alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
ex4_2.htm


    
      

    

    Exhibit
4.2

    


    


    The
following is a summary of amendments to the Ford Motor Company Tax-Efficient
Savings Plan for Hourly Employees, dated December 11, 2006:

    


    


    
      	
               
      

            	
              ·

            	
              The
      following additional events satisfy the safe harbor for a hardship
      distribution effective for plan years beginning January 1,
      2006.

            


    

    
      	
               
      

            	
              °

            	
              Funeral
      expenses for the employee's deceased parent, spouse, children or
      dependents; and

            


    

    
      	
               
      

            	
              °

            	
              Expenses
      for the repair of damage to the employee's principal residence that
      qualify for the casualty loss
deduction.
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 32 (Wednesday, February 18, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 8638-8639]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-03200]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER15-957-000]


AltaGas Ripon Energy Inc.; Supplemental Notice that Initial 
Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204 
Authorization

    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding, 
of AltaGas Ripon Energy Inc.'s application for market-based rate 
authority, with an accompanying rate schedule, noting that such 
application includes a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR 
34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the 
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, 
DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's 
Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone 
filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that 
document on the Applicant.
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with 
regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18 
CFR 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability 
is March 2, 2015.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and 
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet 
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an 
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the 
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the 
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 
5 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.

[[Page 8639]]

    The filings in the above-referenced proceeding(s) are accessible in 
the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in 
the above list. They are also available for review in the Commission's 
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link 
on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive email notification 
when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with 
any FERC Online service, please email <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#763033243539181a1f181325030606190402361013041558111900"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="480e0d1a0b07262421262d1b3d3838273a3c082e2d3a2b662f273e">[email protected]</span></a>. or 
call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

    Dated: February 10, 2015.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-03200 Filed 2-17-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
Opinion issued January 21, 2016

In The

Court of Appeals 

For The 

First District of Texas 

————————————

NO. 01-15-00165-CV

———————————

KATHY SHAW, Appellant

V.

JUANITA CESAR WORRELL, Appellee

On Appeal from the County Civil Court at Law No. 1

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Case No. 1056379

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant, Kathy Shaw, proceeding pro se, appealed from the trial court’s 

final judgment, signed on January 12, 2015, in this forcible detainer action. See

TEX. R. APP. P. 26.1. However, after the clerk’s record was filed on October 27, 
2

2015, making the appellate record complete because there was no reporter’s 

record, appellant failed to timely file her appellate brief. See id. 38.6(a).

On December 16, 2015, the Clerk of this Court notified appellant that her 

appeal was subject to dismissal for failure to timely file her appellate brief, and that 

her appeal would be dismissed unless she responded within 10 days. See id.

38.8(a)(1), 42.3(c). The Court’s notice was returned with the following marked on 

the envelope: “RETURN TO SENDER[,] NOT DELIVERABLE AS 

ADDRESSED[,] UNABLE TO FORWARD.” Appellant has neither timely filed 

her brief or other response to the Court’s notice, nor provided the Clerk of this 

Court with any other address. See id. 9.1(b) (“A party not represented by counsel 

must sign any document . . . and give the party’s mailing address, telephone 

number, fax number, if any, and email address.”); 38.8(a)(1), 42.3(c).

Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution for failure to 

timely file a brief. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.8(a)(1), 42.3(b), (c). We dismiss any 

pending motions as moot.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Jennings, Keyes, and Bland.
#### Stanzar, Appellant, vs. Stanzar, Respondent.

For the appellant: *Peter J. Hayes*of Milwaukee.

For the respondent: *Rubin, Zabel & Remitter*of Milwaukee.

