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


                                                                    EXHIBIT 10.5

                         SPECIAL AMENDMENT TO CERTAIN
                         VASTAR RESOURCES, INC. PLANS


         Vastar Resources, Inc. Amended and Restated Executive Deferral Plan;
         Vastar Resources, Inc. Comprehensive Medical Plan;
         Vastar Resources, Inc. Executive Medical Plan;
         Vastar Resources, Inc. Deferral Plan for Outside Directors

     Pursuant to the power of amendment reserved in each of the Vastar
Resources, Inc. Amended and Restated Executive Deferral Plan; Vastar Resources,
Inc. Comprehensive Medical Plan; Vastar Resources, Inc. Executive Medical Plan;
and Vastar Resources, Inc. Deferral Plan for Outside Directors (the "Vastar
Plans"), each Vastar Plan is amended effective May 24, 2000, as follows:

     1.  A new section, consecutively numbered as appropriate, is hereby added
at the end of each Vastar Plan:

          "The Vice President, Human Resources is authorized to make
     administrative amendments to the Plan as may be necessary to implement the
     purpose and intent of provisions of the Plan providing for benefits to be
     paid as a result of, or upon a Termination of Employment after, a
     Subsequent Change of Control during the Benefit Trigger Window, as such
     terms are defined in the Plan.  The term "administrative amendments" means
     such amendments or changes which do not result in additional cost or
     expense to the Company or its successors, other than costs or expenses
     which, in the judgment of the Vice President, Human Resources,  are de
     minimus.  An administrative amendment to the Plan shall become effective
     upon the execution of the amendment by the Vice President, Human Resources.
     No approval of the Board of Directors of Vastar is necessary for any
     administrative amendment to the Plan, provided however, that no amendment
     made pursuant to this provision shall be effective without the consent of
     the Special Plan Administrator."
<PAGE>

     Executed this 6th day of July, 2000.


                              VASTAR RESOURCES, INC.


ATTEST:                       By:   /s/  JEFFREY M. BENDER
                                    --------------------------------------
                                    Jeffrey M. Bender
                                    Vice President, Human Resources

By: /s/  ANTHONY S. NOONAN
    ----------------------------------
         Anthony S. Noonan
Name: ________________________________
         General Tax Officer
Title: _______________________________


Approved as to Form:

WACHOVIA BANK, N.A.


By:  /s/  PETER D. QUINN
     ---------------------------------

Name:     Peter D. Quinn
      --------------------------------

Title:    Senior Vice President
       -------------------------------

                                      -2-
#### DORSEY v. STATE.

No. 25164.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Feb. 21, 1951.

Rehearing Denied April 11, 1951.

Ño attorney, for appellant.

George P. Blackburn, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

MORRISON, Judge.

Appellant was charged with the offense of forgery. He waived a trial by jury and *977entered his plea of guilty before the court. He was convicted and assessed the penalty of two years in the penitentiary.

The record contains neither a statement of facts nor bill Of exception. Nothing is presented for review.

The judgment is affirmed.
1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

ROBERT HOPKINS, III,

Plaintiff,

v.

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, 

Defendant.

No. 3:22-CV-00706-C

NOTICE OF APPEARANCE

Please take notice of the appearance of the following counsel on behalf of Defendant:

LISA NEWMAN (TX Bar No. 24107878)

U.S. Department of Justice

Civil Division, Federal Programs Branch

1100 L Street NW

Washington, D.C. 20530

Tel: (202) 514-5578

Fax: (202) 616-8460

E-mail: lisa.n.newman@usdoj.gov

Dated: January 3, 2024 Respectfully submitted,

BRIAN M. BOYNTON

Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General

MARCIA BERMAN

Assistant Branch Director

/s/ Lisa Newman

LISA NEWMAN (TX Bar No. 24107878)

U.S. Department of Justice

Civil Division, Federal Programs Branch

1100 L Street NW, Rm. 12002

Washington, D.C. 20530

Tel: (202) 514-5578

Fax: (202) 616-8460

Case 3:22-cv-00706-E Document 36 Filed 01/03/24 Page 1 of 2 PageID 908
2

E-mail: lisa.n.newman@usdoj.gov

Attorney for Defendant

Case 3:22-cv-00706-E Document 36 Filed 01/03/24 Page 2 of 2 PageID 909
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

ANN L. MARTIN AND JAMES L. MARTIN,

Petitioners

v.

ADRIENNE L. BAILEY, DONALD A. 

