alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 10.32

December 12, 2001



Mr. Craig W. Rhodine
310 Stirrup Trail
Monument, Colorado  80132

Dear Mr. Rhodine:

I am pleased to confirm Ramtron's extension of your employment contract for
your continuation in the position of Chief Operating Officer of Ramtron
International Corporation.

The following are the essential points of our arrangement:

1.  Your salary shall be $200,000.00 annually, paid semi-monthly.

2.  The terms and conditions of the contract entered into between you and
    Ramtron dated February 2, 2001 shall remain the same with the contract
    term ending December 31, 2003.

3.  It is understood that your current stock option allotment will continue to
    be priced and vest at their existing rates.

I very much look forward to your continued employment with Ramtron and feel
your leadership will be significant in achieving our overall objectives.

Please sign and return one of the originals of this extension offer indicating
your acceptance.

Sincerely,                         I accept this offer.


/S/ William W. Staunton, III        /S/ Craig W. Rhodine
----------------------------        -----------------------
William W. Staunton, III            Craig W. Rhodine
Chief Executive Officer             Chief Operating Officer

WWS/klb

                                    Page-1
<PAGE>
III

107TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. CON. RES. 251

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

OCTOBER 17, 2001

Received

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Providing for a conditional adjournment of the House of

Representatives and a conditional recess or adjournment

of the Senate.

1 Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate

2 concurring), That when the House adjourns on the legisla3 tive day of Wednesday, October 17, 2001, it stand ad4 journed until 12:30 p.m. on Tuesday, October 23, 2001,

5 for morning hour debate, or until Members are notified
2

HCON 251 RDS

1 to reassemble pursuant to section 2 of this concurrent res2 olution, whichever occurs first; and that when the Senate

3 recesses or adjourns at the close of business on Wednes4 day, October 17, 2001, or Thursday, October 18, 2001,

5 on a motion offered pursuant to this concurrent resolution

6 by its Majority Leader or his designee, it stand recessed

7 or adjourned until 10 a.m. on Tuesday, October 23, 2001,

8 or at such other time on that day as may be specified by

9 its Majority Leader or his designee in the motion to recess

10 or adjourn, or until Members are notified to reassemble

11 pursuant to section 2 of this concurrent resolution, which12 ever occurs first.

13 SEC. 2. The Speaker of the House and the Majority

14 Leader of the Senate, acting jointly after consultation with

15 the Minority Leader of the House and the Minority Lead16 er of the Senate, shall notify the Members of the House

17 and the Senate, respectively, to reassemble at such place

18 and time as they may designate whenever, in their opinion,

19 the public interest shall warrant it.

Passed the House of Representatives October 17,

2001.

Attest: JEFF TRANDAHL,

Clerk.
#### STATE of Louisiana In the Interest of Howard RUDOLPH, III and Alan Rudolph.

No. 87-CK-1119.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Sept. 4, 1987.

In re Rudolph, Linda and Howard Rudolph, applying for reconsideration of the June 12, 1987, 508 So.2d 74, denial of writ of certiorari and/or review; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. CJ86 1440; Parish of East Baton Rouge, Family Court of E. Baton Rouge, Div. “B”, No. 58499.

Not considered. Not timely filed. See Sup.Ct. Rule 9, Section 6.
EXHIBIT 32.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

The
certification set forth below is being submitted in connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Mueller Water Products, Inc. (the "Report") for the purpose of complying with
Rule 13a-14(b) or Rule 15d-14(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") and Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code.

I,
Thomas E. Fish, the Interim Chief Financial Officer of Mueller Water Products, Inc., certify that, to the best of my knowledge:



|Date: May 13, 2005 |  | By: |  | /s/THOMAS E. FISHThomas E. Fish
Interim Chief Financial Officer
|------------------ |  | --- |  | ---------------------------------------------------------------

---



QuickLinks
Skip to main content (Press Enter).
 Toggle navigation
            
            
            
            U.S. Air Force
                    U.S. Air Force
        Search
                    Search AF.mil:
                        Search
                Search AF.mil:
                    Search
    News
    
