alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 10.3

                              MODIFICATION NO. 11

                            TO THE SATELLITE CONTRACT

                   (EchoStar VII - 119(degrees) West Longitude)

                                     BETWEEN

                           LOCKHEED MARTIN CORPORATION

                                       AND

                          ECHOSTAR ORBITAL CORPORATION

                             DATED January 27, 2000



This Modification is effective as of February 7, 2002

WITNESS THAT:

WHEREAS, EchoStar Orbital Corporation ("Buyer") and Lockheed Martin Corporation
("Contractor"), mutually agree to modify the subject Contract to:


o        Delete Contract Modification Number 6 in it's entirety

o        Modify EXHIBIT A, THE ECHOSTAR VII STATEMENT OF WORK, DOC#8575922. This
         modification incorporates mutually agreed upon changes to Paragraph
         14.3b, specifically the In-orbit payload test location from the
         designated orbital location of 148 degrees West longitude, to 129
         degrees West longitude.

NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants and conditions contained
herein, Buyer and Contractor agree to modify the Contract as follows:


1)   Contract Modification Number 6 is hereby deleted in it's entirety and all
     provisions which were in existence prior to Modification Number 6 are
     reinstated as changed by Modifications subsequent to Modification Number 6.


<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 10.3


2) EXHIBIT A EchoStar VII Statement of Work Doc#8575922,

Delete EXHIBIT A EchoStar VII Statement of Work Doc#8575922 Paragraph 14.3b line
1, "148 degrees West" and replace with "129 degrees West".

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Contract Amendment.


ECHOSTAR ORBITAL CORPORATION            LOCKHEED MARTIN CORPORATION

By:                                     By:
    ----------------------------            ------------------------------------
    David K. Moskowitz                      Dean Adams

    Senior Vice President and               Contracts Manager

    General Counsel


EchoStar Communications Corporation hereby guarantees all the obligations and
duties of EchoStar Orbital Corporation under the Contract to which this
guarantee is attached.


ECHOSTAR COMMUNICATIONS

CORPORATION

By:
    ------------------------
    David K. Moskowitz

    Senior Vice President and

    General Counsel
AMES TRUE TEMPER, INC.
 CERTIFICATIONS
 Exhibit 31.2
      a)
    
    designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls
and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information
relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us
by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is
being prepared;b)
    
    designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internal
control over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to provide
reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation
of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted
accounting principles;c)
    
    evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and procedures
and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure
controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such
evaluation; andd)
    
    disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over
financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter (the
registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially
affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal control
over financial reporting; and
  a)
    
    all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of
internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect
the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information;
andb)
    
    any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who
have a significant role in the registrants internal control over financial reporting.
  /s/ David M. NutiDavid M. NutiChief Financial Officer(Principal Financial Officer)
1 

Date: February 27, 2012 

From: Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry 

Subject: Comments on EPA’s Toxicological Review of Ammonia

To: Environmental Protection Agency 

ATSDR’s Division of Toxicology and Environmental Medicine (DTEM) has completed a 

second round of review of the IRIS toxicological review of ammonia. We appreciate the 

opportunity to comment on this revised version of the ammonia documents. As this is 

our second review, we offer only a few clarifying comments. Overall, we consider the 

document well-written and appropriate. 

Page 6, Table 1-1: Respiratory effects in humans following inhalation exposure. The first 

entry for the Holness et al., 1989 study (in Results) should indicate that the values 

presented represent percentages, as is done with the second entry in this table. 

Page 9, Table 1-2: Respiratory effects in animals following inhalation exposure. 

Consider revising the first entry in the table for clarity. This entry combines data from 5 

different species into one entry for the Coon et al., 1970 study. The first entry states 

"Nonspecific lung inflammation observed in guinea pigs and rats but not in other species 

at 183 mg/m3" and the LOAEL is shown as = 183 mg/m3. We suggest specifying the 

species for which the NOAEL or LOAEL was identified, i.e., NOAEL = 183 mg/m3 for 

dog and rabbit, LOAEL = 183 mg/m3 for rats and guinea pigs. This entry also states 

"focal pneumonitis in 1 of 3 monkeys at 36.9 mg/m3.” We suggest listing this value as a 

LOAEL for squirrel monkeys. 

