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

The Honorable Robert M. Summers

Acting SecretaryMaryland Department ofthe EnvironmentMontgomery Park Business Center

1800 Washington Boulevard

Baltimore, Maryland 21230

Dear Secretary Summers:

Confirming the discussion with representatives of the Environmental Protection

Agency Region 111 (EPA), and members of your staff and the Power Plant Research

Program (PPRP) on February 19, 2011, the Maryland Public Service Commission (PSC)supports your efforts to obtain EPA approval ofthe Maryland State Implementation Plan.

In response to the need to obtain a completeness determination for Certificate of ( Public Convenience and Necessity (CPCN) applications as required by 40 CFR § 124,3, the parties should raise this issue with the PSC Hearing Examiner at the Prehearing

Scheduling Conference. The Hearing Examiner Will hear argument and make a

determination, either ordering the incomplete application be supplemented prior to thehearing or making a finding on the record that the application is complete.

Concerning the necessity for time to allow for response to public comments, the

parties should likewise raise this issue with the Hearing Examiner at the Prehearing

Scheduling Conference so that adequate time will be allowed in the Scheduling Order. In

addition, to the extent this has not been accomplished by the time a Proposed Order is

issued by the Hearing Examiner, this should be brought to the Commission’s attention

before the Proposed Order becomes Final.

Please feel free to include this letter in the Department’s resubmission to EPA of

the Maryland State Implementation Plan. IfI can be of further assistance, please feel free

to contact me.

Sincerely,

H. Robert Erwin, Jr.General Counsel

WILIJAM DONALD SCHAEFER TOWER • 6 ST. PAUL STREET • ALTJMORE, MARYLAND 2I2O268O6

410.767-8000 • Toll Frcc: 1400-492.0474 • FAX: 410-333-6495

MORS: I -800-735-2258 (TTY/Voice) ‘ Wcbtc: www,pscstalc md us
Certification of CEO Pursuant to Securities Exchange Act
Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14 as Adopted Pursuant to
Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002



I, Duane Poliquin, certify that:



1.

I have reviewed this annual report on Form 20-F of Almaden Minerals Ltd.;



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;



3.             Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the Company as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;



4.             The Companys other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the Company and have:



(a)           Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the Company, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;



(b)           Evaluated the effectiveness of the Companys disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and



(c)           Disclosed in this report any change in the Companys internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the
period covered by the annual report that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the Companys internal control over financial reporting; and



5.             The Companys other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the Companys auditors and the audit committee of the Companys board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):



(a)           All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the Companys ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and



(b)           Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the Companys internal control over financial reporting.



|                          |                                      
|------------------------- | -------------------------------------
|Dated:
    March 28, 2006 | Signed:  /s/Duane Poliquin           
|                          | Duane Poliquin                       
|                          | President and Chief Executive Officer
#### Will of Peterson: Pedersen and others, Appellants, vs. Hermanson, Proponent, Respondent.

For the appellants: *Sweet, Johnson & Sands*of Minneapolis, Minnesota, and *White & White*of River Falls.

For the respondent: *Casey & Magee*of Ellsworth.

*By the Court.*

Judgment affirmed.
Exhibit
10.5


 


Via Messenger, Fax and Email


 


October 10,
2008


 


Lehman
Brothers. Inc. acting as Agent


Lehman
Brothers OTC Derivatives Inc.


Transaction
Management


745
Seventh Avenue, 28th Floor


New
York, New York  10019


Attn:  Documentation Manager


 


Re:  Confirmation dated April 17,
2007, between Lehman Brothers OTC


Derivatives Inc. and Lawson Software, Inc.


Warrant Transaction


Notice of Early Termination Date


 


Ladies
and Gentlemen:


 


We
refer to the Confirmation dated April 17, 2007 (the “Confirmation”), entered
into between Lehman Brothers OTC Derivatives Inc. (“Party A”) and Lawson
Software, Inc. (“Party  B”). Capitalized terms used herein but
not defined herein have the meaning assigned in the Confirmation.


 


We
hereby notify you of an Event of Default pursuant to Section 5(a)(vii) of
the Agreement, due to Party A’s bankruptcy filing on October 5, 2008.


