alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
exv10w64



 






Exhibit 10.64




	 	 	 
	 

	 	November 29, 2005






Judith Rodin, PhD.

President

The Rockefeller Foundation

420 Fifth Avenue

New York, NY 10018




Dear Judith:




          This will confirm the following agreement relating to the deferral of your director’s fees in
2006.



          1. All director’s fees and retainers (“Fees”) payable to you in connection with your service
on the boards of directors (including committees of such boards) of AMR Corporation and American
Airlines, Inc. for the period January 1, 2006 through December 31, 2006, will be deferred and paid
to you in accordance with this letter agreement.



          2. Interest will be accrued on the amounts to be paid on a deferred basis pursuant to
paragraph 1 above, from the date such fees would otherwise have been paid to the date actually
paid, at the prime rate which The Chase Manhattan Bank (National Association) from time to time
charges in New York for 90-day loans to responsible commercial borrowers, such interest to be
compounded monthly.



          3. The total amount to be paid on a deferred basis plus the aggregate amount of interest
accrued thereon will be paid to you in a lump sum distribution on the 30th business day
after the date when you cease to be a Director of AMR Corporation.



          4. In the event of your death, the number of Stock Equivalent Units as of your date of death
will be multiplied by the fair market value of AMR stock during the calendar month immediately
preceding your death, and the amount paid to the Trustees under your Revocable Agreement of Trust,
dated September 15, 1997, as amended February 20, 2004, Judith Rodin Settlor and Trustee.



 









 





          If the foregoing is satisfactory to you, please indicate by signing one of the
originals (two are enclosed) and returning it to me.



	 	 	 	 	 
	 

	 	Very truly yours,	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 
	 

	 	Charles D. MarLett

Corporate Secretary	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 
	Accepted and agreed:
	 	 	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 
	/s/ Judith Rodin
 


	 	 
	 	 
	Judith Rodin
	 	 	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 
	12/05/2005
 


	 	 
	 	 
	Date
---

Exhibit31.1



CERTIFICATION OF

CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



I, Dr. Corby G. Anderson, Chief Executive Officer of Getty Copper Inc. (the Company), hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge:



(i)

the Annual Report on Form 20-F of the Company for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2007 (the Annual Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and



(ii)

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







By:Dr. Corby AndersonName:Dr. Corby AndersonTitle:Chief Executive OfficerDate:July 15, 2008






This written statement is being furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission as an exhibit to the Companys Annual Report on Form 20-F. A signed original of this statement has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.



This certification accompanies this Annual Report on Form 20-F pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by such Act, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act"). Such certification will not be deemed to be incorporated by reference into any filing under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Exchange Act, except to the extent that the Company specifically incorporates it by reference.

---
Regulatory Evaluation

Docket No. FAA-2015-0489 Directorate Identifier: 2015-NM-013-AD

If you make changes to the values in the table below, you must ensure the totals update accordingly. If 

they do not, click (or Tab) into and then out of the changed cell.

Estimated Costs:

Action

(e.g., Inspection, 

replacement)

Do not include oncondition costs here

Costs per Product (e.g., aircraft, engine, 

propeller, appliance)

Work-hours

(include 

access, testing, 

and close-up)

Labor 

cost 

(@$85/h

our)

Parts Cost Total Costs 

(labor + 

parts)

Number of 

U.S. 

Registered 

Products

Total Cost 

for U.S. Fleet

Revision (retained) 1.0 $ 85.00 $0 $ 85.00 755 $64,175.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

The known number of products in compliance:

Total Costs of compliance for U.S. fleet: $64,175

Costs covered under warranty (if known) $

On-Condition Costs:

Action

(e.g., Inspection, 

replacement)

Work-hours 

(include access, 

testing, and closeup)

Labor cost 

(@$85/hour)

Parts Cost Cost per Product

$ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00

Special considerations for Economic Analysis (Use this field to explain anything in the Estimated Costs table 

that was assumed or might not be obvious. This field can also be used to explain warranty costs):
Executive Order 12866:

Could the AD be considered a “significant regulatory action”?

YES* NO 

*Explanation: 

DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures:

Is the AD significant? 

YES* NO 

*Explanation: 

Regulatory Flexibility Act:

Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities? Explain for 

either a Yes or No answer.