*By the Court.*

Judgment affirmed.
# C_2005143EN.01002801.xml

| 11.6.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 143/28 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.6.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 143/28

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof by judgment of that court of 31 March 2005 in Heger Rudi GmbH v Finanzamt Graz-Stadt

(Case C-166/05)

(2005/C 143/43)

Language of the case: German

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by judgment of the Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Higher Administrative Court) (Austria) of 31 March 2005, received at the Court Registry on 13 April 2005, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings between Heger Rudi GmbH and Finanzamt Graz-Stadt on the following question:

Does the grant of the right to fish by means of a transfer of fishing permits for valuable consideration constitute a ‘supply of services connected with immovable property’ within the meaning of Article 9(2)(a) of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonization of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment?

---
**Exhibit 10.10**

**CNET Networks, Inc.**

**Outside Director Compensation Plan**

Originally adopted by the Board of Directors June 10, 2003 

Revised July 19, 2005 

**Plan Objective**

The CNET Networks, Inc. Outside Director Compensation Plan is designed to attract and retain board members who possess the highest qualifications, integrity and independence and to compensate them appropriately fortheir services. 

**Eligibility**

The Plan isavailable to members of the CNET Networks Board of Directors who are not employees of the Company. 

**Effective Date of the Plan**

The revised Plan is in effect for meetings after July 1, 2005 and shall remain in effect until repealed by the Board of Directors, and supercedes any prior plan.

**Plan Administration**

The Governance Committeeis responsible for administering the Plan in its sole discretion and judgment. 

**Annual Cash Retainer**

Each member of the Board of Directors shall receive an annual retainer of $15,000 payable in cash in equal installments on a quarterly basis within thirty days followingthe end of the quarter. Payments shall be pro-rated to reflect service for periods of less than a full quarter. In the event of a director’s resignation or removal, a pro rated payment shall be made within thirty days of termination of service.

The Chair of the Audit Committee shall receive an annual retainer of $8,000 and the Chair of each other committee shall receive an annual retainer of$5,000, payable in the same manner as the board retainer. 

**Meeting Fees**

Each member of the Board of Directors shall receive a fee equal to $2,000 for each board meeting attended in person and $500 for each board meeting attended by telephone. Each member of a committee shall receive a feeequal to $1,000 for each committee meeting attended, 

whether in person or by phone, provided that no fees shall be paid with respect to committee meetings held in conjunction with board meetings. Meeting feesshall be paid within thirty days of the end of each quarter for all meetings held during the quarter. 

**Option Grants**

Each director shall be entitled to an annual option grant in the amount of 20,000 shares. The grant shall be made in conjunction with the annual company-wide grant to allemployees pursuant to the same form of agreement used for director grants prior to the adoption of this Plan, provided that the removal of restrictions on sale of shares acquired pursuant to the option grant shall occur in one installment on thefirst anniversary of the grant. 

In addition, upon joining the board, a member shall be entitled to receive an option grant in the amount of 60,000 optionspursuant to the same form of agreement used for director grants prior to the adoption of this Plan, with restrictions on sale of shares acquired pursuant to the option grant to be removed 1/3 on the first anniversary of the grant and 1/36 permonth thereafter. 

 

2
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Allah McCall, Appellant.

[772 NYS2d 857]

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Kron, J.), rendered December 5, 2001, convicting him of murder in the second degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is reversed, on the law, and a new trial is ordered.

The People correctly concede that the Supreme Court committed reversible error when it permitted the prosecutor to exercise a peremptory challenge to exclude a prospective juror because she was of Jamaican ancestry *(see People v McCorkle,*278 AD2d 249 [2000]).

The defendant’s remaining contention is without merit. Florio, J.P., Schmidt, Mastro and Rivera, JJ., concur.
• 7:71.810#1,74n,l4

-TOVSECRET--

Eurasian Canimist Countries(prInar,

PIDTO World Wide 4/*

/ 17/ fi/j/13 9/3/7 / %

18 July 190

MOCR ►ITIOM

sumer: uto aat Report for August 1967 

The fellsoing satellite activities aro forecasted for the

south of August 190 

111.1laig

UPI • =KW

bussian Co—mist Countrien(prio:

1 Mission (SLY 2A) Pa= World ma. Mapping (Secondary)
#### Waters and another, Appellants, vs. Bergander and another, Respondents.