 


As
a result of such Event of Default, pursuant to Section 6(a) of the
Agreement, Party B as the non-defaulting party hereby designates October 10, 2008 as the “Early Termination Date” in
respect of the Transaction.


 


As
soon as reasonably practicable, Party B will provide Party A with a
statement of the calculation of Party B’s loss under the Agreement made
pursuant to Section 6(e) of the Agreement.


 


Nothing
contained in this letter shall be deemed to waive, release or impair any right
or remedy which the undersigned may have pursuant to the above referenced
agreements or which are otherwise available at law or equity, all of which are
expressly retained by the undersigned.


 


	
   

  	
  Lawson
  Software, Inc.

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  By:

  	
  /s/
  Bruce B. McPheeters

  
	
   

  	
  Its:

  	
  Corporate Secretary and
  Senior Vice President
#### Dorothy Knowles *vs.*Charles A. Newhall & another, executors.

Norfolk.

May 2, 1939.

June 28, 1939.

Present: Field, C.J., Qua, Dolan, Cox, & Honan, JJ.

*Probate Court,*Appeal.

A decree dismissing a petition in a probate court, made without a statement of finding of facts and upon conflicting evidence, was affirmed.

Petition, filed in the Probate Court for the county of Norfolk on March 7, 1938.

After hearing by *McCoole,*J., the petition was dismissed.

*H. F. Wood, (J. L. Burns,*with him,) for the petitioner.

*C. M. Rogerson, (R. W. Hardy*with him,) for the respondents.

Honan, J.

This is an appeal from a decree dismissing a petition to revoke a decree allowing the will of Alice N. Knowles. The petitioner, the adopted daughter of Mrs. Knowles, and her next of kin, had been more generously remembered in a previous will. She alleged that *386the testatrix was induced by fraud and undue influence exerted upon her by her brother, who was named one of the executors, to execute on January 6, 1938, shortly before her death, an instrument as her will; that the brother had falsely represented to the testatrix that it was substantially similar to the previous will; that Mrs. Knowles at the time she executed this instrument was incapable of executing a will; that the brother had failed to give the petitioner a copy of the will or to inform her as to her rights and that fraud had been practised upon the Probate Court by the fraudulent concealment of material facts in securing the allowance of the will.

The evidence was conflicting. It is unnecessary to narrate it. If believed, it was ample to show that none of the material allegations of the petition had been sustained. No findings of fact appear in the record. The credibility of the witnesses was for the determination of the judge, who saw and heard them testify. Following the well settled rule in equity, which is also applicable to probate appeals, *School Committee of Winchendon*v. *Selectmen of Winchendon,*300 Mass. 266, and cases cited, we cannot disturb the general finding in favor of the executors, as an examination of the oral testimony upon which it was based does not show that it was plainly wrong. *Trade Mutual Liability Ins. Co.*v. *Peters,*291 Mass. 79. *Markiewicus*v. *Methuen,*300 Mass. 560.

The Probate Court has ample power to correct or revoke decrees previously entered, on account of mistake, or for want of jurisdiction where it has been falsely induced to assume that it had jurisdiction, or for any cause deemed adequate in law. *Goss*v. *Donnell,*263 Mass. 521. *Dolan*v. *Roy,*286 Mass. 519. *Odde*v. *Field,*297 Mass. 167. *Parsekian*v. *Oynoian,*299 Mass. 543. The petitioner had seasonable notice of the hearing on the probate of the will. She apparently failed to show that fraud was practised upon the court, the testatrix or herself. The decree dismissing the petition was right. *Renwick*v. *Macomber,*233 Mass. 530. *Fuller*v. *Fuller,*261 Mass. 82. *Donnell*v. *Goss,*269 Mass. 214. *Holyoke National Bank**387v. *Dulitzky,*273 Mass. 125. *Hilton*v. *Hopkins,*275 Mass. 59. *McLaughlin v. Feerick,*276 Mass. 180. *Beardsley v. Hall,*291 Mass. 411.