Executive Summary, page xx, line 14. Change “biological” to “biologically” plausible. 

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH & HUMAN SERVICES

Public Health Service 

Agency for Toxic Substances 

 and Disease Registry 

Memorandum
<PAGE>   1
                                                                      EXHIBIT 15



Goody's Family Clothing, Inc.
Knoxville, Tennessee

We have made a review, in accordance with standards established by the American
Institute of Certified Public Accountants, of the unaudited interim financial
information of Goody's Family Clothing, Inc. as of and for the thirteen weeks
ended May 5, 2001 and April 29, 2000, as indicated in our report dated May 22,
2001; because we did not perform an audit, we expressed no opinion on that
information.

We are aware that our report referred to above, which is included in your
Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended May 5, 2001, is incorporated
by reference in Registration Statements Nos. 333-32357, 33-51210, 33-68520,
333-00052 and 333-09595 on Form S-8.

We also are aware that the aforementioned report, pursuant to Rule 436(c) under
the Securities Act of 1933, is not considered a part of the Registration
Statement prepared or certified by an accountant or a report prepared or
certified by an accountant within the meaning of Sections 7 and 11 of that Act.



/s/ Deloitte & Touche LLP
Atlanta, Georgia
May 22, 2001
Exhibit 32.1

                    Certification of Chief Executive Officer

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as created by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, the undersigned officer of Calprop Corporation (the "Company")
hereby certifies, to his knowledge, that:

(i) the accompanying Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the fiscal
year ended December 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.

Date: July 7, 2005

                                                         /s/ Victor Zaccaglin
                                                         -----------------------
                                                         Victor Zaccaglin
                                                         Chairman of the Board
                                                         Chief Executive Officer


                                      -50-
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA SECOND DISTRICT

E.H., ) ) Appellant, ) ) v. ) Case No. 2D17-4093 ) STATE OF FLORIDA, ) ) Appellee. ) ) Opinion filed June 27, 2018. Appeal from the Circuit Court for Polk County; Mark Hofstad, Judge. Howard L. Dimmig, II, Public Defender, and Clark E. Green, Assistant Public Defender, Bartow, for Appellant. Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

KELLY, VILLANTI, and LUCAS, JJ., Concur.
#### Christina Sperling, Appellant-Respondent, v 145 East 15th Street Tenants’ Corporation, Respondent-Appellant, et al., Intervenor.

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Eugene Nardelli, J.), entered on October 17, 1990, which, *inter alia,*declared that the subject apartment is not a penthouse, declared that the tenant’s terrace area does not include the unimproved northern portion of the adjacent roof, determined the extent to which the Cooperative Corporation may have access to the lower roof of the building through the tenant’s apartment, awarded the tenant $5,000 in damages and $5,000 in legal fees, and restricted the tenant’s rights to keep trees and potted plants on her terrace area, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The proprietary tenant and shareholder in this Cooperative residential apartment house was a long-standing tenant before the building converted to Cooperative ownership. The extent *499to which she was allowed to keep trees and large potted plants outside her apartment, and the extent to which the building took access through her apartment to the adjacent lower roof area, were matters for the trial court to resolve. Adoption of the arguments for alternative conclusions offered on the appeal and cross-appeal would require this Court to reject findings of fact and credibility by the IAS court on the ground that they could not be reached under any fair interpretation of the evidence *(see, Claridge Gardens v Menotti,*160 AD2d 544), and to substitute our own judgment for that of the Cooperative Board of Directors on a finding that they did not act within the scope of their authority or in good faith *(see, Matter of Levandusky v One Fifth Ave. Apt. Corp.,*75 NY2d 530). The record presents no basis to reach either such conclusion.

The IAS court correctly awarded the proprietary tenant counsel fees only to the limited extent to which she prevailed, and correctly declined to award the Cooperative Corporation attorney fees on the conclusion that there was no substantial violation of the proprietary lease. Attorney fees pursuant to Real Property Law § 234 are appropriate only to the extent that a party prevails.

We have considered the remaining contentions on the appeal and cross-appeal, and find them to be without merit. Concur—Murphy, P. J., Carro, Ellerin and Asch, JJ.
Electronically Filed

Intermediate Court of Appeals

CAAP-12-0000599

17-APR-2015

08:19 AM
#### Ivonne Lopez et al., Respondents, v Skate Key, Inc., et al., Appellants.

