alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
| Exhibit 10.1 |
|--------------|

****

**AMENDMENT No 4 TO LETTER OF AGREEMENT GPJ-004/96**

This Amendment No. 4 to Letter of Agreement GPJ-004/96, dated as of January 12, 2004 (this “Amendment 4”) relates to Letter of Agreement GPJ-004/96 dated August 5, 1996, as amended from time to time (“Letter 004/96”) between EMBRAER - EmpresaBrasileira de Aeronáutica S.A. (“EMBRAER”) and ExpressJet Airlines, Inc., formerly known asNewExpressJet Airlines, Inc. (as assignee from ExpressJet Airlines, Inc.formerly known as Continental Express, Inc.) (“BUYER”), andconcerns Purchase Agreement No. GPJ-003/96 (the “PurchaseAgreement”) datedAugust 5, 1996 as amended from time to time. This Amendment 4 is between EMBRAER and BUYER, collectively referred to herein as the“PARTIES”.

This Amendment 4 constitutes an amendment and modification of the Letter Agreement GPJ-004/96. Allcapitalized terms used in this Amendment 4 and not defined herein, shall have the meaning given in the PurchaseAgreement, and in case of any conflict between this Amendment 4,Letter 004/96 and the Purchase Agreement, the terms of thisAmendment 4 shall control.

This Amendment 4 sets forth further agreements between EMBRAER and BUYER relative to"[CONFIDENTIAL MATERIAL OMITTED AND FILED SEPARATELY WITH THE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION PURSUANT TOA REQUEST FOR CONFIDENTIAL TREATMENT]".**NOW, THEREFORE, for good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are herebyacknowledged, EMBRAER and BUYER hereby agree as follows:

1.**   ** The text ofArticle 12 of Amendment No. 2 to Letter 004/96 shall be entirely deleted and replaced as follows**: ******"[CONFIDENTIAL MATERIAL OMITTED AND FILED SEPARATELY WITH THE SECURITIES ANDEXCHANGE COMMISSION PURSUANT TO A REQUEST FOR CONFIDENTIAL TREATMENT]"****

2.    All other terms and conditions of the Letter 004/96, which are not specifically amended by this Amendment 4shall remain in full force and effect without any change.

[Intentionally left in blank]

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, EMBRAER and BUYER, by their duly authorized officers, have entered into and executedthis Amendment 4 to be effective as of the date first written above.

**EMBRAER - Empresa Brasileira****de Aeronáutica S.A.**

**EXPRESSJET AIRLINES, INC****.**

 

 

By:           /s/ SatoshiYokota**                                   **

By:            /s/ Frederick S.Cromer**                          **

Name:     Satoshi Yokota

Name:       Frederick S. Cromer

Title:        Executive VP, Development and Industry

Title:          VP and Chief Financial Officer

 

By:           /s/ FlavioRimoli**                                       **

Name:     Flavio Rimoli

Title:        Sr. VP, Airline Market

 

Date:       March 19, 2004

Date:         March 30, 2004

Place:      Sao Jose Dos Campos, SP

Place:       Houston, TX, USA

 

Witness:  /s/ Erika L.Natali                                      

Witness:   /s/ Kristy A.Nicholas                               

Name:     Erika Lulai Natali

Name:       Kristy A. Nicholas**
Rane Wilson

Environmental & Regulatory Supervisor

Anadarko Petroleum Corporation

1 Shale Gas Water Management

Marcellus Initiative 2012

March 29, 2012

# Overview & Disclaimer

Water Storage Options

Freshwater

Flowback

Production

Recycled



## Safe Storage of Flowback and Production Water

Above Ground Risk Mitigation

Below Ground Risk Mitigation

Cost Effectiveness

March 29, 2012 2

# Freshwater Storage Options

March 29, 2012 3 

## Frac Tanks

“Modular” Storage

# Freshwater Storage Options

March 29, 2012 4 

## Impoundments

# Freshwater Storage Options

Above Ground Storage

Tanks (ASTs)

March 29, 2012 5

# Flowback & Production Water

Storage

March 29, 2012 6 

## Flowback

On Location

• Frac Tanks

• Other ?