        Commentaries

    Features

    Photos

    Art

    Air Force TV

    Radio

    Week in Photos

    Coronavirus Disease 2019

    Air Force Art Collection





    About Us
    
        Air Force Senior Leaders    
        SECAF

    CSAF

    CMSAF

    Biographies

    Adjunct Professors

    Fact Sheets

    Commander's Call Topics    
        CCT Archive

    50 Years of the CMSAF

    The Book

    Speeches Archive    
        Former AF Top 3 Viewpoints and Speeches

    Air Force Warrior Games 2019

    Air Force Strategic Documents

    DoD Warrior Games

    Portraits in Courage    
        Portraits In Courage Vol. I

    Portraits In Courage Vol. II

    Portraits In Courage Vol. III

    Portraits In Courage Vol. IV

    Portraits In Courage Vol. V

    Portraits In Courage Vol. VI

    Portraits In Courage Vol. VII

    Portraits In Courage Vol. VIII

    Portraits In Courage Vol. IX

    Portraits In Courage Vol. X

    Chapman MoH

    The Air Force We Need

    Events 2021

    Focus on Priorities

    Empowered Airmen

    State Licensure Portability

    CSAF Leadership Library    
        CSAF Leadership Library Bookshelf

    2018 CSAF Reading List

    2017 CSAF Reading List

    2016 CSAF Reading List





    AF Sites
    
        Social Media Sites

    Site Registration





    AF Content Management





    Careers





    Contact Us  
 Home
  News
  Photos
 Air Force Photos Search
 Search
 Upload Date Upload DatePhoto DateTitle
  Full Size (1.58 MB)
 Photo Gallery
 Quick Links
                            Join the Air ForceSite MapQuestionsContact UsRSSFOIAIGAF SitesAccessibilityEEOLink DisclaimerStrategic APRSuicide PreventionSAPRUSA.govNo FEAR ActOSI Tip Line
                    Connect
                    Official United States Air Force Website
                        Subscribe to USAF News and Information
          Submit
107TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. CON. RES. 244

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Authorizing the printing of a revised edition of the

publication entitled ‘‘Our Flag’’.
107TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. CON. RES. 244

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

1 Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate

2 concurring),
2

•HCON 244 EH

1 SECTION 1. PRINTING OF REVISED EDITION OF ‘‘OUR

2 FLAG’’.

3 A revised edition of the publication entitled ‘‘Our

4 Flag’’, revised under the direction of the Joint Committee

5 on Printing, shall be printed as a House document.

6 SEC. 2. NUMBER OF COPIES.

7 (a) IN GENERAL.—Except as provided in subsection

8 (b), there shall be printed a number of copies of the publi9 cation described in section 1 as follows:

10 (1) 250,000 for the use of the House of Rep11 resentatives, distributed in equal numbers to each

12 Member of the House and each Delegate and Resi13 dent Commissioner to the Congress.

14 (2) 51,500 for the use of the Senate, distrib15 uted in equal numbers to each Senator.

16 (3) 2,000 for the use of the Joint Committee on

17 Printing.

18 (4) 1,400 for distribution to the depository li19 braries.

20 (b) ALTERNATIVE NUMBER.—If the total printing

21 and production costs of the number of copies provided

22 under subsection (a) exceed $150,000, there shall be

23 printed the maximum number of copies of the publication

24 described in section 1 for which such total costs do not
3

•HCON 244 EH

1 exceed $150,000, with distribution allocated in the same

2 proportion as in subsection (a).

Passed the House of Representatives October 9,

2001.

Attest:

Clerk.
391 A.2d 691

#### Commonwealth v. Massey, Appellant.

Submitted March 21, 1977.

Karl Baker, Assistant Defender, and Benjamin Lemer, Defender, for appellant; Michael R. Stiles, Assistant District Attorney, and F. Emmett Fitzpatrick, District Attorney, for Commonwealth, appellee.

Judgment of sentence affirmed.

WATKINS, former P. J., did not participate in the consideration or decision of this case.
IV

107TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. CON. RES. 114

Expressing the Sense of the Congress with respect to Paul Leroy Robeson.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

APRIL 26, 2001

Mr. RANGEL submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was referred

to the Committee on Government Reform

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Expressing the Sense of the Congress with respect to Paul

Leroy Robeson.