—Order of the Supreme Court, Bronx County (H. McGee, J.), entered on December 12, 1990, which, *inter alia,*denied defendants’ motions for summary judgment, unanimously reversed, on the law, the motions for summary judgment granted, and the complaint dismissed, without costs. The clerk is directed to enter judgment in favor of defendants dismissing plaintiffs’ complaint.

This personal injury action arises from an accident at a roller-skating rink operated by defendant-appellant Skate Key, Inc. Plaintiff-respondent Ivonne Lopez accompanied her daughter on a roller-skating trip sponsored by the Girl Scout Council of Greater New York. Approximately 200 girl scouts took part in the trip. While plaintiff was standing in the rink in a group of skaters waiting to exit from the rink, she was struck from behind by an out-of-control skater and fell breaking her wrist. The identity of the other skater is unknown.

The Motion Court denied the motions for summary judgment holding that factual issues are present, including "the manner in which the accident occurred, the supervision of the event as provided by the two defendants, and the alleged congestion caused by the close proximity of the rental office to the rink.” The Motion Court also granted that part of the motions which sought to dismiss the derivative claim of plaintiff’s husband.

While we agree with the Motion Court’s dismissal of the derivative claim, we disagree as to the existence of triable issues of fact.

Participants in sporting events are deemed as a matter of law to assume the known risks associated with the particular sport. *(Turcotte v Fell,*68 NY2d 432; *Wertheim v United States Tennis Assn.,*150 AD2d 157, *lv denied*74 NY2d 613.) Collisions between roller skaters on a rink are unquestionably a common occurrence.

*535Plaintiff argues that because she was standing in a group waiting to exit, she should be treated more as a spectator than a participant, and that a factual question is presented whether the defendants took adequate precautions to protect spectators. We hold that on this record there is insufficient evidence of the existence of a dangerous condition for a sufficient period of time to put defendant on notice, and that the collision was a result of the " 'sudden and abrupt’ ” action of another skater *(Taynor v Skate Grove,*150 AD2d 362), a risk assumed by plaintiff as a matter of law. *(See, Diderou v Pinecrest Dunes,*34 AD2d 672.) Concur—Murphy, P. J., Carro, Wallach and Rubin, JJ.
NOTICE: NOT FOR OFFICIAL PUBLICATION. UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE.

IN THE 

## A RIZONA 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEALS

D IVISION O NE

In the Matter of:

TEN THOUSAND DOLLARS ($10,000.00) I N UNITED STATES CURRENCY.

_______________________________ STATE OF ARIZONA, Plaintiff/Appellant
,

v

.
LEOPOLD SALEEM, Claimant/Appellee

.
No. 1 CA

- CV 14

- 0379

Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County

No. CV2012

- 018339 The Honorable Robert H. Oberbillig
, Judge

REV ERSED AND REMANDED

COUNSEL
Maricopa County Attorney's Office , Phoenix By Peter S. Spaw Counsel for Plaintiff/Appellant

Leopold Saleem
, Ft. Grant Claimant /AppelleeSTATE v. SALEEM Decision of the Court

2 MEMORANDUM DECISION
Judge Diane M. Johnsen delivered the decision of the Court, in which Presiding Judge Kent E. Cattani and Judge Lawrence F. Winthrop joined.

J O H N S E N , Judge:

¶1 The State appeals the superior court's grant of summary judgment in a civil forfeiture proceeding. We reverse the judgment and remand for further proceedings

. ¶2 After a drug dog alerted to currency in Leopold Saleem's bag at the airport, the State seized the currency for forfeiture. Saleem filed a claim of interest and in due course moved for summary jud gment, arguing there was insufficient evidence to link the money to the sale or possession of drugs

. See In re Twenty

- Four Thousand Dollars ($24,000) in U.S. Currency
, 217 Ariz. 199 , 201, ¶ 7 ( App. 2007)

. In response, t he State argued that the drug

- dog alert and Saleem's drug

- related criminal history establish ed a link sufficient to withstand summary judgment

. The court granted Saleem's motion and the State appealed. We have jurisdiction pursuant to Arizona Revised St atutes sections 12

- 120 .21(A)(1)
, - 2101(A)(1) (2015). 1

¶3 Saleem failed t o file an answering brief after receiving notice of the appeal and notice of the filing deadline

. We hold t h is failure constitutes a confession of reversible error. See Bugh v. Bugh , 125 Ariz. 190, 191 (App. 1980 ) (" Where debatable issues are raised, the failure of an appellee to file an answering brief constitutes a confession of reversible error.")