*Decree affirmed.*
# FIRST
AMENDMENT TOOCEAN ENERGY, INC.EXECUTIVE SUPPLEMENTAL RETIREMENT PLAN(as amended and
restated July 1, 2001)

WHEREAS,
OCEAN ENERGY, INC., a Delaware corporation (the "Company") maintains the OCEAN ENERGY,
INC. EXECUTIVE SUPPLEMENTAL RETIREMENT PLAN ( the "Plan"); and

WHEREAS,
the Company desires to amend the Plan;

NOW,
THEREFORE,the Plan is amended as follows, effective as of July 18, 2002:

| | 1.
Section 1.01(2) of the Plan is hereby amended to read as follows:
| | --------------------------------------------------------------------

| | Actuarial
Equivalent: Equality in value of the aggregate amounts expected to be received under
different forms of payment based upon (i) the Applicable Mortality Table (as defined in
section 417(e)(3)(A)(ii)(I) of the Code), and (ii) the annual rate of interest on the 20
year constant maturity rate published by the U.S. Treasury for the calendar month that is
three months prior to the calendar year in which the Members Annuity Starting Date
occurs.
| | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

| | 2.
As amended hereby, the Plan is specifically ratified and reaffirmed.
| | -----------------------------------------------------------------------

| | EXECUTED this
July 18, 2002.
| | ----------------------------

OCEAN ENERGY,
INC.

By:/s/ Peggy
T. dHemecourtName: Peggy T. dHemecourtTitle: Vice President Human Resources
EPA SANITIZED Page 1 of 7
EPA SANITIZED Page 2 of 7
EPA SANITIZED Page 3 of 7
 

EPA SANITIZED Page 4 of 7
 

 

 

EPA SANITIZED Page 5 of 7
 

EPA SANITIZED Page 6 of 7
 

EPA SANITIZED Page 7 of 7
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AS OF DEC-31-1998 AND THE RELATED STATEMENTS OF
INCOME AND CASH FLOWS FOR THE 12-MONTH PERIOD THEN ENDED AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                         319,496
<SECURITIES>                                 1,158,566
<RECEIVABLES>                                   36,115
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,552,157
<PP&E>                                         675,620
<DEPRECIATION>                                  81,212
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,483,106
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          143,656
<BONDS>                                      2,013,192
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          556,168
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       354,525
<OTHER-SE>                                   (600,988)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 2,483,106
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               139,667
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  345,851
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             144,565
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (278,340)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (278,340)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (278,340)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (6.26)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (6.26)
        

</TABLE>
. 

. 

NRO APPROVED FOR . ..7...A,N1 RELEAsnAtu‘s(1)5 l',.L.1.1' 

\, • ....,w, u VIA 

sy5TE,, ONLY L , 

N 

...- NATIONAL N1 AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION 1...4:--=-; • N..77:.\ coN'o'°`" s ,, ,, 

(/'.' '--;i 

',,, 1 

WASHINGTON. D.C. 20546 

OFFICE OF me ADMINISTRATOR September 12, 1969 

honorable Robert C. Seamans, Jr. This d cpent consists of pages 

Secretary of the Air Force Copia.% 

Washington, D. C. 20330 

Dear Bob: 

As you know, NASA's long range plans in space astronomy point toward 

the eventual development and operation of very large diffraction 

limited orbital telescopes. One step along the way that we are considering is a large stellar telescope (ATM-B) for operation with the 

second "dry workshop", planned for flight in 1974. We have, with the 

assistance of the MOL team, taken steps to have Dr. Aden Meinel of the 

University of Arizona and Messrs. Olivier and Waite from the Marshall 

Space Flight Center examine the existing MOL hardware at Eastman Kodak. 

Their purpose is to make a preliminary evaluation as to the suitability 

of this equipment for stellar astronomy, the steps that might be 

required to so modify it, and the probable compatibility of the system 

with the Apollo Telescope Mount and dry workshop. We expect to have 

their preliminary findings within several weeks. 

In the event their report is positive, NASA would see the next step as 

a detailed technical feasibility study. Under the circumstances, this 

study would be classified and probably best contracted' for by the DOD 

with reimbursement from NASA. We feel we can progress this far without 

any commitment being sought or implied as to the'actual use of DORIAN 

systems or technology by NASA. 