Off Location

• Centralized Impoundments

• ASTs



## Production Water

ASTs

# Recycled Water Storage

March 29, 2012 7 

## Frac Tanks

Centralized

Impoundments

ASTs

# Safe Storage of Flowback & Production

Water

March 29, 2012 8 

## Frac equip & storage lined

Static-free, anti-slip, & tear resistant

Continuous visual inspection with repair/

replace capability on site

Separate, individual containment under

engines/pumps

Continuous monitoring during all fluid

transfers (“Eyes On”)



## Production ASTs

Tank batteries located within lined

containment

# Integrated Water Distribution

March 29, 2012 9

# Above Ground Risk Mitigation

March 29, 2012 10 

## Proper Planning & Design

Proximal to Development Area

Semi- to Permanent



## Site Constraints

Topography

Soils/Bedrock 

## Type of Fluid

Containment ?

Permits ? 

## Construction Oversight

Impacts to other ops 

## Operations

Inspection

Monitoring/Alarms

Security

Summer/Winter Ops

# Below Ground Risk Mitigation

Proper Planning, Design & Construction

Location, location, location



## Type of Fluid Stored

Permits

Construction Standards

• Sub-base

• Primary & Secondary Liner

• Interstitial Leak Detection System

• Groundwater Monitoring (4 wells) 

## Operations

Inlet/Outlet Manifolds

Level and Alarm Telemetry

Inspection

Security

Winter/Summer

March 29, 2012 11

# Cost Effectiveness

Above Ground Storage

Low profile modular (1 to 3 MGs) ~$200K to $500K, plus site

preparation/construction

Large diameter bolted tanks (1 to 4 MGs)~$1.5M to $6M



## Below Ground Storage

Freshwater (10 to 15 MGs) ~$850K to $1.2M

Centralized (8 to 15 MGs)~ $1.2 to $2M

March 29, 2012 12M a r c h 2 9 , 2 0 1 2 13
##### 



EXHIBIT 31.3
 Rule 13a-14(a)/15d-14(a) Certification
(Principal Executive Officer)
  1.
    
    I have reviewed this Annual Report on Form 10-K/A (Amendment No. 1) for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2007 of AirNet Systems, Inc.; and2.
    
    Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of
a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements
made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not
misleading with respect to the period covered by this report.
 Dated:  April 29, 2008
    By:

/s/ Bruce D. ParkerBruce D. Parker,Chairman of the Board, Chief Executive Officer and President
(Principal Executive Officer) 27
From: Christopher Bolduc [mailto:cabolduc@lbl.gov]

Sent: Wednesday, September 28, 2011 5:25 PM

To: Richard Parker

Cc: Millure, Dave; Kenneth Winder; Rosenstock, Steven; Corkran, Jerry L; Caitlin

Johnson; rick.anderson@faypwc.com; tballo@earthjustice.org; ScottB@lvmetals.com;

john.caskey@nema.org; john.cymbalsky@ee.doe.gov; adelaski@standardsasap.org;

Teckman@nwcouncil.org; gbf1@pge.com; carlos.gaytan@ge.com;

rgreeson@federalpacific.com; mhyland@appanet.org; snadel@aceee.org;

wes.patterson@us.abb.com; Eric.Petersen@aksteel.com;

Raymond.Polinski@atimetals.com; rroy@nrdc.org; robert.saint@nreca.coop;

chuck.simmons@pgnmail.com; mark.stoering@xcelenergy.com; kcoughlin@lbl.gov; Brian

Coffey; gjrosenquist@lbl.gov; Michael Rivest; Jerry Hodge; jrossetti@mlgw.org;

Jim.creevy@nema.org; Meyers, Aaron; Daniel.Cohen@hq.doe.gov;

jmauer@standardsasap.org; greg.coulter405@gmail.com; bsmith@federalpacific.com;

pkumar@publicpower.org; Trujillo, Antonio; Phil Hopkinson;

ahofmann@publicpower.org; BermanEconomics@gmail.com; Ryan, Paul;

jerry.schoen@aksteel.com; mwaltner@nrdc.org; chad.kennedy@us.schneider

‐ electric.com; eduardorobles@eaton.com; vijay.tendulkar@onyxpower.com;

carlosgsiqueiros@eaton.com; thomas.patzner@us.schneider

‐ electric.com; Marusinec,

Richard M; Schneider, Jeffrey A; Loomans, Michael T; Poole, Raymond L; Moore,

Jack C; Smith, Jennifer; Hirsch, Bruce R

Subject: Distribution Transformers Committee Support: Crystal Ball Excel plug

‐ in

All,

DOE has been requested to distribute copies of Oracle's Crystal Ball software

add

‐ in for Microsoft Excel 2007 to members of the negotiation committee.