. Accordingly
, we reverse the judgment and remand for further proceedings

.

1 Absent material revisions after the relevant date, we cite a statute's current version.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 97-6056
ANGELO C. CONGO, Petitioner - Appellant, versus VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; CENTRALCLASSIFICATION BUREAU; COURT AND LEGAL MANAGERS; LAUREL A. CORNER; LOU ANN WHITE; DORIS HEUEING, Respondents - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, District Judge. (CA-96-279-AM) Submitted: April 17, 1997 Decided: May 2, 1997 Before NIEMEYER and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.Angelo C. Congo, Appellant Pro Se. Martha Murphey Parrish, Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).* We also deny Congo's motion for appointment of counsel. See Whisenant v. Yuam, 739 F.2d 160, 163 (4th Cir. 1984) (providing standard). 2 PER CURIAM: Appellant seeks to appeal 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'sopinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. * Congo v. Virginia Dep't of Corrections , No. CA-96-279-AM (E.D. Va. Nov. 15, 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.

DISMISSED
Exhibit
      32(f)







**CERTIFICATION
      FURNISHED 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 Annual Report on Form 10-K of Florida Power Corporation
      (the
“Company”) for the year ended December 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities and
      Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Peter M. Scott III,
      Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify,
      pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
      Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:




(1)  the
      Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as
      applicable, 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 condition and result of operations of the Company.











/s/
      Peter M. Scott III


Peter
      M.
      Scott III


Executive
      Vice President and


Chief
      Financial Officer


February
      26, 2007








This
      certification is being furnished and shall not be deemed filed by the Company
      for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended,
      or incorporated by reference in any filing under the Securities Exchange Act
      of
      1934, as amended, or the Securities Act of 1933, as amended.
[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 4 (Monday, January 7, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Page 956]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-00027]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Health Resources and Services Administration


National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program: Revised Amount of 
the Average Cost of a Health Insurance Policy

    The Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) is 
publishing an updated monetary amount of the average cost of a health 
insurance policy as it relates to the National Vaccine Injury 
Compensation Program (VICP).
    Section 100.2 of the VICP's implementing regulation (42 CFR Part 
100) states that the revised amounts of an average cost of a health 
insurance policy, as determined by the Secretary, are to be published 
periodically in a notice in the Federal Register and filed with the 
United States Court of Federal Claims (the Court). This figure is 
calculated using the most recent Medical Expenditure Panel Survey-
Insurance Component (MEPS-IC) data available as the baseline for the 
average monthly cost of a health insurance policy. This baseline is 
adjusted by the annual percentage increase/decrease obtained from the 
most recent annual Kaiser Family Foundation and Health Research and 
Educational Trust (KFF/HRET) Employer Health Benefits survey or other 
authoritative source that may be more accurate or appropriate.
    In 2012, MEPS-IC, available at www.meps.ahrq.gov, published the 
annual 2011 average total single premium per enrolled employee at 
private-sector establishments that provide health insurance. The annual 
figure published was $5,222. This figure is divided by 12 months to 
determine the cost per month of $435.17. The $435.17 shall be increased 
or decreased by the percentage change reported by the most recent KFF/
HRET, available at www.kff.org. The percentage increase was published 
at 3 percent. By adding this percentage increase, the calculated 
average monthly cost of a health insurance policy for a 12 month period 
is $448.23.
    Therefore, the Secretary announces that the revised average cost of 
a health insurance policy under the VICP is $448.23 per month. In 
accordance with Sec.  100.2, the revised amount was effective upon its 
delivery by the Secretary to the Court. Such notice was delivered to 
the Court on November 30, 2012.

    Dated: December 26, 2012.
Mary K. Wakefield,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2013-00027 Filed 1-4-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4165-15-P
Electronically Filed

Intermediate Court of Appeals

CAAP-15-0000046

14-APR-2015

01:05 PM