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

FIELD POINT CAPITAL MANAGEMENT COMPANY
ONE LANDMARK SQUARE, SUITE 1900
STAMFORD, CT 06901


June 10, 2014

PASSUR Aerospace, Inc.
One Landmark Square, Suite 1900
Stamford, CT 06901

As Chairman of the Board as well as the principal shareholder of PASSUR
Aerospace, Inc. ("PASSUR Aerospace" or the "Company"), I make the following
commitment to the Company with respect to the period from the date of this
commitment through June 10, 2015.

Liquidity

I commit that if the Company at any time is unable to meet its obligations
through June 10, 2015, that I will provide the necessary continuing financial
support to the Company to ensure the Company's ability to operate as a going
concern through the period ending June 10, 2015. Such continuing support may
take the form of additional loans or advances to PASSUR Aerospace in addition to
the deferral of principal and/or interest payments due on outstanding loans to
PASSUR Aerospace as referred to above.

These commitments are not conditional and are irrevocable through the period
ending June 10, 2015.

I, G.S. Beckwith Gilbert, having the financial wherewithal to enter into this
irrevocable commitment, make the above commitments to the Company and its
shareholders.

/s/ G.S. Beckwith Gilbert
--------------------------
G.S. Beckwith Gilbert
President
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 00-30281

 Conference Calendar

 

HERBERT C. GORMAN,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

C. MARTIN LENSING; ET AL.,

Defendants,

TIM TIRCUIT, Major, also known as T. Tircuit;

JEFFERY HOOPER, Captain; KENNETH PHILLIPS,

Lieutenant; DUANE BERGERON, Sergeant; TONY

HODGE, Sergeant,

Defendants-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Louisiana

USDC No. 96-CV-7362-B

- - - - - - - - - -

December 13, 2000

Before DAVIS, STEWART, and PARKER, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

Herbert C. Gorman, a Louisiana prisoner (# 128482), appeals

from the judgments entered in favor of the defendants following a

jury trial of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action, in which he alleged

that he had been severely beaten after refusing to be shaved with

unsterilized equipment. 
No. 00-30281

-2-

Gorman’s arguments, which concern the weight of the evidence

and the magistrate judge’s handling of the trial, depend upon

review of a trial transcript. There is no indication in the

record that Gorman has sought a copy of the transcript of the

trial from either the district court or this court. His failure

to provide a transcript prevents this court from reviewing his

arguments. See Richardson v. Henry, 902 F.2d 414, 415-16 (5th

Cir. 1990). Accordingly, the appeal is DISMISSED. See id.; 5TH

CIR. R. 42.3.2.

Gorman has not briefed any arguments with respect to the

district court’s earlier granting of a summary-judgment motion

and motion to dismiss. Any such claims are thus abandoned. 

See Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 224-25 (5th Cir. 1993); FED.

R. APP. P. 28(a)(9). 

APPEAL DISMISSED.
<PAGE>

                                EATON CORPORATION
                         2008 ANNUAL REPORT ON FORM 10-K
                                   ITEM 15(B)
                                  EXHIBIT 32.1
                                  CERTIFICATION

This written statement is submitted in accordance with Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002. It accompanies Eaton Corporation's Annual Report on
Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2008 ("10-K Report").

I hereby certify that, based on my knowledge, the 10-K Report fully complies
with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(15 U.S.C 78m), and information contained in the 10-K Report fairly presents, in
all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
Eaton Corporation and its consolidated subsidiaries.


Date: February 27, 2009                 /s/ Alexander M. Cutler
                                        ----------------------------------------
                                        Alexander M. Cutler
                                        Chairman and Chief Executive Officer;
                                        President
No. 10-5712.

#### Alfonso Cisneros-Gutierrez, Petitioner v. United States.

562 U.S. 1181, 131 S. Ct. 995,

178 L. Ed. 2d 831,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 881.

January 18, 2011.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit denied.

*832Same case below, 598 F.3d 997.
No. 10-6997.

#### Paula Nelson, Petitioner v. Jeffrey Skehan, et al.

562 U.S. 1143, 131 S. Ct. 912,

178 L. Ed. 2d 763,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 198.

January 10, 2011.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit denied.

Same case below, 386 Fed. Appx. 783.
<PAGE>

EXHIBIT 32.1*


                           Section 1350 Certification

        I, Richard M. Haddock, the chief executive officer of LaserCard
Corporation, a Delaware corporation (the "Company"), certify pursuant to section
1350 of chapter 63 of title 18 of the United States Code that, to our knowledge:

        (i)     the Annual Report of the Company on Form 10-K for the period
ending March 31, 2005 (the "Report"), fully complies with the requirements of
section 13(a) or 15(d), whichever is applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934, and

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


Date:  June 14, 2005



/s/ Richard M. Haddock
--------------------------
Richard M. Haddock


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

*The material contained in this Exhibit 32.2 is not deemed "filed" with the SEC
and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company under
the Securities Act of 1933 or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, whether made
before or after the date hereof and irrespective of any general incorporation
language contained in such filing.