Unfortunately due to the product's licence we can not do this, but members can

download and install the software independently from this link:

http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/middleware/crystalball/downloads/index.html.

The software can be used for 15 days after installation free of charge as a full

‐

featured demo.

Due to the time restricted free usage of Crystal Ball committee members may want

to wait until the current LCC spreadsheets tools are shared.

Please contact me directly if you have any questions.

Thank you,

‐‐ Chris

‐‐‐‐

Chris Bolduc

Energy Efficiency Standards Group

Environmental Energy Technologies Division Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory

647

‐ 832

‐ 4021
Exhibit 23



Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm



The Board of Directors

MeriStar Hospitality Corporation:



We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statements (Nos. 333-121939,
333-60463, 333-60465 and 333-37888) on Form S-8, the registration statement (No. 333-66229) on Form S-3 of our report dated March 15, 2005, with respect to the consolidated balance sheets of MeriStar Hospitality Corporation and subsidiaries as of
December 31, 2004 and 2003 and the related consolidated statements of operations, stockholders equity, and cash flows for each of the years in the three-year period ended December 31, 2004 and the related financial statement schedule of real
estate and accumulated depreciation, our report dated March 15, 2005, with respect to the consolidated balance sheets of MeriStar Hospitality Operating Partnership, L.P. and subsidiaries as of December 31, 2004 and 2003, and the related consolidated
statements of operations, partners capital, and cash flows for each of the years in the three-year period ended December 31, 2004 and the related financial statement schedule of real estate and accumulated depreciation, our report dated March
15, 2005, on the related supplementary consolidating information of MeriStar Hospitality Operating Partnership, L.P., and our reports dated March 15, 2005, with respect to managements of MeriStar Hospitality Corporation and MeriStar
Hospitality Operating Partnership, L.P. assessment of the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2004, and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2004, for MeriStar
Hospitality Corporation and MeriStar Hospitality Operating Partnership, L.P., which reports appear in the December 31, 2004 annual report on Form 10-K of MeriStar Hospitality Corporation.



|              
|--------------
|              
|/s/ KPMG LLP  
|KPMG LLP      
|              
|McLean, VA    
|March 15, 2005
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision **

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

SMS/Research

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

 v.

ERNESTO SOTO-HERRERA,

 Defendant - Appellant.

No. 08-10535

D.C. No. 4:08-CR-00567-JMR

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Arizona

John M. Roll, Chief District Judge, Presiding

Submitted March 16, 2010** 

Before: SCHROEDER, PREGERSON, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.

Ernesto Soto-Herrera appeals from the 56-month sentence imposed

following his guilty-plea conviction for illegal reentry after deportation, in

FILED

APR 01 2010

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
SMS/Research 2 08-10535

violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291,

and we affirm.

Soto-Herrera contends that the district court procedurally erred by failing to

consider the mitigating circumstances presented. He also contends that the district

court imposed a substantively unreasonable sentence. The record indicates that the

district court considered the defense’s arguments in the course of determining

Soto-Herrera’s sentence and therefore did not procedurally err. See Rita v. United

States, 551 U.S. 338, 356-59 (2007); United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 991-92,

995 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc). Further, considering the totality of the

circumstances, including the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors, the district

court’s sentence below the middle of the Guidelines range was substantively

reasonable. See Carty, 520 F.3d at 993. 

AFFIRMED.
**EXHIBIT 32.2**

 

*CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350*

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report of MedicalCV, Inc. (the “Company”)on Form 10-QSB, as amended, for the quarter ended July 31, 2005, asfiled with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”),I, John H. Jungbauer, Vice President, Finance and Chief Financial Officer ofthe Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adoptedpursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

1.                                       TheReport fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

2.                                       Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

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

 

 
| Dated:   March 20, 2006 | By:                                                  | /s/ John H. Jungbauer |   |
|------------------------------|------------------------------------------------------|-----------------------|--------|
|                         | John H. Jungbauer                                    |
|                         | Vice President, Finance and

Chief Financial Officer |

 

----
Exhibit 99.1



Written Statement of Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer Pursuant to Section 906 of the

Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. Section 1350)



The undersigned, the Chief Executive Officer and the Chief Financial Officer of Novoste Corporation (the
Company), each hereby certifies that, to the best of his knowledge on the date hereof:



|1. |  | the Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the period ended December 31, 2002 filed on the date hereof with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
|-- |  | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



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



|                       
|-----------------------
|Date:    March 31, 2003
|                       



|                       
|-----------------------
|Date:    March 31, 2003
|
#### Clayton Edward GOURLEY et al., Appellants, v. STATE of Texas, Appellee.

