alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<Page>

                                                                   Exhibit 10.63

JAMES IDE

                                                                 412 CUMNOCK RD.
                                                             INVERNESS, IL 60067

Pliant Corporation
1475 Woodfield Dr.
Schaumburg, IL 60173

                                                                January 26, 2005

As we discussed, I have elected to resign my employment at Pliant to pursue
other interests. I have appreciated the opportunity to work at Pliant.

Following is how I understand we will proceed with my termination:

-    I will remain working at Pliant through the month of February (unless I am
     asked to leave sooner). I will keep Pliant's best interest in mind, and do
     what I can to minimize disruption and ensure a smooth and positive
     transition.

-    I will receive the $70,000 bonus for 2004 which was guaranteed in my offer
     letter.

-    We will mutually agree on wording for the internal announcement and
     external press release insofar as they relate to me or my reasons for
     resigning (which are indicated above).

-    In the event I am asked about Pliant or why I resigned, I will indicate
     that my experience with the company, senior management and Board were
     positive, that I believe the turnaround is well under way, and that I left
     the company solely to pursue other interests which were a better fit to my
     long term personal goals. In the event of reference inquires, Pliant agrees
     to refer to the following accomplishments: upgrading the external reports
     (10-Q) and earnings disclosure; recognizing the liquidity implications of
     increasing resin costs and obtaining a bank amendment for an additional $25
     million; leading a financial reporting system upgrade (Hyperion); bringing
     in three team members whom I'd worked with before; and leading the effort
     to maintain trade credit with Dow and Exxon.

-    I will attempt to complete the 2005 Business Plan process on a best efforts
     basis

Please countersign below if you agree with this handling.


Sincerely,

/s/ Jim Ide
Jim Ide


          Pliant Corporation, by   /s/ Harold Bevis
                                 -------------------------------
# C_2021044EN.01003901.xml

| 8.2.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 44/39 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.2.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 44/39

---

Order of the President of the Court of 29 October 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal d’instance d’Aulnay-Sous-Bois — France) — JE, KF v XL Airways SA

(Case C-286/19) (1)

(2021/C 44/47)

Language of the case: French

The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 206, 17.6.2019.

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

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA SECOND DISTRICT

JACQUELINE MARIE MURPHY, ) ) Appellant, ) ) v. ) Case No. 2D18-4282 ) STATE OF FLORIDA, ) ) Appellee. ) ) Opinion filed December 6, 2019. Appeal from the Circuit Court for Charlotte County; George C. Richards, Judge. Howard L. Dimmig, II, Public Defender, and Clark E. Green, Assistant Public Defender, Bartow, for Appellant. Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

CASANUEVA, MORRIS, and SALARIO, JJ., Concur.
# Breathitt - Appalachian Regional Commission

- Kentucky River Area Development District Executive Director Michelle Allen Email &#x6d;&#x69;&#x63;&#x68;&#x65;&#x6c;&#x6c;&#x65;&#64;&#107;&#114;&#97;&#100;&#100;&#46;orgThe post Kentucky River Area Development District appeared first on Appalachian Regional Commission.
# C_2019328EN.01005001.xml

| 30.9.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 328/50 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.9.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 328/50

---

Judgment of the General Court of 11 July 2019 — Hauzenberger v EUIPO (TurboPerformance)

(Case T-349/18) (1)

(EU trade mark - Application for EU figurative mark TurboPerformance - Absolute ground for refusal - Descriptive character - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

(2019/C 328/55)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Andreas Hauzenberger (Sinzing, Germany) (represented by: B. Bittner, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: M. Eberl and D. Hanf, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 5 April 2018 (Case R 2206/2017-4) concerning an application for registration of the figurative sign TurboPerformance as an EU trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Mr Andreas Hauzenberger to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Mr Andreas Hauzenberger to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 259, 23.7.2018.

---
#### CAMDEN TRUST COMPANY, TRUSTEE, ETC., ET AL., COMPLAINANTS-RESPONDENTS, v. ALICE C. GREY LEAMING, ET ALS., DEFENDANTS-RESPONDENTS, ELLA REED HAND, INDIVIDUALLY, ETC., DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

Argued February 21, 1949

Decided February 28, 1949.

*Mr. Henry F. Stockwell*argued the cause for the defendant-appellant *(Messrs. Bleakly, Sto'ckwell & Zink,*attorneys).