Whereas April 9, 2001, marked the 103rd anniversary of the

birth of Paul Leroy Robeson, a great actor, athlete,

scholar, author, humanitarian, and fighter for civil rights

for people throughout the world;

Whereas Paul Leroy Robeson’s life of achievement made him

truly one of the 20th century’s Renaissance figures and

a role model for youth;

Whereas Paul Leroy Robeson received an academic scholarship at Rutgers University where he was All-American in

football, class valedictorian, and Phi Beta Kappa, and

held four varsity letters, and he later graduated from law

school at Columbia University;
2

•HC 114 IH

Whereas Paul Leroy Robeson was a lawyer, author, world-renowned theatrical performer, and singer who spoke 20

languages and sang songs in over 50 languages all

around the globe;

Whereas, with the rise of fascism in Europe, Paul Leroy

Robeson’s political consciousness grew and he donated

proceeds from his stage performances to Jewish refugees

fleeing Hitler in 1933 and traveled to Spain the next

year to support the anti-fascist forces supporting the

Abraham Lincoln Brigade;

Whereas in our country Paul Leroy Robeson spoke out

strongly for labor and civil rights and at the height of the

McCarthy hysteria had his passport revoked for eight

years because of his outspoken opposition to racism and

colonialism;

Whereas the persecution which Paul Leroy Robeson suffered

during the McCarthy Era represents the types of actions

the Constitution and the Bill of Rights were designed to

prevent; and

Whereas Paul Leroy Robeson was denied this protection, sacrificed his fame and fortune, and endured great personal

hardship for his steadfast principle: Now, therefore, be it

1 Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate

2 concurring), That it is the sense of the Congress that—

3 (1) Paul Leroy Robeson was never accused nor

4 convicted of any crime against the United States

5 and that his reputation should be fully restored;
3

•HC 114 IH

1 (2) Paul Leroy Robeson should be recognized

2 internationally as a pivotal 20th century figure and

3 fighter in the struggle for human rights; and

4 (3) the President should take appropriate meas5 ures to encourage the celebration and remembrance

6 of his achievements.

Æ
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

February 4, 2021

No. 04-20-00478-CV

CITY OF SAN ANTONIO,

Appellant

v.

Albert DAVILA, Individually; Madeline Davila, Individually; and Albert Davila as Trustee of 

the Albert Peña Davila and Madeline Davila Living Trust,

Appellees

From the 225th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2019CI03387

Honorable Aaron Haas, Judge Presiding

ORDER

Appellees filed their brief on February 1, 2021. The brief lacks appropriate citations 

to authorities and to the record. Contra Tex. R. App. P. 38.1(i). There are no citations to the 

record in Appellee’s brief. Contra id. On pages 9 through 16, Appellees make numerous legal 

assertions without appropriate citations to legal authorities. Contra id. The prayer fails to 

clearly state the nature of the relief sought. Contra Tex. R. App. P. 38.1(j).

This court may make any order necessary for satisfactory submission of the case if it 

finds substantive defects in a brief. Id. R. 38.9(b). Therefore, we STRIKE Appellees’ brief and 

ORDER Appellees to file an amended brief due on or before February 18, 2021. The amended 

brief must correct all the violations listed above and fully comply with the applicable 

rules. See, e.g., id. R. 38.1.

If the amended brief does not comply with this order, we may STRIKE Appellee’s brief 

and set this cause for submission without an appellee’s brief. See Jackson v. Tex. Bd. of Pardons 

& Paroles, No. 01-03-00862-CV, 2008 WL 921035, at *1 n.2 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 

Apr. 3, 2008, no pet.) (mem. op.) (“‘In a civil case, the court will accept as true the facts stated 

[in the appellant’s brief] unless another party contradicts them.’” (alteration in original) (quoting 

Tex. R. App. P. 38.1(g))).
_________________________________

Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

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

court on this 4th day of February, 2021.

___________________________________

MICHAEL A. CRUZ, Clerk of Court
#### Walter A.D. Howard HAGLER, Jr., Appellant, v. The STATE of Oklahoma, Appellee.