YES NO 

Explanation: 

Intrastate Aviation in Alaska:

This AD could affect intrastate aviation in Alaska. Is it appropriate to include specific requirements for 

aircraft operated in Alaska where aviation might be the only mode of transportation?

YES* NO 

*Explanation:
|   | (1) | The                  Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or                  15(d) of                  the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;                  and |
|--------|-----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

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

|                                |                                                                                                   |                                    |
|-------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------|
| September                  12, 2006 |                                                                                              | /s/ Timothy                  Neher |
|                                | Timothy                  Neher, Chief Executive Officer (Principal                  Executive Officer) |

----
From: "Timothy A. Blubaugh" <tblubaugh@emamail.org>

To: Byron Bunker/AA/USEPA/US@EPA

Date: 11/09/2010 09:59 PM

Subject: Vehicle Nomenclature

Hey Byron,

During your presentation on Friday you said there were debates about what to call the Class 7 & 8 

tractors in the GHG program. You settled on semi-trucks/combination tractors, which sounds like the 

perfect bureaucratic compromise: it makes no sense. There is not such thing as a “semi-truck.” A 

semitrailer is a trailer constructed so that some part of its weight rests upon the towing vehicle. It may 

be compared to a full trailer that is constructed so that no part of its weight, except the towing device,

rests on the towing vehicle. Further, there is no such thing as a “combination tractor.” A tractor is a 

truck designed primarily for drawing another vehicle, and not so constructed as to carry a load other 

than a part of the weight of the vehicle and the load so drawn (primarily, tractors tow semitrailers). A 

combination vehicle is, descriptively, any combination of other vehicles (e.g., truck + full trailer, tractor + 

semitrailer, etc.).

You can read more about these exciting definitions at 49 C.F.R. § 390.5 and § 571.3.

I think the category only includes “tractors.” As long as you are talking about on-highway tractors, and 

not agricultural nonroad tractors, I don’t think there is much room for confusion. (I might argue that the 

category actually should only include “long-haul tractors” or “over-the-road tractors,” and not 

“vocational tractors,” but that is another debate.)

Hoping this is helpful,

Tim

Timothy A. Blubaugh

Truck Manufacturers Association

333 West Wacker Drive ▪ Suite 810

Chicago, IL ▪ 60606

312.929.1972 direct ▪ 312.208.0948 mobile 

312.929.1975 fax

tblubaugh@truckmfgs.org ▪ www.truckmfgs.org

Please consider the environment before printing this email.

Confidentiality Notice: This communication is confidential and may contain privileged 

information. If you have received it in error, please notify the sender by reply e-mail and 

immediately delete it and any attachments without copying or further transmitting the same.
**Exhibit32.2**

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

Theundersigned hereby certifies, in his capacity as Chief Financial Officer ofAmerican Bank Note Holographics, Inc. (the “Company”), that the Annual Reportof the Company on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2005, as filedwith the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”)fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in the Report fairlypresents, in all material respects, the financial condition of the Company atthe end of the period covered by the Report and the results of operations ofthe Company for the period covered by the Report.

 

 
|   | By:                                                    | /s/ Mark J.  Bonney |   |
|--------|--------------------------------------------------------|---------------------|--------|
|   | Mark J. Bonney                                         |
|   | Executive Vice  President, Chief Financial Officer and |
|   | Chief Accounting  Officer                              |

 

Date:  March 31, 2006

 

A signed original of thiswritten statement required by Section 906, or other documentauthenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appearsin typed form within the electronic version of this written statement requiredby Section 906, has been provided to American Bank Note Holographics, Inc.and will be retained by American Bank Note Holographics, Inc. andfurnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

 

----
EXHIBIT 32
                                                                      ----------

                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
                                   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 of Extended Systems Incorporated on Form
10-K for the year ended
June 30, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
"Report"), I, Charles W. Jepson, Chief Executive 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) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934; and

     (2)  The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
          material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
          of Extended Systems Incorporated.




/s/ CHARLES W. JEPSON
---------------------------------
Charles W. Jepson
Chief Executive Officer
September 29, 2004
<PAGE>


                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
                                   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 of Extended Systems Incorporated on Form
10-K for the year ended
June 30, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
"Report"), I, Valerie A. Heusinkveld, 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) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934; and

     (2)  The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
          material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
          of Extended Systems Incorporated.