No. 33031.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

March 15, 1961.

P. P. Ballowe, Dallas, for appellant.

Henry Wade, Crim. Dist. Atty., James M. Williamson, Asst. Dist. Atty., Dallas, and Leon B. Douglas, State’s Atty., Austin, for the State.

BELCHER, Commissioner.

This is an appeal by E. Colley Sullivan and M. E. Fields as sureties upon the bail bond of Clayton E. Gourley from a final judgment of the. County Criminal Court No. 2 of Dallas County upon a forfeiture of said bond.

Judgment nisi was entered August 19, 1960. Such a judgment on a bail bond is interlocutory and conditional. It provided that said judgment would be made final *883unless good cause be shown at the next term of said court why the defendant did not appear.

In answer to the judgment nisi the sureties set up and established by proof that their principal had been charged and arrested for other criminal offenses in Dallas County and was confined continuously in the Dallas County Jail on such charges from August 14 until his release August 23, 1960. The sureties contend that such confinement at the time the judgment nisi was entered August 19 prevented the appearance of the principal in court and exonerates them.

Art. 436, Vernon’s Ann.C.C.P., provides, in part:

> “The following causes, and no other, will exonerate the defendant and his sureties from liability upon the forfeiture taken: * * * (3) The sickness of the principal or some uncontrollable circumstance which prevented his appearance at court, and it must, in every such case, be shown that his failure to appear arose from no fault on his part. The causes mentioned in this subdivision shall not be deemed sufficient to exonerate the principal and his sureties unless such principal appear before final judgment on the recognizance or bail bond to answer the accusation against him, or show sufficient cause for not so appearing.”

The confinement in jail of the principal from August 14 until his release August 23, the entry of the judgment nisi August 19, and the entry of the judgment final October 14, 1960 would not authorize a complete exoneration of the sureties.

According to the requirements of Art. 436, supra, when the principal was released from jail August 23, it was incumbent upon him to appear in said court before final judgment on the bail bond on October 14 to answer the accusation against him or show sufficient cause for not so appearing. He did not comply with either of these provisions but wholly made default. Therefore, the sureties were not exonerated on the bail bond. 8 Tex.Jur.2d 223, Sec. *99.*

Finding no error, the judgment is in all things affirmed.

Opinion approved by the court.

WOODLEY, P. J., absent.
Cathy Mata

100Guadalupe Street, Room 206 jj

Austin, TX 78701 Sri£ o a en

r

r

r

•n

m

O Re: Eviction Trial ",r — id

-O >Q

Hello, ,, 3 rn

•- - 3 On November 16, 2015, David Z. Hernandez requested the reporter's record in C-l-CV-15- ^, •33

008088 be filed in the Third Court ofAppeals (No. 03-15-00692-CV; David Z. Hernandez v. f/fW Ridge

Apartments). On December 8,2015, areporter's record was filed with the court of appeals. However,

the record did not include the trial held on October 8,2015, as David Z. Hernandez had requested.

Please kindly prepare and file asupplemental reporter's record to include with trial held on

10/8/2015, including any exhibits, and submit ittotheThird court ofappeals.

Thank you in advance for your cooperation and assistance with this matter.

Sincerely,

David Z. Hernandez

[Pro Se}

David Z. Hernandez

Cell: 512-822-2367

Address: 811 First Street, Kyle, TX, 78640

Email:dzh2891@gmail.com

'RECEIVED ^

DEC 2 12015
#### Mark CORRIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Ms. ATKINS; Ms. Bollot; Dr. Cervie; Pitt County; Wilson County; Sergeant Bailey; Officer Barns; Howard Adams; Diana Carmack; Katharina Dewald, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 02-6367.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted July 9, 2002.