*Mr. Furman A. DeMaris, Jr.,*argued the cause for the respondents *(Messrs. Norcross & Farr, Messrs. Boyle, Archer & Greiner, Mr. John L. Morrissey, Mr. John R. DiMona, Mr. Alexander C. Wood, 3rd,*attorneys).

Per Curiam.

The decree under review will be affirmed for the reasons expressed in the opinion of Vice Chancellor Wood-ruff in the former Court of Chancery.

*For affirmance:*Chief Justice Vanderbilt and Justices Case, IIeher, Wacheneeld, Burling, and Ackerson—6.

*For reversal:*None.
# Blount - Appalachian Regional Commission

- East Tennessee Development District Executive Director Rick Yakubic Email &#x72;&#x79;&#97;&#107;ub&#x69;&#x63;&#x40;&#101;td&#x64;&#x2e;&#x6f;&#114;&#103;The post East Tennessee Development District appeared first on Appalachian Regional Commission.
```

[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 117 (Thursday, August 2, 2012)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E1391-E1392]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

             SEEKING A RESOLUTION TO THE DISPUTE ON CYPRUS

                                 ______
                                 

                            HON. DAN BURTON

                               of indiana

                    in the house of representatives

                        Thursday, August 2, 2012

  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, I once again come to this Floor 
to urge my colleagues to support efforts to achieve a resolution to the 
dispute on Cyprus. Tragically, I find myself here once again as yet 
another year has gone by with no end to the conflict.
  While the Cyprus dispute is most directly between Greek Cypriots and 
Turkish Cypriots, it has larger implications for regional security and 
prosperity. Over the past few decades this dispute has involved not 
only the Cypriot communities, but also Turkey, Greece, the United

[[Page E1392]]

Kingdom, the United States, the United Nations, and the European Union. 
Moreover, Turkey's membership to the European Union, which the United 
States enthusiastically supports, is unfortunately being impacted 
because of the impasse over Cyprus.
  In 2003, it looked like we were on the cusp of a resolution when 
Cypriots voted on the United Nations backed Annan Plan which would have 
created the United Cyprus Republic, as a loose confederation of two 
component states--the Greek Cypriot State and the Turkish Cypriot 
State.
  That plan provided a strong framework for a bi-zonal, bi-communal 
unified Cyprus; and the U.S. House of Representatives strongly endorsed 
the plan by unanimously approving a Sense of the House to that effect. 
Regrettably, the Annan Plan did not succeed when put to a referendum.
  Ultimately, the Cypriots themselves are the ones who must make the 
tough decisions that will ensure a peaceful future for their island. 
Nevertheless, I urge the administration to work with all stakeholders 
to ensure that a future unified Cyprus is a Cyprus that respects human 
rights and the fundamental freedoms for all Cypriots. Any unnatural or 
unnecessary artificial limitations imposed on either community are a 
recipe for future disaster.
  Mr. Speaker, I truly believe that a lasting, fair and comprehensive 
solution to the conflict on Cyprus is possible. If we avoid 
inflammatory rhetoric and political statements and instead work in 
unison to bolster the efforts of the Greek Cypriots and the Turkish 
Cypriots to work together in good faith for the future of all Cypriots; 
the future will be bright for Cyprus.

                          ____________________
```
#### BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT OF CITY OF TULSA v. FRANKLIN.

No. 35513.

Supreme Court of Oklahoma.

Nov. 10, 1953.

A. M. Widdows, Edmund Lashley, of Tulsa, for plaintiff in error.

O’NEAL, Justice.

Plaintiff in error, The Board of Adjustment of the City of Tulsa, Oklahoma, appealed from an order entered in favor of Onis Franklin, defendant in error, and on September 15, 1952, filed its brief. The brief and the authorities therein cited reasonably sustain the allegations of plaintiff in error. The defendant in error has filed no brief and has offered no excuse for such failure. Under such circumstances, as held by this court in Durham v. Brown, 164 Okl. 139, 24 P.2d 295, it is not the duty of this court to search the record for some theory upon which to sustain the action of the trial court, but the court may in its discretion reverse and remand the cause with directions.