/s/ VALERIE A. HEUSINKVELD
---------------------------------
Valerie A. Heusinkveld
Chief Financial Officer
September 29, 2004
S T A T E O F M I C H I G A N

SUPREME COURT

JOHN V. NEWTON and BARRY NEWTON,

Plaintiffs-Appellants,

SC: 150367

v COA: 315556

Macomb PC: 2011-203001-CZ

REBA SILVIO, GASPARE SILVIO, WENDY

NIENHAUS, and JANICE BLACKLEDGE,

Defendants-Appellees.

__________________________________________/

Statement of Justice Viviano Denying Plaintiffs-Appellants’ Motion to Disqualify

November 4, 2014

VIVIANO, J. On November 4, 2014, appellants filed to a motion to disqualify me 

from this case. In their motion, appellants state that while I was serving as Chief Judge in 

Macomb County, “all Macomb County Probate Judges eventually recused and/or 

deferred from taking action in this matter and the matter was referred to the state court 

administrator’s office for the assignment of an out-county [sic] Judge to act in the 

Macomb County Probate Court.” In their Application for Leave to Appeal and appellate 

brief to the Court of Appeals, appellants further explain that after Macomb Probate 

Judges O’Sullivan and George recused themselves from this case because of prior 

dealings with one of the witnesses, “both counsel of record were then advised by the then 
2

Chief Judge of the Macomb County Probate Court that the State Court Administrator’s 

Office would be reassigning a new judge.”

The only document in the record supporting my involvement is limited to my 

signature, in my capacity as Chief Judge, approving the requested reassignment. This is 

in keeping with my very vague recollection of this case that I had no involvement beyond 

operating in my administrative capacity as Chief Judge to facilitate reassignment in light 

of Judge O’Sullivan’s and Judge George’s recusals. Further, appellants have failed to 

articulate any grounds under MCR 2.003(C) on which to justify my recusal. 

Accordingly, I see no reason to recuse myself from this case and would deny the 

motion.
```

[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 50 (Monday, March 16, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Page 13663]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-05893]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Office of the Secretary

Notice of Applications for Certificates of Public Convenience and 
Necessity and Foreign Air Carrier Permits Filed Under Subpart B 
(Formerly Subpart Q) During the Week Ending February 21, 2015

    The following Applications for Certificates of Public Convenience 
and Necessity and Foreign Air Carrier Permits were filed under Subpart 
B (formerly Subpart Q) of the Department of Transportation's Procedural 
Regulations (see 14 CFR 302. 201 et seq.). The due date for Answers, 
Conforming Applications, or Motions to Modify Scope are set forth below 
for each application. Following the Answer period DOT may process the 
application by expedited procedures. Such procedures may consist of the 
adoption of a show-cause order, a tentative order, or in appropriate 
cases a final order without further proceedings.
    Docket Number: DOT-OST-2015-0033.
    Date Filed: February 19, 2015.
    Due Date for Answers, Conforming Applications, or Motion To Modify 
Scope: March 12, 2015.

Description

    Joint application of Southern Air Inc. (``Southern'') and Florida 
West International Airways, Inc. (``Florida West'') requesting approval 
of the de facto transfer of all international authority held by Florida 
West to Southern.

    Docket Number: DOT-OST-2015-0037.
    Date Filed: February 20, 2015.

Due Date for Answers, Conforming Applications, or Motion To Modify 
Scope

    March 13, 2015.

Description

    Application of Liberty Helicopters Inc. requesting authority to 
engage in scheduled operations as a commuter air carrier and proposes 
to operate flights between various New York City heliports, and the 
following destinations: NYC Metro Airports, Mohegan Sun Casino, 
Montauk, Southampton, and East Hampton (``Proposed Service'').

 Barbara J. Hairston,
Supervisory Dockets Officer, Docket Operations, Federal Register 
Liaison.
[FR Doc. 2015-05893 Filed 3-13-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-9X-P
```
#### McGUIRE v. STATE.

No. 25224.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

March 21, 1951.

No attorney for appellant.

R. L. Whitehead, Criminal Dist. Atty., David C. Moore, Asst. -Crim. Dist. Atty., Longview, George P. Blackburn, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

MORRISON, Judge.