If the feasibility study were to show signi.:icant advantages of such 

utilization, we could then come to grips with the security and program 

policy issues that this might raise. 

In the longer term, we are vitally interested in the question of how 

NASA should move in the development and testing of very large optics, 

GROUP 1 —"-------- 

.:xcludcx1 iron: a-ataractic 

clowagzadir.,g aad declazsjicatIc.,:. 

SAT ye>4--1,5P&JG -41 

( 

TOP c"' 1.11 

HANDLE" VIA BYEMAN 

CONTROL SYSTEM ONLY. 

fo9-/?- 
NRO AuDgovED FOR 

RELEASE 1 JULY 2015 

1-1 AN OLC VIA 

13YEiV.AN 

CONTROL SY:-.■Trlisti ONLY 

17(1Q trip 

U1 ,..; 6L;i1L 

2 

and what role the classified capabilities — technology and facilities — 

should play therein. This topic can await further elaboration until the 

more immediate questions of existing hardware have been resolved. 

Sincerely, 

Homer E. Newell • 

Associate Administrator 

cc: Colonel Lew Allen, Jr. USAF 

HANDLE VIA 13Y:i 

coNTRot. sv.:Tam oNLA1
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<PERIOD-TYPE>  3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>   NOV-30-1999
<PERIOD-START> DEC-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>   FEB-28-1999
<CASH>                             355
<SECURITIES>                       0  
<RECEIVABLES>                      0
<ALLOWANCES>                       0
<INVENTORY>                        0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                   355
<PP&E>                             1,445,483
<DEPRECIATION>                     962,650 
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                     577,765
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>              96,917
<BONDS>                            0
<COMMON>                           47,700
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>              0
<PREFERRED>                        0
<OTHER-SE>                         433,148
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>       577,765
<SALES>                            1,367
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                   1,367
<CGS>                              0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                      0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                   7,568
<LOSS-PROVISION>                   0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                 162
<INCOME-PRETAX>                    (6,363)
<INCOME-TAX>                       0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                (6,363)
<DISCONTINUED>                     0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                    0
<CHANGES>                          0
<NET-INCOME>                       (6,363)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                      .00
<EPS-DILUTED>                      .00
FIL ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T MAY 2, 2011 J OHN LEY CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE U

NITED STATE S COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 0- 13 28 5 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 4 :1 0- cv -0 00 98 -SPM -WCS BENJAM IN N. MOOTS, lll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll an t, ve rs us SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, SANDEEP RAHANGDA LE, T. BLANKENSHIP, LARRY A. BAKER, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defen da nt s- App el le es , JEREM Y VAUGHA

N, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defen da nt .

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt forth e North ernDis tri ctof F lo rid a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (May 2, 2 01 1)Befo re BARKETT, MARCUS an d P RYOR, Ci rcu itJu dg es .

PER CURI AM: Ben jam inN. Moo ts , a st at e p ris on er, ap pe al s p ro se the di sm is sa l o f hi s co m pl ai ntth atpri so n o ffi ci al s Walt er Mc Neil , San de ep Rah an gd al e, Tam m y Bl an ke ns hi p, an d Larry

Bak er v io la te d h is civ il rig ht s und er the Eig ht h Am en dm en t. 4 2 U.S.C. § 19 83 . The d is tri ctco urt ru le d tha t the pri so n o ffi ci al s ha d n otbe ende li be rat el y in di ffer en t t o M oo ts ’s m ed ic al co nd it io n. We affi rm . Mo ot s’s co m