The cause is reversed and remanded with directions to the trial court to vacate the judgment entered for the defendant in error and enter judgment for the plaintiff in error in accordance with the prayer of the petition in error.
# C_2010234EN.01003503.xml

| 28.8.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 234/35 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.8.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 234/35

---

Order of the General Court of 14 July 2010 — Deutsche Post v Commission

(Case T-570/08) (1)

1

(Action for annulment - State aid - Information injunction - Non-actionable measure - Inadmissibility)

2010/C 234/63

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Deutsche Post AG (Bonn, Germany) (represented by: J. Sedemund and T. Lübbig, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: B. Martenczuk, Agent)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Application for the annulment of the decision contained in the Commission’s letter of 30 October 2008, requiring information to be provided in the proceedings relating to State aid to Deutsche Post AG (C 36/2007 (ex NN 25/2007)).

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The action is dismissed as inadmissible. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

| 2. | Deutsche Post AG shall pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Deutsche Post AG shall pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 55, 7.3.2009.

1

---
```

[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 117 (Thursday, August 2, 2012)]
[House]
[Page H5633]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

                 DESIGNATION OF THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE

  The SPEAKER pro tempore laid before the House the following 
communication from the Speaker:

                                               Washington, DC,

                                                   August 2, 2012.
       I hereby appoint the Honorable Steve Womack to act as 
     Speaker pro tempore on this day.
                                                  John A. Boehner,
     Speaker of the House of Representatives.

                          ____________________
```
<PAGE>   1

                                                                      EXHIBIT 21

                     LIST OF SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

    <S>                                                             <C>

    WHOLLY-OWNED SUBSIDIARIES:

      Americo Services, Inc.....................................    Missouri

      United Fidelity Life Insurance Company....................    Texas

      Great Southern Life Insurance Company.....................    Texas

      The College Life Insurance Company of America.............    Texas

      Loyalty Life Insurance Company............................    Texas

      National Farmers Union Life Insurance Company.............    Texas

      The Victory Life Insurance Company........................    Kansas

    50%-OWNED SUBSIDIARIES:

      Argus Health Systems, Inc.................................    Delaware

      Hereford LLP..............................................    Missouri

      College Insurance Group...................................    Missouri

      Financial Assurance Incorporated..........................    Texas

      Annuity Service Corporation...............................    Texas
</TABLE>
# C_2010011EN.01002501.xml

| 16.1.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 11/25 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.1.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 11/25

---

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 19 November 2009 — Michail v Commission

(Case T-49/08 P) (1)

1

(Appeal - Cross-appeal - Staff case - Officials - Staff Report - Career Development Report - 2003 Assessment period - Award of a merit mark in the absence of tasks to be carried out - Non-material loss - Duty of the Civil Service Tribunal to state reasons)

2010/C 11/48

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Parties

Appellant: Christos Michail (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: C. Meïdanis, lawyer)

Appellant:

Other party to the proceedings: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: J. Currall and K. Herrmann, Agents, and E. Bourtzalas, lawyer)

Other party to the proceedings:

Re:

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 22 November 2007 in Case F-67/05 Michail v Commission, not yet published in the ECR, seeking the setting aside of that judgment.

Michail

Commission

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Sets aside the judgment of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 22 November 2007 in Case F-67/05 Michail v Commission, not yet published in the ECR; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Sets aside the judgment of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 22 November 2007 in Case F-67/05 Michail v Commission, not yet published in the ECR;

| 2. | Refers the case back to the Civil Service Tribunal; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Refers the case back to the Civil Service Tribunal;

| 3. | Orders that the costs be reserved. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders that the costs be reserved.

---

(1)  OJ C 107, 26.4.2008.

1

---
Dear Sir or Madam,

I, David Dubin , am writing pursuant to the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 and the procedures contained within 14 C.F.R. 11, to request that I, David Dubin , an owner and operator of small unmanned aircraft, be exempted from the Federal Aviation Regulations (FARs) listed below so that I, David Dubin , may operate my small ultra light weight unmanned aircraft system (UAS) commercially in airspace regulated by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA).

As described herein I, David Dubin , am a licensed Realtor within the State of Tennessee and also an experienced fixed wing and powered parachute p ilot (Certificate # 3444519) . I hav e selected the DJI Phantom 3 U AS which is equipped with a built in camera with intent for aerial videography/cinematography to enhance academic community awareness for those individuals and companies unfamiliar with the geographical layout of the East Tennessee area, and augment real estate listing videos; following exemption and approval by the FAA. Thereby enhancing

their academic research experience for the East Tennessee area.

See attached file(s)
#### Irving H. Harris, Doing Business as Irving H. Harris, Respondent, *v.*Muriel Sportswear, Inc., Appellant.

Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department,

October 22, 1959.