BAILEY, SHERI D. COOVER, LAW 

OFFICES OF DONALD A. BAILEY, AND 

ESTATE OF LEAH L. PLACENIK,

Respondents

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 50 MAL 2017

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from 

the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 17th day of July, 2017, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is 

DENIED.
EXHIBIT 32.2



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 on Form 10-K of Audax Credit
BDC Inc. (the “Company”) for the year ended December 31, 2018 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Richard T. Joseph, as 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 to my knowledge:



(1)   The
Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) 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 results of operations
of the Company.



|/s/ Richard T. Joseph |                         | 
|--------------------- | ----------------------- | 
|Name:                 | Richard T. Joseph       | 
|Title:                | Chief Financial Officer | 



Date: March 18, 2019
Final Listing of Questionnaire Files for Steam Electric Rulemaking Record

Plant ID 08101

Removed 

from Public 

(Non-CBI) 

Docket1

Copyright 

Flag2

File Name Description

08101\08101_Certification Statement.pdf Plant certification statement

08101\08101_Completeness_Checklist.xls EPA Completeness Review Checklist

08101\08101_HardcopyLog.doc EPA log of hardcopy documents submitted

x 08101\08101_Part A.xls Plant submitted survey file

x 08101\08101_Part E.xls Plant submitted survey file

x 08101\08101_Part H.xls Plant submitted survey file

x 08101\08101_Checklist.xls EPA Technical Review Checklist Workbook

08101\Supporting Documentation\08101_Aerial Map.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

x 08101\Supporting Documentation\08101_Site Maps.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

x 08101\Supporting Documentation\08101_Water Balance Diagram.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

1

 Final reviewed survey responses are located in the Steam Electric Technical Questionnaire Database . 

2

 Copyright documents are available from the docket.
TS- ACET10/20/30/40/50

Attachment #3 Pt. 1, Sec. B CA S Inventory Expert Service Report s and Chemical Structure s of the New Chemical Substance s The following pag es give the CAS Inventory Expert Service (IES) Report s on the new chemical substance s . The chemical structure s of the compounds are also provided.,(62UGHU1XPEHU

5HJLVWU\1XPEHU &$,QGH[1DPH,(62UGHU1XPEHU

5HJLVWU\1XPEHU &$,QGH[1DPHPMN-5'
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                         114,309
<SECURITIES>                                 1,210,726
<RECEIVABLES>                                2,671,260
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                  3,358,353
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             7,913,112
<PP&E>                                         691,171
<DEPRECIATION>                                 218,014
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               8,745,989
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        3,785,157
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         2,384
<OTHER-SE>                                   4,726,234
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 8,745,989
<SALES>                                      7,406,439
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             7,406,439
<CGS>                                        4,776,085
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                2,469,040
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             197,789
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (36,475)
<INCOME-TAX>                                    12,400
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (48,875)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (48,875)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (0.02)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        


</TABLE>
#### SHUMAKER v. STATE.

No. 26353.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

April 8, 1953.

Clarence L. Waters, San Antonio, for .appellant.

Wesley Dice, State’s Atty., Austin, for ■the State.

MORRISON, Judge.

The offense is the unlawful showing and •exhibition of lewd and lascivious motion pictures, as denounced by Article 527, Vernon’s Ann.P.C.; the punishment, a fine ■of $500.

The prosecutrix, testified that, in •company with one Thompson, she went to the home of appellant; that she was there furnished a bottle of beer and a glass of whiskey, and the appellant then exhibited •a motion picture to the group there as•sembled. She described the movie as depicting a naked woman playing with her breasts and her private parts and then being kissed over the body by other women. She testified that she reported the incident to the police.

Police officers testified that,- armed with a search warrant, they searched appellant’s home and seized 2 motion picture projectors and screens, 26 reels of motion picture film, 100 photographs of nude and partially nude individuals, together with statues, books, and playing cards depicting obscene poses.

A portion of the film seized was exhibited to the judge trying the case and identified by the prosecutrix.

We1 find the evidence sufficient to support the conviction.

There are no formal bills of exception brought forward in the record, and none are indexed in the statement of facts. Without an index, the bills of exception appearing in the’ statement of facts cannot be considered. Greenwood v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 246 S.W.2d 191.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3627 Enrolled Bill (ENR)]

        H.R.3627

                     One Hundred Thirteenth Congress

                                 of the

                        United States of America

                          AT THE SECOND SESSION

           Begun and held at the City of Washington on Friday,
           the third day of January, two thousand and fourteen

                                 An Act

 
  To require the Attorney General to report on State law penalties for 
             certain child abusers, and for other purposes.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
    This Act may be cited as the ``Kilah Davenport Child Protection Act 
of 2013''.
SEC. 2. ATTORNEY GENERAL REPORT.
    Not later than 180 days after the date of enactment of this Act, 
and again 3 years thereafter, the Attorney General shall publish and 
submit to the Committee on the Judiciary of the House of 
Representatives and the Committee on the Judiciary of the United States 
Senate a report on the penalties for violations of laws prohibiting 
child abuse in each of the 50 States, the District of Columbia, and 
each territory of the United States, including whether the laws of that 
State, District, or territory provides for enhanced penalties when the 
victim has suffered serious bodily injury, or permanent or protracted 
loss or impairment of any mental or emotional function.
SEC. 3. EXPANSION OF PREDICATE FOR INCREASED PENALTIES FOR CERTAIN 
DOMESTIC ASSAULTS.
    Section 117(a)(1) of title 18, United States Code, is amended by 
inserting ``, or against a child of or in the care of the person 
committing the domestic assault'' after ``intimate partner''.