pl ai ntfai ls to all eg e th athe ha s a s eri ou s m ed ic al co nd it io n o r, ev enass um in g tha t h is co nd it io n i s s eri ou s, tha t p ris on off ic ia ls ha ve be en in di ffer en t t o M oo ts ’s m ed ic al ne ed s. Aft er Mo ot s was im pr is on ed , he was di ag no se d wi th gyneco m as ti a, a co nd it io n tha t caus es anen larg em en t o f m al e br eas t t is su e. Mo ot s “ rece iv edm ed ic al tes t[s ] to de te rm in e” i f “ th ere [ ha d b een ] anun de rlyin g c au se forhi s co nd it io n” an d i f he ha d c an cer, b utth e te st s re ve al ed Mo ot s’s g yne co m as ti a requi res on ly cos m et ic tre atm en t. Mo ot s’s “ ‘m ed ic al ne ed [is no t] on e th at , if l eftun at te nd ed , po se s a s ub st an ti al ris k o f se rio us harm .’ ” Man n v . TaserInt ern ., Inc ., 58 8 F .3d12 91 , 13 07 (11 thCir . 20 09 ) (quo ti ng Farro w v. West , 32 0 F .3d12 35 , 12 43 (11 th Cir . 20 03 )). Mo ot s h as rece iv edib up ro fenfor pa inan d “ps y ch ia tri c tr eat m en t” to co m ba t h is “ em ot io na l s uf

feri ng , dep res si on , an xi ety ,” an d p ro bl em s wi th hi s s el f-i m ag e, an d p ris on off ic ia ls ha ve ho us edhi m 2ina se gr eg at io n u ni t t o p rev en t an y po te nt ia l m is tre atm en t b y fel lo w in m at es . Mo ot s re qu es te d am as te ct omy , bu t p ris on off ic ia ls requi redth atMo ot s fi rs t un de rg o am amm og ram , whi chMo ot s re fu se d. Mo ot s’s d is ag reem en t wi th th e co ur se of t reatm en t p ro vi de d b y th e p ris onoff

ic ia ls do es no t “ supp ort a c la im of cru el an d u nu su al pu ni sh m en t.” Harris v. Th ig pe n, 9 41 F.2d14 95 , 15 05 (11 th Cir . 19 91 ). The di sm is sa l o f Mo ot s’s co m pl ai ntis AFFIRMED .

3
UNMANNED AERIAL SOLUTIONS, INC. 

Blue-Chip Unmanned Aerial Solutions, Inc. 

Attn: Clint P. Stevens 

1965 South Beech St. 

Wichita, KS 67207 

316-305-5498 

April 22, 2015 

U.S. Department ofTransportation 

Docket Operations 

1200 New Jersey Ave., SE 

Washington, DC 20590 

Re: Request to amend and allow for Blue-Chip UAS, Inc. the ability to utilize 

additional sUAS platforms under the same direction as provided within exemption 

#11172, docket# FAA-2014-0787-0009, approved February 10, 2015. 

Dear Sir/Madam, 

Dear Sir or Madam; 

Blue-Chip Unmanned Aerial Solutions, Inc. (Blue-Chip UAS) was issued an exemption under 

Section 333 of the "FAA Modernization and Reform act of2012" (the "Reform Act") numbered 11172 

(the Exemption) for the purpose of conducting UAS operations within the oil and gas, agriculture, 

wildlife and aerial photography industries. Blue-Chip UAS, herby requests an amendment to the 

Exemption to allow an additional type of fuel "Fixed Wing" unmanned aircraft system (UAS) to be 

operated in full compliance with the conditions set forth within the Exemption. 

Blue-Chip UAS, requests permission to operate the following UAS based on their type, size, 

weight, and speed under the same terms and conditions contained within the Exemption and provided by 

the parameters set forth in regards to capabilities and limitations identified within the Flight Operations 

Manual and Maintenance Manual attached as provided. 

------
Model ~ 

UA V Factory Penguin B/C Fixed Wing <11ft Span 

Weight 

<48lbs 

Speed 

<80mph 

Blue-Chip UAS, respectfully requests the same finding from the FAA as provided to 

Aerial Mob, LLC as to their amended exemption numbered 11066A, docket lD FAA-2014-0353, dated 

February 2, 2015. As indicated, the FAA found the amendment request was not precedent setting, that 

good cause exists for not publishing a summary of the petition in the Federal Register and that any delay 

in acting on the petition would be detrimental to the organization. 

Thank you for your time in regards to this petition and please direct any correspondence to Mr. 

Clint Stevens. 

Clint P. Stevens 

Executive Director & Co-Founder 

Blue-Chip UAS, Inc. 

316-305-5498 

cc: 

Robert Pappas 

Kiera Jones 

John Barbagallo