For the appellants: *A. A. Cooper*of Milwaukee.

For the respondents : *Maurice A. Goldberg*of Milwaukee.

*By the Court.*

Judgment affirmed.
#### First State Bank of Humbird, Respondent, vs. Iffland, Appellant.

Appeal from a judgment of the circuit court for Clark county dated June 17, 1926: Edgar V. Werner, Judge.

Action on promissory note. Judgment for plaintiff, from which defendant appeals.

For the appellant: *Rush & Devos*of Neillsville.

For the respondent: *Linderman, Ramsdell & King*and *C. R. Sturdevant,*all of Eau Claire.

*By the Court.*— Judgment affirmed.
....__._ ....... -... 

Approved for Release: 2020/02/07 C05115073 

ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF DEFENSE 

WASHINGTON, D,C. 20301 

6 ~dAY 1969 

MEMORANDUM FOR Tl-'C.Ii'.: SECRETARY OF THE NAVY 

THE SECRETARY OF THE A~_;_:~ FORCE 

SUBJECT: Guidance for Public Affairs Launch Procedures at the 

Eastern Test Range. 

During 1968 normal public affairs launch procedures at the 

Eastern Test Range were changed to accommodate specific programs 

requiring greater security protection than previous ETR projects. 

Prior to the advent of these classified program launches. the 

Eastern Test Range was relatively open for all launches and the news 

media were free to attend any launch they cared to witness. 

Thia guidance defines launch connected public aifairs procedures 

to be used at military launches at the Eastern Test Range and it 

identifies future military launches with these procedures. Future 

Eastern Test Range public affairs launch procedures will fall into 

three categories: 

Category I 

Category II 

OS 69-2295;Jf 

Press notification at T-5 days, accompanied 

by cleared press material embargoed until 

launch. Press may witness launch and a 

post-launch press conferenc,! may be held1 

if appropriate. Even though this is a 

relatively unrestricted cate;;,,ry, pertinent 

program security restrictior,., still apply 

and only cleared informatio.~, will be furnished 

the press. 

Press notification at T-5 da::.-s• Press 

material cleared for each ti;-,ecific launch 

and only that launch may b.: made available 

under the same embargo r,:(..trictions as in 

Category I. Press may w'.,:.,ess launch. 

No post-launch press confc1· ,nee will be 

authorized and no informat:• ·,1 as to success 

or failure of launch will t,. ·:urnished the 

c;i./," :~(·:.:: 

Approved for Release: 2020/02/07 C05115073 
Approved for Release: 2020/02/07 C05115073 

-

Category m 

press except in the case n · contingencies 

in which case pre-clcai•eci taterna nts 1nay 

be ut.ed. This type of la1., ch normally 

has a classified payload; Lr.erefore great 

care must be exercised to :·elease only 

properly cleared inforrnati,;n. All 

.MINUTEMAN III and POS.li.:~:>ON launches 

fall into this category. 

Launch closed to press; statement released 

at or shortly after launch, giving only time 

and date of launch and the booster used. 

Because this type of launch requires maximum security, any exception to this procedure must be obtained from the Assistant 

Secretary of Defense (Public Affairs). Precleared contingency statements will be 

authorized £or use when appropriate. 

For future guidance and pl.inning purposes, the programs listed 

below will use the public a££airs launch procedures as indicated: 

PROGRAM CATEGORY 

Category I ~. ' 

Program 777 {DEFCO.MSAT) Category I 

VELA Category I 

SESP Category I 

POLARIS Category I 

.MINUTEMAN III Category II 

ADVANCED ICBM Catego1-y !.L 

POSEIDON Category .! r 

Advanced POSEIDON (ULMS) Category T' .,J. 

Category 1c.. 