No. M-82-397.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma.

May 20, 1983.

*1236Robert M. Murphy, Jr., Stillwater, for appellant.

Jan Eric Cartwright, Atty. Gen., Hugh A. Manning, Asst. Atty. Gen., Oklahoma City, for appellee.

OPINION

BUSSEY, Presiding Judge:

Walter A.D. Howard Hagler, Jr., appeals from his conviction for Unlawful Possession of Marihuana and sentence of one hundred and twenty (120) days’ imprisonment in the Payne County jail which arose out of Payne County District Court Case No. CRF-81-345. Appellant was originally charged with the felony crime of Possession of Marihuana with Intent to Distribute but was found by the jury to be guilty of the lesser misdemeanor offense.

In his brief appellant argues that the search which resulted in discovery of marihuana was illegal. We agree.

The record reveals that four police officers went to the appellant’s residence where they broke the front door open and pursuant to a warrant arrested the appellant. Subsequent to arresting the appellant in the living room two of the officers stayed behind for approximately fifteen minutes to secure the premises. During this period of time the officers observed a bottle which officer Howard described in his affidavit for search warrant as containing amphetamines. Officer Howard described the plastic bottle as translucent. However, the other officer, Cushing Police Chief Gourley testified that the bottle was opaque. After issuance and execution of a search warrant the plastic bottle was found to contain decongestant capsules.

Based on the search warrant the officers conducted an extensive search of the appellant’s residence. Several small packages of marihuana were discovered in the living room hidden in the back of a stereo speaker.

In an effort to justify his actions at the in camera suppression hearing, Officer Howard stated that:

> Prior to this confidential informant had purchased marihuana from the defendant. I am not sure of the correct date. But it was not a very long time before this. So in my own belief I do believe that, you know, that in itself presents probable cause that there was [sic] other illicit narcotics in that residence.

However, the alleged informant’s information was never communicated to the magistrate who issued the warrant.

*1237It is clear that Officer Howard’s affidavit for search warrant was based on speculation and suspicion. Officer Howard did not convey sufficient facts to the magistrate to justify issuance of the warrant and the subsequent search. This failure to produce sufficient evidence before the magistrate, either by way of affidavit for the search warrant, or sworn testimony, leaves us no other alternative than to reverse and remand this ease with instructions to dismiss. See, *Looney v. State,*520 P.2d 814 (Okl.Cr.1974).

For all of the above and foregoing reasons, this cause is REVERSED and REMANDED with instructions to DISMISS.

CORNISH and BRETT, JJ., concur.
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-50962

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

MIGUEL DE LA ROSA-PADILLA,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 2:15-CR-419-1

Before JONES, CLEMENT, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Miguel De La RosaPadilla has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance 

with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores, 632 

F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). De La Rosa-Padilla has filed a response. We have 

reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected 

therein, as well as De La Rosa-Padilla’s response. We concur with counsel’s 

 

* 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

June 21, 2016

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 15-50962 Document: 00513558078 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/21/2016
No. 15-50962

2

assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. 

Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is 

excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. 

See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.

 Case: 15-50962 Document: 00513558078 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/21/2016
#### Alonzo John KELLY, Jr., Appellant, v. The STATE of Oklahoma, Appellee.

No. F-81-538.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma.

Oct. 19, 1982.

*769Darrell L. Hogue, Oklahoma City, for appellant.

Jan Eric Cartwright, Atty. Gen. of Okl., Susan Talbot, Asst. Atty. Gen., Chief, Appellate Cr. Div., Oklahoma City, for appel-lee.

OPINION

BUSSEY, Judge:

On appeal from his conviction in the District Court in Oklahoma County for Unlawful Distribution of Controlled Dangerous Substance, Heroin, Case No. CRF-79-980, the appellant raises three assignments of error.

In his first assignment of error appellant argues that the trial court erred when it refused to dismiss the case after the prosecutor failed to state, after reading the information, that the appellant had pled not guilty to the charge, pursuant to 22 O.S.1981, § 831(1). The prosecutor was allowed to reopen and make the required statement. A review of the appellant’s motion for new trial reveals that this specific issue was not addressed. Therefore, we will not consider the issue further. *Turman v. State,*522 P.2d 247 (Okl.Cr.App.1974).