*Robert Hoffman*and *Samuel S. Kolman*for appellant.

Ho one appearing for respondent.

*Per Curiam.*

The examination of the plaintiff before trial was conditioned on the defendant corporation appearing here from Miami, Florida, for its examination and producing its books and records. Since defendant was brought into this action involuntarily and was a foreign corporation resident at a great distance from this city, with no officer or employee available here, the granting of the conditional examination was an improvident exercise of discretion. In the circumstances, the examination of the plaintiff should have been granted unconditionally and the examination of the defendant should have been deferred to a date more proximate to the trial or directed defend*770ant’s examination be taken by deposition *(Probst*v. *Frenkel,*240 App. Div. 504; *Wiesenberg*v. *Koster,*167 Misc. 852, affd. 254 App. Div. 661; *Kraushaar*v. *Gross,*270 App. Div. 953; *Honig*v. *Edlill Realty Corp.,*282 App. Div. 796; *Meinig*v. *United States Fastener Co.,*194 App. Div. 397).

The order should be modified, with $10 costs to defendant, to the extent of striking therefrom the condition requiring defendant to appear for the examination at the date stated, and otherwise affirmed. The examination of plaintiff shall proceed at Special Term, Part II, of the Central Municipal Court, at the courthouse, 8 Eeade Street, Manhattan, New York City, on October 29,1959 at 10:00 a.m. The defendant, by its officer having knowledge of the subject matter of the inquiry, is directed to appear for examination on November 12, 1959 at 10:00 a.m. at the courthouse aforestated and produce all books, records and papers relevant to the subject matter of the inquiry for use pursuant to section 296 of the Civil Practice Act.

Concur — Hoestadter, J. P., Aurelio and Tilzer, JJ.

Order modified, etc.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v James Pender, Appellant.

— Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: By failing to object, defendant failed to preserve for appellate review his argument that he had a right to be present at the in-chambers charge conference *(see, People v Gallow,*171 AD2d 1061).

We have examined defendant’s remaining arguments on appeal and find them to be without merit. (Appeal from Judgment of Monroe County Court, Egan, J. — Robbery, 1st Degree.) Present — Doerr, J. P., Green, Pine, Lawton and Davis, JJ.
Unit coal consumption tons coal

yr

x 2,000 lb

ton

x

0.454 kg

lb

x

trace element ppmw (by State of coal origin)

1,000,000

x coal cleaning factor  kg trace element

yr

Unit coal consumption tons coal

yr x 2,000 lbton x 0.454 kglb x trace element ppmw (by State of coal origin)1,000,000  kg trace elementyr

Unit oil consumption bbls oil

yr x 42 galbbl x 8.2 lbgal x 0.454 Kglb x trace element ppmw1,000,000  kg trace elementyr

Unit gas consumption cf

yr x trace element ppmv1,000,000 x 1 atm x lb mole x R0.7302 cf x atm x 1(460 68)R x trace element molecular weight (lb)lb mole

x 0.454 kg

lb  kg trace elementyr

D-13

Table D-2. Computer Calculations (Inorganic HAPs)

Feed rate of trace elements to the boiler

For bituminous coal: 

Equation 1

For lignite and subbituminous coal:

Equation 2

For oil:

Equation 3

For natural gas:

Equation 4
State Coal type Compound Concentration, ppmw

D-32

WY Subbituminous ANTIMONY 0.73

ARSENIC 0.69

BERYLLIUM 0.18

CADMIUM 0.13

CHROMIUM 2.82

COBALT 0.87

CHLORINE 118.30

FLUORINE 43.70

LEAD 2.07

MANGANESE 5.65

MERCURY 0.08

NICKEL 2.17

SELENIUM 0.51

Table D-8b. Trace Element Concentrations in Fuel Oil (for 1994

estimates)

Trace Element Concentration in Oil, ppmw

Arsenic 0.306

Beryllium 0.027

Cadmium 0.020

Chromium 0.31

Cobalt 1.63

Chlorine 131

Fluorine 17.5

Lead 1.41

Manganese 0.35

Mercury 0.0092

Nickel 26

Selenium 0.095

Table D-8c. Trace Element Concentrations in Gas

Trace Element Concentration in gas ppmv

Arsenic 0.000963

Cobalt 0.100

Lead 0.100

Mercury 0.0000024

Nickel 0.0500
DJI PHANTOM 3 –

QUAD COPTER 

VTOL Aircraft

WEIGHT (INCLUDING BATTERY AND PROPELLERS)