Category J.~.J;.. 

Program 949 Category :.::1 

Category ....... 

... ,, 

Approved for Release: 2020/02/07 C05115073
i i i i i i

MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04-08-00049-CR

Manuel SCHAFER, Jr.,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the County Court at Law No. 7, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 205672

Honorable Monica E. Guerrero, Judge Presiding

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Alma L. López, Chief Justice

Catherine Stone, Justice

Karen Angelini, Justice

Delivered and Filed: June 25, 2008

DISMISSED FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION

Appellant was placed on deferred adjudication community supervision on March 14, 2007.

On May 7, 2007, the trial court extended the term of appellant’s community supervision. On January

24, 2008, appellant filed a motion for leave to file a late notice of appeal. 

Modification of probation is not appealable at the time of modification. See Basaldua v.

State, 558 S.W.2d 2, 5 (Tex. Crim. App. 1977). Moreover, the clerk’s record filed in this appeal 
04-08-00049-CR

-2-

contains no indication that appellant filed a timely notice of appeal with the trial court. In order for

this court to have jurisdiction, a notice of appeal must be filed in the trial court within fifteen days

after the deadline for filing the notice of appeal and a motion for extension of time must be timely

filed in this court. Olivo v. State, 918 S.W.2d 519, 522 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996).

On May 28, 2008, we ordered appellant to show cause in writing why this appeal should not

be dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Appellant did not respond to our order. This appeal is

dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

PER CURIAM

DO NOT PUBLISH
Approved for Release: 2019/01/11 C051 05852 

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF THE AlA FORCE 

OFFICE OF SPECIAL PROJECTS 

DATE 2-3 ~ q"L 

MEMORANDUM FOR: G ~ 

Approved for Release: 2019/01/11 C051 05852 
Approved for Release: 2019/01/11 C051 05852 

GENERAL CVNAMICS 

Space Systems Division 

50.0.1 Kearny Villa Road • PO Box 85990. San Diego, CA 92186-5990. 

MICHAEL W WYNNE 

Vice President 21 December 1992 General Dynamics Corporation 

President 

Space Systems Division 

Brigadier General Donald R. Walker SAFSP 

Director, Special Projects 

P. O. Box 92960 

Los Angeles, California 90009-2960 

Dear General Walker: 

619974-4900 

The AC-71 Oversight Board met for the 5th time on 8-10 December 1992. As a part of 

keeping all informed of the planned and actual accomplishments, I would like to 

advise of the outcome. The team had anticipated closing all of the failure cause and 

effect legs and presenting to the Board, scenarios which will underscore the 

investigative final report. This objective, though largely complete, was not met. 

Many of the legs were closed out and essentially ratified by the Oversight Board. 

However, some concerning anomalous data (in particular the shocks) were 

incomplete and could not be presented. 

The scenario presented did encompass all of the known anomalous data and incidents, 

but could not be verified. Basically, we continue to believe that an open pre-chill 

check valve allowed air to be ingested during boost through the sensible atmosphere. 

The air injestion into an environment of cold, below the freezing point of nitrogen 

(86% of air), froze in the liquid hydrogen fuel pump and impeded the pump from 

coming to full torque. The shock was a result of the dynamics of non-start and may 

have resulted from either gear backlash or a combustion occurrence within the 

chamber (both of these are being investigated further). The Oversight Board 

encouraged a confirming analysis or test, and was not satisfied on this point. 

We intend to proceed in parallel with the corrective actions to reduce the pre-chill 

temperature and add a solenoid valve to positively close the outside air from the 

engine. Our plan is to continue to close out the cause/effect legs, as well as prepare 

the failure investigation report, such that the Oversight Board can evaluate the 

report and the related corrective actions and begin to prepare their report. 

In this regard, the next Oversight Board will meet 6-7 January 1993. During this 

meeting the adequacy of the corrective actions will be discussed and a further 

determination of schedule made. Currently, the first quarter of 1993 remains our 

target, but this depends on the timely resolution of open issues. 