Appellant in his second assignment of error asserts that there was insufficient evidence to support the verdict. This contention is likewise without merit. Testimony elicited from the State’s witness at trial constituted direct evidence of the defendant’s guilt. The first witness, a chemist for the Oklahoma State Bureau of Investigation, testified that he had analyzed the powdery substance contained in a small balloon which had been given him in connection with appellant’s case and that it contained heroin. The State’s second and last witness, an agent with the Oklahoma Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs testified that after being introduced to the appellant by a third party he had personally purchased and obtained the white powdery substance referred to by the chemist from the appellant in exchange for one hundred and fifty dollars. It is clear that a prima facie case was established through competent evidence. Therefore, the jury’s verdict will not be disturbed. *Tharps v. State,*555 P.2d 1054 (Okl.Cr.App.1976).

Appellant’s final assignment of error centers around his contention that a statement made by a potential juror during voir dire prejudiced the remaining jury panel. However, appellant has failed to preserve this issue for consideration on appeal by specifically excluding the voir dire examination from his designation of record. As this Court noted in *Pierce v. State,*495 P.2d 407 (Okl.Cr.App.1972):

> It is incumbent upon the defendant in seeking appeal to bring a sufficient record before the court in order to determine the issues raised.

Absent a record of the voir dire we must find appellant’s assignment of error predicated thereon to be without merit.

For the above reasons, the judgment and sentence is AFFIRMED.

BRETT, P.J. and CORNISH, J., concur.
#### STATE ex rel. Jesse L. CAVANESS v. NINETEENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT, PARISH OF EAST BATON ROUGE, State of Louisiana.

No. 87-KH-1170.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

June 12, 1987.

In re Cavaness, Jesse L.; applying for writ of certiorari and/or review; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. KW87 0576; Parish of East Baton Rouge, 19th Judicial District Court, Div. “E”, No. 10-8-690.

Denied. No showing of particularized need.
Document headings vary by document type but may contain
                    the following: the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document
the number of the CFR title and the number of each part
                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly
                      related to
the agency docket number / agency internal file number
the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in
                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory
                      Actions See the
                    Document Drafting Handbook
                    for more details.
 Department of Justice Drug Enforcement Administration
 By Notice dated January 23, 2012, and published in the 
                    **Federal Register**
                     on January 31, 2012, 77 FR 4831, Mallinckrodt LLC, 3600 North Second Street, St. Louis, Missouri 63147, made application by renewal to the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) to be registered as an importer of the following basic classes of controlled substances: Drug
SchedulePhenylacetone (8501)
IICoca Leaves (9040)
IIOpium, raw (9600)
IIPoppy Straw Concentrate (9670)
II
 The company plans to import the listed controlled substances to manufacture bulk controlled substances for distribution to its customers, and for research and analytical standards. The company has withdrawn its application for registration to import the following drug codes: Methylphenidate (1724), Oxycodone (9143), Hydromorphone (9150), Hydrocodone (9193), Morphine (9300), and Fentanyl (9801). Comments and requests for hearings on applications to import narcotic raw material are not appropriate, 72 FR 3417 (2007). Regarding all other basic classes of controlled substances, no comments or objections have been received. DEA has considered the factors in 21 U.S.C. 823(a) and 952(a), and determined that the registration of Mallinckrodt LLC, to import the basic classes of controlled substances is consistent with the public interest, and with United States obligations under international treaties, conventions, or protocols in effect on May 1, 1971. DEA has investigated Mallinckrodt LLC to ensure that the company's registration is consistent with the public interest. The investigation has included inspection and testing of the company's physical security systems, verification of the company's compliance with state and local laws, and a review of the company's background and history. Therefore, pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 952(a) and 958(a), and in accordance with 21 CFR 1301.34, the above named company is granted registration as an importer of the basic classes of controlled substances listed. Dated: March 23, 2012. Joseph T. Rannazzisi, Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of Diversion Control, Drug Enforcement Administration.


[FR Doc. 2012-7758 Filed 3-30-12; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4410-09-P