Thé offense is the operating of a motor vehicle upon a public highway by appellant while his operator’s license was suspended. Art. 6687b, Sec. 34, Vernon’s R.C.S. Punishment was assessed, at a fine of $50 and ten days in jail.

The bills of exception and, this being a misdemeanor case, the statement of facts, accompanying the record cannot be considered, inasmuch as they were not filed within the statutory thirty-day period after adjournment of court (November 11, 1950) at which this conviction was had and no extension of time for. such filing *631was granted. The record reflects that the bills were filed on January 17, 1951. Art. 760, Sec. 5, C.C.P. Turner v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 223 S.W.2d 236; Cadrin v. State, 129 Tex.Cr.R. 525, 89 S.W.2d 1001.

For the reason assigned, the judgment is affirmed.
1

The Honorable Linda R. Reade, United States District Judge for the Northern

District of Iowa.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 04-3202

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Northern District of Iowa.

Brian Edward Bassett, *

C [PUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: April 21, 2005

Filed: May 6, 2005

___________

Before MELLOY, McMILLIAN, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Brian Bassett appeals the 90-month sentence the district court1

 imposed after

he pleaded guilty to possessing child pornography in violation of 18 U.S.C.

§§ 2252A(a)(5)(B) and (b)(2), and transporting and shipping child pornography in

violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2252A(a)(1) and (b)(1). Bassett argues that the district

court committed reversible error by applying--over his objection under Blakely v.

Washington, 124 S. Ct. 2531, 2536-43 (2004)--certain sentence enhancements based

on facts that were neither admitted nor proved to a jury. 
-2-

The Supreme Court recently decided that the reasoning in Blakely applies to

the federal Sentencing Guidelines, and “[a]ny fact (other than a prior conviction)

which is necessary to support a sentence exceeding the maximum authorized by the

facts established by a plea of guilty or a jury verdict must be admitted by the

defendant or proved to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt.” See United States v.

Booker, 125 S. Ct. 738, 756 (2005). Here, because the supporting facts were not

admitted or proved to a jury, application of the challenged enhancements violated

Bassett’s Sixth Amendment rights. The district court, however, announced an

alternative (though identical) 90-month sentence, which the court stated was based

on the use of its discretion after “consider[ing] all of the factors set forth at 18 [U.S.C.

§] 3553(a).” (Sent. Tr. at 58-59.) We therefore conclude that the Sixth Amendment

error did not affect the ultimate sentence and was harmless beyond a reasonable

doubt. See United States v. Dominguez Benitez, 124 S. Ct. 2333, 2339 (2004) (error

affects substantial rights if it has prejudicial effect on outcome of judicial

proceeding); Neder v. United States, 527 U.S. 1, 7-8 (1999) (for all preserved

constitutional errors other than “very limited class” determined to be “structural,”

reviewing court must disregard all errors that are harmless beyond reasonable doubt;

error is harmful if it affects substantial rights). Further, Bassett’s sentence was not

unreasonable. See Booker, 125 S. Ct. at 764-67.

Accordingly, we affirm.

______________________________
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 208 (Thursday, October 26, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 64203]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-27503]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration


Environmental Technologies Trade Advisory Committee (ETTAC)

AGENCY: International Trade Administration, US Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of open meeting.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Technologies Trade Advisory Committee will 
hold a plenary meeting to discuss reports from its water and government 
resources subcommittees. The ETTAC was created on May 31, 1994, to 
advise the U.S. government on policies and programs to expand U.S. 
exports of environmental products and services.

DATES: November 14, 2000.

TIME: 9 am to 3 pm.

PLACE: Room 3407, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and 
Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230.
    The meeting will include a report on progress to date of services 
negotiations taking place at the World Trade Organization (WTO). ETTAC 
will also discuss reports prepared by its Government Resources and 
Water subcommittees.
    For further information phone Jane Siegel, Office of Technologies 
Industries, (ETI), U.S. Department of Commerce at (202) 482-5225. This 
meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests 
for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be 
directed to ETI.

Carlos F. Montoulieu,
Deputy Assistant Secretary, Acting.
[FR Doc. 00-27503 Filed 10-25-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DR-P