                               Speaker of the House of Representatives.

                            Vice President of the United States and    
                                               President of the Senate.
```
Exhibit 31.2


CERTIFICATION


I, Christopher J. Senner, certify that:


1. I have reviewed this Form 10-Q/A of Exelixis, Inc.; and


2. 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.





/s/    CHRISTOPHERJ. SENNERChristopher J. SennerExecutive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer(Principal Financial Officer)


Date: July 14, 2017
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).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

 v.

JOSE E. CERVANTES-GUERRA,

 Defendant - Appellant.

No. 09-50578

D.C. No. 3:09-cr-01388-BEN

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of California

Roger T. Benitez, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted February 15, 2011** 

Before: CANBY, FERNANDEZ, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

Jose E. Cervantes-Guerra appeals from the 57-month sentence imposed

following his conviction for being a deported alien found in the United States, in

violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and

we affirm.

FILED

MAR 09 2011

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 09-50578

Cervantes-Guerra contends that the district court’s failure to depart or vary

from the Guidelines to reflect his level of culpability in his prior conviction created

an unwarranted sentencing disparity and resulted in a substantively unreasonable

sentence. The record reflects that the district court considered Cervantes-Guerra’s

individual circumstances with respect to his prior conviction and imposed a

sentence that was substantively reasonable in light of the totality of the

circumstances and the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors. See Gall v. United States, 552

U.S. 38, 51 (2007).

Cervantes-Guerra also contends that he was denied the right of allocution. 

See Fed. R. Crim. P. 32(i)(4)(A)(ii). This argument lacks merit because the

sentencing court properly provided Cervantes-Guerra the opportunity to speak

earlier in the hearing. See United States v. Leasure, 122 F.3d 837, 840-41 (9th Cir.

1997) (per curiam) (no denial of right of allocution where defendant had “clear and

unrestricted opportunity” to speak during the sentencing hearing but the court

refused to provide additional opportunity after beginning to pronounce defendant’s

sentence).

AFFIRMED.
III

103D CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. CON. RES. 206

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

FEBRUARY 10 (legislative day, JANUARY 25), 1994

Received

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Providing for an adjournment of the House from Thursday,

February 10, 1994, through Friday, February 18, 1994,

to Tuesday, February 22, 1994 and an adjournment

or recess of the Senate from Thursday, February 10,

1994, through Friday, February 18, 1994, to Tuesday,

February 22, 1994.

1 Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate

2 concurring), That when the House adjourns on Thursday,

3 February 10, 1994, Friday, February 11, 1994, Saturday,

4 February 12, 1994, Sunday, February 13, 1994, Monday,

5 February 14, 1994, Tuesday, February 15, 1994,

6 Wednesday, February 16, 1994, Thursday, February 17,

7 1994, or Friday, February 18, 1994, pursuant to a motion

8 made by the Majority Leader or his designee, it stand ad9 journed until 2 p.m. on Tuesday, February 22, 1994, or

10 until noon on the second day after Members are notified
2

HCON 206 RDS

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

3 recesses or adjourns at the close of business on Thursday,

4 February 10, 1994, Friday, February 11, 1994, Saturday,

5 February 12, 1994, Sunday, February 13, 1994, Monday,

6 February 14, 1994, Tuesday, February 15, 1994,

7 Wednesday, February 16, 1994, Thursday, February 17,

8 1994, or Friday, February 18, 1994, pursuant to a motion

9 made by the Majority Leader or his designee, in accord10 ance with this resolution, it stand recessed or adjourned

11 until noon on Tuesday, February 22, 1994, or at such

12 time as may be specified by the Majority Leader or his

13 designee in the motion to recess or adjourn, or until noon

14 on the second day after Members are notified to reassem15 ble pursuant to section 2 of this concurrent resolution,

16 whichever occurs first.

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

18 Leader of the Senate, acting jointly after consultation with

19 the Minority Leader of the House and the Minority Lead20 er of the Senate, shall notify the Members of the House

21 and the Senate, respectively, to reassemble whenever, in

22 their opinion, the public interest shall warrant it.

Passed the House of Representatives February 10,

1994.

Attest: DONNALD K. ANDERSON,

Clerk.
1

The Honorable Donovan W. Frank, United States District Judge for the District

of Minnesota.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 06-1959

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* District of Minnesota.

Billy Felder, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: May 31, 2007

Filed: June 5, 2007