Approved for Release: 2019/01/11 C051 05852 
Approved fo~ Release: 2019/01/11 C051 05852 

-2-

I'd like to take this opportunity to wish you a very Happy Holiday Season, and tell you 

we, at Space Systems Division, greatly appreciate your patience during our standdown. It remains our intention to return to flight with increased reliability as 

prudently and quickly as possible. 

Best regards, 

Approved for Release: 2019/01/11 C051 05852
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-6249

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

HENRY LEE HUFF,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Winston-Salem. William L. Osteen, Sr.,

District Judge. (CR-93-11-6, CA-97-469-6)

Submitted: May 19, 1998 Decided: June 9, 1998

Before ERVIN, HAMILTON, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Henry Lee Huff, Appellant Pro Se. Paul Alexander Weinman, Assistant United States Attorney, Benjamin H. White, Jr., Assistant

United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Henry Lee Huff seeks to appeal the district court's order

denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 1994 &

Supp. 1998). We have reviewed the record and the district court's

opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and

find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district

court. United States v. Huff, CR-93-11-6, CA-97-469-6 (M.D.N.C.

Dec. 30, 1997). We also decline to address issues raised for the

first time on appeal. See Muth v. United States, 1 F.3d 246, 250

(4th Cir. 1993). 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.

DISMISSED
#### Blount *v.*Fish.

This was a *qui tam*action. The Defendant had died pending the action. *Et per curiam*— The act continues no suit whirl) before the act was not maintainable against executors ; and as this action before the act, would have abated by the death of the Defendant, and cfould not have been afterwards commenced against his executors, it is abated now. The action abated.

Note. — Fide same point decided in the case of *Smith v. Walker’s 32 x’rs.*2 *Car. Law Rep.*245.
-TOP-SECRET- •

l'SI,.&'nIATIONAL RECONNAISSANCE OFFICE

WASHINGTON, D.C.

THE NRO STAFF

. •

September 22, 1972

MEMORANDUM FOR MR. GOTTSCHLING

SUBJECT: Voice of America Broadc ast on Reconnaissance .

Satellites

On September 20, I contacted Mr. Handyside of the

State Department regarding the VOA broadcast of August 26,

which extensively commented on U. S. photo reconnaissance

satellite capability. He told me that he would check out

the broadcast and find out who was responsible for approving

the script.

Mr. Handyside called back on September 21 to report

that the VOA broadcast was essentially an interview with

Phil Klass which in their estimation was timely in view

of the on-going SALT ratification proceedings. Mr. Handyside

had spoken with a Mr. Joe Hansen, the man responsible for

setting VOA broadcast policy. Mr. Hansen had apparently

been unaware, even though he has TK clearance, that the

subject of our national means of verification was not to

be publicly discussed. Hansen told Handyside that VOA

had considered that Klass's observations were in the public

domain and that there was no breach of security involved.

I reiterated to Handyside the need for people such as

Hansen to be made fully aware of national policy and that

the question of public domain information being authenticated

by an official U.S. news organization is of very grave

exam w4 Internal

arts

IgGIVIIHNI IMMO 11111111•1111C 11111114411111111 mlas

rgelkterrj.113.11.1411111.11MT.MPIPIV

. . •
10VSECRET-----

concern to this organization. Mr. Handyside said that

he understands this very clearly and will contact Hansen

again to insure that this kind of broadcast does not

occur again in the future.

I think that the CIA should generate a letter for

Mr. Helms' signature to the Head of the USIA which would

strongly admonish the USIA Staff and reiterate the seriousness of this apparent abuse of national policy and official

authentication of sensitive information.

.111111011111111 rs\

-TOP-SEC-REF

INCLo3C0 FINN s., womar.: Of :...N7

1105 O

.m.. Internal

O01 Of COM,

.-77771171111