Decided Aug. 22, 2002.

Mark Corrigan, Appellant Pro Se. JoAnne Keeler Burgdorff, Pitt County Legal Department, Greenville, North Carolina; Tommy Willis Jarrett, Dees, Smith, Powell, Jarrett, Dees & Jones, Goldsboro, North Carolina; Deanna Davis Anderson, John Dale Madden, Smith, Anderson, Blount, Dorsett, Mitchell & Jernigan, Raleigh, North Carolina; G. Christopher Olson, Womble, Carlyle, Sandridge & Rice, Raleigh, North Carolina; Edwin Constant Bryson, Jr., Patterson, Dilthey, Clay & Bryson, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees.

Before WILKINS, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

PER CURIAM.

Mark Corrigan appeals the district court’s orders denying relief on his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp.2001) complaint,*665* denying his motions for reconsideration, and denying his motion to amend the complaint and to retain an expert witness. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinions accepting the magistrate judge’s recommendation to deny § 1983 relief and find no reversible error. Nor do we find any error in the district court’s denial of Corrigan’s motions for reconsideration, to amend the complaint, and to retain an expert witness. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. *Corrigan v. Atkins,*No. CA-98-667-5-CT (E.D.N.C. Dec. 28, 1998; Feb. 23, 1999; Feb. 24, 2000; Sept. 27, 2000; Oct. 24, 2000; Feb. 12, 2002). 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.*

*

 Corrigan is a federal inmate. Thus, his action is more appropriately construed as one under *Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics,*403 U.S. 388, 91 S.Ct. 1999, 29 L.Ed.2d 619 (1971).
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

OF TEXAS

NO. WR-90,384-01

EX PARTE DANNY LEON MCROY, Applicant

ON APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

CAUSE NO. 22,965-2016A IN THE 402 DISTRICT COURT ND

FROM WOOD COUNTY

Per curiam.

O R D E R

Pursuant to the provisions of Article 11.07 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, the

clerk of the trial court transmitted to this Court this application for a writ of habeas corpus. Ex parte

Young, 418 S.W.2d 824, 826 (Tex. Crim. App. 1967). Applicant was convicted of evading arrest

in a vehicle and sentenced to thirty-seven years’ imprisonment. The Twelfth Court of Appeals

affirmed his conviction. Mcroy v. State, 12-17-00131-CR (Tex. App.—Tyler May 23, 2018) (not

designated for publication).

Applicant contends, among other things, that his trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance

because he did not object to errors in the jury charge. 

Applicant has alleged facts that, if true, might entitle him to relief. Strickland v. Washington,
2

466 U.S. 668 (1984); Ex parte Patterson, 993 S.W.2d 114, 115 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999). In these

circumstances, additional facts are needed. As we held in Ex parte Rodriguez, 334 S.W.2d 294, 294

(Tex. Crim. App. 1960), the trial court is the appropriate forum for findings of fact. The trial court

shall order trial counsel to respond to Applicant’s claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. The

trial court may use any means set out in TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. art. 11.07, § 3(d). In the

appropriate case, the trial court may rely on its personal recollection. Id.

If the trial court elects to hold a hearing, it shall determine whether Applicant is indigent. 

If Applicant is indigent and wishes to be represented by counsel, the trial court shall appoint an

attorney to represent Applicant at the hearing. TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. art. 26.04. 

The trial court shall make findings of fact and conclusions of law as to whether the

performance of Applicant’s trial counsel was deficient and, if so, whether counsel’s deficient

performance prejudiced Applicant. The trial court shall make specific findings addressing whether

counsel was ineffective in not objecting to the parole law instruction and the lack of a burden of

proof instruction applicable to the deadly weapon finding. The trial court shall also make any other

findings of fact and conclusions of law that it deems relevant and appropriate to the disposition of

Applicant’s claim for habeas corpus relief.

This application will be held in abeyance until the trial court has resolved the fact issues. The

issues shall be resolved within 90 days of this order. A supplemental transcript containing all

affidavits and interrogatories or the transcription of the court reporter’s notes from any hearing or

deposition, along with the trial court’s supplemental findings of fact and conclusions of law, shall

be forwarded to this Court within 120 days of the date of this order. Any extensions of time must

be requested by the trial court and shall be obtained from this Court.
3

Filed: November 20, 2019

Do not publish