___________

Before SMITH, GRUENDER, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Billy Felder appeals the 30-month prison sentence imposed by the district court1

upon Felder’s guilty plea to charges of fraud and identity theft. Felder argues that the

district court erred in its consideration of the sentencing factors in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)

by failing to give adequate weight to his family circumstances and to the mitigating

characteristics of his offense, and by placing undue weight on the deterrent effect of

a prison sentence.
-2-

We conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in weighing the

section 3553(a) factors, and that the sentence imposed was not unreasonable. See

United States v. Haack, 403 F.3d 997, 1003 (8th Cir. 2005) (sentences are reviewed

to determine whether district court abused its discretion by imposing an unreasonable

sentence); United States v. Denton, 434 F.3d 1104, 1115-16 (8th Cir. 2006) (district

court abuses its discretion if it overlooks significant factor, gives improper weight to

any factor, or makes clear error in judgment). The court considered Felder’s family

circumstances in sentencing him at the bottom of the advisory Guidelines range, and

his circumstances warranted no greater reduction. Cf. United States v. Bueno, 443

F.3d 1017, 1023-24 (8th Cir. 2006) (defendant not entitled to downward departure

based on wife’s lupus and arthritis where condition was not life-threatening and

defendant's care was not necessary part of wife’s treatment). The “mitigating

characteristics” Felder refers to amount to his failure to recoup the proceeds of his

fraudulent scheme from relatives, who apparently told Felder they had never received

the fraudulently obtained money; we do not see how this provides a basis for a more

lenient sentence. Finally, the district court appropriately weighed, along with other

section 3553(a) factors, the need to deter Felder and others from committing fraud.

See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(2)(B) (one factor court must consider in sentencing is

affording adequate deterrence to criminal conduct); cf. United States v. Miller, No.

06-2875, 2007 WL 1264071, at *3 (8th Cir. May 2, 2007) (reversing sentence as

unreasonable because, inter alia, district court failed to weigh sentence’s effect of

deterring others; noting general deterrence is one key purpose of sentencing); United

States v. Garnette, 474 F.3d 1057, 1060-61 (8th Cir. 2007) (finding district court did

not abuse its discretion in varying upward from advisory Guidelines range, based in

part on district court’s reasoning that longer sentence would deter criminal conduct

of others).

Accordingly, we affirm.

______________________________
#### RUMSEY v. STATE.

No. 24978.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Oct. 18, 1950.

*992None on appeal for appellant.

George P. Blackburn, State’s Atty., of, Austin, for the State.

HAWKINS, Presiding Judge.

Conviction was for robbery, punishment being assessed at 20 years’ in the penitentiary.

Appellant perfected an appeal to this court. He now files his personal affidavit advising the court that he does not further desire to prosecute his appeal, and at his request the appeal is dismissed.
#### Ex parte BRIGGS.

No. 21563.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

March 19, 1941.

M. E. Gates, of Huntsville, for appellant.

Lloyd W. Davidson, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

BEAUCHAMP, Judge.

The appellant brought this action in the district court of Walker County to effect his release from the penitentiary, alleging that he was unlawfully restrained of his liberty under and by virtue of judgments and commitments issued out of the district court of El Paso County. He alleges further that said judgment and commitment papers were illegal and void, by reason of which he is so unlawfully restrained. He further says, “Applicant invokes the equitable powers of this court and asks the court that writ of habeas corpus be granted.”

The state answered by setting up two judgments by which he is held. They are found in the record as exhibits to the answer. On the Sth day of February, 1941, the district judge entered his order refusing to release appellant and recited that the evidence was heard and he thereupon found both the law and facts with the respondent.

There is no statement of facts in the record, no bills of exception, and nothing is presented to sustain the general allegations made by appellant.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
SEPTEMBER TERM, 1692,

Liber D. S. No. 6.

#### Thomas Taylor *against*John Llewellin.

IN this case a writ.of *Habeas Corpus cum causa*issued to the County Court of *Anne Arundel.*

On motion of the defendant by *George*Plater, his attorney, suggesting that the County Court had refused to obey the writ, and had proceeded in the said action. It was *20ordered, that the County Court supersede and stay all further proceedings in the said action before them and transmit the proceedings to this Court.

Also ordered, that the Justices of the County aforesaid, then sitting in the said Court, be summoned to appear before this Court at the next term to answer their contempt in disobeying their Majesties’ said writ of *Habeas Corpus*fo them directed.