,Treasurer

and Secretary

----
#### W. L. Bell, Plaintiff in Error, v. W. B. Ferris and H. G. DeSilva, partners under the firm name of B. R. Pitt Mill Company, Defendants in Error.

Division A.

Writ of error to Circuit Court, Escambia county; Evelyn C. Maxwell, Judge.

John C. Avery for plaintiff in error.

William Fisher and E. D. Beggs for defendants in error.

This action was brought by the defendants in error against the plaintiff in error. There was judgment for the plaintiffs, and the defendant takes writ of error. Judgment affirmed.

Decision *Per Curiam.*
An official website of the United States government         Here's how you know         
**Official websites use .mil**
A **.mil** website belongs to an official U.S. Department of Defense organization in the United States.
**Secure .mil websites use HTTPS**
 A **lock (lock )** or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .mil website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Skip to main content (Press Enter).

Defense Logistics AgencyThe Nation's Combat Logistics Support Agency

Search
Search

Search

-  Home		 
-  What DLA Offers    -  Excess Property Disposal             
  -  Document Services             
  -  Products             
  -  Services             
  -  Programs 
-  Working With DLA    -  Applications             
  -  Small Business             
  -  Federal and International Cataloging             
  -  Defense Data Standards             
  -  Events             
  -  Procurement Policies             
  -  Government Programs             
  -  Forms 
-  Organizations    -  DLA Headquarters             
  -  DLA Aviation             
  -  DLA Disposition Services             
  -  DLA Distribution             
  -  DLA Energy             
  -  DLA Land and Maritime             
  -  DLA Troop Support             
  -  DLA CENTCOM & SOCOM             
  -  DLA Europe & Africa             
  -  DLA Indo-Pacific 
-  Customer Support    -  Self Help Tools             
  -  How to Order             
  -  Find Your Order             
  -  Customer Facing Offices             
  -  Training             
  -  Brochures             
  -  Warfighter Support             
  -  Customer Service Management 
-  Careers		 
-  About DLA    -  Contact Us             
  -  Locations             
  -  Leaders             
  -  News             
  -  History             
  -  Media Gallery             
  -  DLA Campaigns 

HomeAbout DLAImages

# DLA Images

Search

Search

                                  - All Images 
                                  - Other 

                                  - Upload Date
                                  - Photo Date
                                  - Title

Share

----

Download Image: Small ()Medium ()Full Size (1.3 MB)

Tags:DLA Distribution, California, DLA, DLA San Joaquin, National Peace Officers’ Memorial Observance 

Photo by:VIRIN: 

Photo Gallery
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-4030

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee,

v. DAVID WILLIAMS, Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Andre M. Davis, District Judge. (1:06- cr-00591-AMD-1)

Submitted: October 27, 2009 Decided: November 23, 2009

Before KING, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

James Wyda, Federal Public Defender, Joanna Silver, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellant. Rod J. Rosenstein, United States Attorney, James G. Warwick, Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.PER CURIAM: Following a bench trial, David Williams was convicted of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) (2006), and sentenced to 262 months in prison. Williams appeals, contending that his sentence is procedurally unreasonable because the district court miscalculated his guidelines range and treated the guidelines as mandatory. Finding his claims meritless, we affirm. We review a sentence for reasonableness under an abuse of discretion standard. Gall v. United States , 552 U.S. 38, __, 128 S. Ct. 586, 597 (2007). This review requires appellate consideration of both the procedural and substantive
reasonableness of a sentence. Id. In this case, Williams challenges only the procedural reasonableness of his sentence. In determining whether a sentence is procedurally reasonable, we first assess whether the district court properly calculated the defendant’s advisory guidelines range. Id. at 596-97. We then determine whether the district court failed to consider the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2006) factors and any arguments presented by the parties, selected a sentence based on “clearly erroneous facts,” or failed to sufficiently explain the
selected sentence. Id. at 597. Williams asserts that the district court miscalculated his guidelines range because it incorrectly believed that it

23 could impose an obstruction of justice enhancement. However, the court did not apply such an enhancement. Therefore, Williams is not entitled to relief on this claim. Williams also argues that his sentence is procedurally unreasonable because the district court treated the guidelines as mandatory by imposing a within-guidelines sentence after repeated remarks that the guidelines range was too long. This claim is belied by the record, which shows that the court also noted that Williams had earned that guidelines range and that a sentence within that range was necessary to satisfy the goals of sentencing under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment. 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.