1280 g

DIAGONAL SIZE (INCLUDING PROPELLERS)

590 mm

MAX ASCENT SPEED

5 m/s

MAX DESCENT SPEED

3 m/s

HOVER ACCURACY

Vertical: +/- 10cm

Horizontal: +/- 1m

MAX SPEED

16 m/s (ATTI mode, no wind)

MAX ALTITUDE ABOVE SEA LEVEL

6000 m

OPERATING TEMPERATURE

0°C to 40°C

GPS MODE

GPS/GLONASS

Camera

SENSOR

Sony EXMOR 1/2.3” Effective pixels: 12.4 M (total pixels: 12.76 M)

LENS

FOV 94° 20 mm (35 mm format equivalent) f/2.8, focus at ∞

ISO RANGE

100-3200 (video) 100-1600 (photo) 

SHUTTER SPEED

8s -1/8000s

IMAGE MAX SIZE

4000 x 3000

STILL PHOTOGRAPHY MODES

Single Shot

Burst Shooting: 3/5/7 shots

Auto Exposure Bracketing (AEB): 3/5

Bracketed Frames at 0.7EV Bias

Time-lapse

VIDEO RECORDING MODES

Phantom 3 Professional
UHD: 4096x2160p 24/25, 3840x2160p 24/25/30

FHD: 1920x1080p 24/25/30/48/50/60

HD: 1280x720p 24/25/30/48/50/60

Phantom 3 Professional

60 Mbps

SUPPORTED FILE FORMATS

FAT32/exFAT

Photo: JPEG, DNG

Video: MP4, MOV (MPEG-4 AVC/H.264)

OPERATING TEMPERATURE

0°C to 40°C

Gimbal

CONTROLLABLE RANGE

Pitch -90° to +30°

STABILIZATION

3-axis (pitch, roll, yaw)

Vision Positioning

MAX VELOCITY

Less than 8 m/s (when 2 m above ground)

ALTITUDE RANGE

30 cm-300 cm

OPERATING RANGE

30 cm-300 cm

OPERATING ENVIRONMENT

Surface with clear pattern and adequate lighting (Lux > 15)

Remote Controller

OPERATING FREQUENCY

2.400 GHz-2.483 GHz

MAX DISTANCE

2000m (outdoors and unobstructed)

VIDEO OUTPUT PORT

USB

OPERATING TEMPERATURE

0°C- 40°C

BATTERY

6000 mAh LiPo 2S

MOBILE DEVICE HOLDER

For tablet or phone

RECEIVER SENSITIVITY (1%PER)
-101 dBm ±2 dBm

TRANSMITTER POWER (EIRP)

FCC: 20 dBm

CE: 16 dBm

WORKING VOLTAGE

1.2 A @7.4 V

Battery Charger

VOLTAGE

17.4 V

RATED POWER

Phantom 3 Professional

100 W

Intelligent Flight 

Battery

CAPACITY

4480 mAh

VOLTAGE

15.2 V

BATTERY TYPE

LiPo 4S

ENERGY

68 Wh

NET WEIGHT

365 g

MAX FLIGHT TIME

Approximately 23 minutes 

OPERATING TEMPERATURE

-10°C to 40°C

MAX CHARGING POWER

100 W

App / Live View

MOBILE APP

DJI Pilot

EIRP

100mW

LIVE VIEW WORKING FREQUENCY

2.4GHz ISM

LIVE VIEW QUALITY

720P @ 30fps (depending on conditions and mobile device)
LATENCY

220ms (depending on conditions and mobile device)

REQUIRED OPERATING SYSTEMS

iOS 8.0 or later

Android 4.1.2 or later

RECOMMENDED DEVICES

iOS: iPhone 5s, iPhone 6, iPhone 6 Plus, iPad Air, iPad Air Wi-Fi + Cellular, iPad mini 2, iPad mini 2 Wi-Fi + 

Cellular, iPad Air 2, iPad Air 2 Wi-Fi + Cellular, iPad mini 3, and iPad mini 3 Wi-Fi + Cellular. This app is 

optimized for iPhone 5s, iPhone 6, and iPhone 6 Plus

Android: Samsung S5, Note 3, Sony Xperia Z3, Google Nexus 7 II, Google Nexus 9, Mi 3, Nubia Z7 mini

*Support for additional Android devices available as testing and development continues