AFFIRMED
EXHIBIT 32.1



Section 1350 Certification



In connection with the Quarterly Report of Social Reality, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2017 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), I, Christopher Miglino, Chief Executive Officer, and I, Joseph P. Hannan, Chief Financial Officer, of the Company, do hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



|   |                                                                                                                                  
|-- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|1. | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and



|   |                                                                                                                                                      
|-- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|2. | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial conditions and results of operations of the Company.



|                 |  |                                                                                                  
|---------------- |  | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|February 7, 2018 |  | /s/ Christopher Miglino
Christopher Miglino, Chief Executive Officer, principal executive officer



|                 |  |                                                                                                           
|---------------- |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|February 7, 2018 |  | /s/ Joseph P. Hannan
Joseph P. Hannan, Chief Financial Officer, principal financial and accounting officer





A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signatures that appear in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement 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.
Heath Morton

Heather Morton

Eye In The Sky Aerial Photography

76 Tanager Court

Chillicothe, Ohio 45601

Federal Aviation Administration:

Specific Sections in which Eye In The Sky Aerial Photography is seeking an exemption:

IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR EXEMPTION OF: EYE IN THE SKY AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY

FOR AN EXEMPTION SEEKING RELIEF FROM THE REQUIREMENTS OF

TITLE 14 OF THE CODE OF FEDERAL REGULATIONS SECTIONS 61.113(a) & (b), 91.7(a), 91.121, 91.151(b),

91.405(a), 91.409(a)(1) & (a)(2), and 91.417(a) & (b) CONCERNING COMMERCIAL OPERATION OF DJI PHANTOM 

3 UNMANNED AIRCRAFT SYSTEMS PURSUANT TO SECTION 333 OF THE FAA MONDERNIZATION 

ANDREFORM ACT OF 2012 (PUBLIC LAW 112-95)

Extent of relief and our reason for seeking relief:

In order to use our Unmanned Aircraft Systems for commercial use. We are seeking this exemption in order to legally 

conduct business and comply with all Federal regulations and standards put forth by the FAA while operating our 

Unmanned Aircraft Systems.

How our request would benefit the public as a whole:

Granting the petition for Eye In The Sky Aerial Photography would allow for us to be able to efficiently, legally, 

economically, and safely perform aerial video and photography of special events, sporting events, land survaillance, real 

estate, commercial inspections, and commercial maintenance over certain areas of these United States. Using Unmanned 

Aircraft Systems such as drone technology would greatly reduce negative impacts on the environment and also provide a 

safer alternative for businesses to conduct land and equipment inspections.

Reasons why the exemption would not adversely affect safety, or how the exemption would provide a level of safety at least

equal to the existing rule:

By adhering to guidelines set forth by the FAA we would not be going above the recommended altitude nor flying at night 

therefore avoiding any hazardous accidents such as colliding with a manned aircraft. We will also be regularly test flying 

and doing daily maintenance logs to ensure the quads are in proper working order for each job or event as to prevent 

damage or bodily injury.

Summary to publish in the Federal Register stating --

1. SEEKING RELIEF FROM THE REQUIREMENTS OF

TITLE 14 OF THE CODE OF FEDERAL REGULATIONS SECTIONS 61.113(a) & (b), 91.7(a), 91.121, 91.151(b),

91.405(a), 91.409(a)(1) & (a)(2), and 91.417(a) & (b) CONCERNING COMMERCIAL OPERATION OF DJI PHANTOM

3 UNMANNED AIRCRAFT SYSTEMS PURSUANT TO SECTION 333 OF THE FAA MONDERNIZATION AND

REFORM ACT OF 2012 (PUBLIC LAW 112-95)

2. We are seeking exemption in order to use our UAS for commercial use.

Submitted on July 22, 2015 by:

Heath Morton

Heather Morton

Eye In The Sky Aerial Photography

76 Tanager Court

Chillicothe, Ohio 45601