                                      112
<PAGE>

                                   EXHIBIT 21

                           SUBSIDIARIES OF THE COMPANY


1.    Elk Premium Building Products, Inc., a Delaware corporation, which owns
      all of the outstanding stock of (a) Elk Corporation of America, a Nevada
      corporation, (b) Elk Corporation of Alabama, a Delaware corporation, (c)
      Elk Corporation of Texas, a Nevada corporation, (d) Elk Corporation of
      Arkansas, an Arkansas corporation, (e) Elk Performance Nonwoven Fabrics,
      Inc., a Delaware corporation, (f) Elk Composite Building Products, Inc., a
      Delaware corporation.

2.    Elk Technology Group, Inc., a Delaware corporation, which owns all of the
      outstanding stock of (a) Chromium Corporation, a Delaware corporation, (b)
      Elk Technologies, Inc., a Delaware corporation, (c) OEL, LTD, d/b/a
      Ortloff Engineers, LTD, a Nevada corporation, and (d) Cybershield, Inc., a
      Delaware corporation, which owns all of the outstanding stock of (1)
      Cybershield International, Inc., a Delaware corporation, (2) Cybershield
      of Texas, Inc., a Delaware corporation, and (3) Cybershield of Georgia,
      Inc., a Georgia corporation.

3.    Elk Group, Inc., a Nevada corporation, which is a general partner with a
      1% partnership interest in Elk Group, L.P. (Elk Group L.P.), a Texas
      limited partnership.

4.    NELPA, Inc., a Nevada corporation, which is a limited partner with a 99%
      partnership interest in Elk Group L.P.

5.    Ortloff de Venezuela, S.A., a Republic of Venezuela corporation.
#### In the Matter of Sal Epstein, Also Known as Salomon Epstein, Deceased. Lawrence Keith Eckhouse, Respondent; Anita Taormina, Appellant.

[64 NYS3d 69]

Appeal from a decree of the Surrogate’s Court, Suffolk County (Stephen L. Braslow, S.), dated December 18, 2015. The decree, insofar as appealed from, upon an order of that court dated October 15, 2015, directed Anita Taormina to distribute accrued net income and one-half of the principal of a trust to Lawrence Keith Eckhouse.

Ordered that the decree is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs payable personally by Anita Taormina.

Sal Epstein, also known as Salomon Epstein (hereinafter the decedent), died on August 17, 2008, survived by his two daughters, Anita Taormina and Elena Eckhouse, and three grandchildren. The decedent’s last will and testament bequeathed an amount equal to his lifetime exemption from the federal generation-skipping transfer (hereinafter GST) tax in trust for his grandchildren, with distributions of net income to the grandchildren at least quarterly and mandatory distributions of portions of the principal as the grandchildren attain certain ages, including the age of 30. In October 2008, the Surrogate’s Court admitted the decedent’s will to probate and issued letters testamentary and letters of trusteeship to his daughters.

In February 2015, one of the decedent’s grandchildren, Lawrence Keith Eckhouse, filed a petition pursuant to SCPA 2102 (4) for certain distributions from his GST trust. In an order dated October 15, 2015, the Surrogate’s Court, inter alia, granted that branch of Eckhouse’s motion which was for summary judgment on so much of the petition as sought to require Taormina to distribute accrued net income and one-half of the principal of his GST trust to him, and denied that branch of Taormina’s cross motion which was for summary judgment dismissing so much of the petition as sought those distributions. In an decree dated December 18, 2015, the court, upon the order, directed Taormina to make the distributions. Taormina appeals from the decree.

In support of his motion, Eckhouse established, prima facie, that he was entitled to the distributions of accrued net income and one-half of the trust principal after he reached the age of 30 (see SCPA 2102 [4]). Contrary to Taormina’s contention, she failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether the distributions should not be made at that time.

*730Accordingly, the Surrogate’s Court properly granted the subject branch of Eckhouse’s motion and denied the subject branch of Taormina’s cross motion.

Dillon, J.P., Roman, Miller and LaSalle, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 32.1






Certification Pursuant to 18 U.S.C Section 1350,


As Adopted Pursuant to Section 906 of the


Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002






The undersigned Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of NIC Inc. (the “Company) each hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:






(1) the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarter ended June 30, 2010 (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and






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






Dated: August 5, 2010






/s/ Harry Herington


Harry Herington


Chief Executive Officer






/s/ Stephen M. Kovzan


Stephen M. Kovzan


Chief Financial Officer
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 128 (Monday, July 6, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Page 36398]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-17756]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
[Docket No. CP98-627-000]


El Paso Natural Gas Company; Notice of Request Under Blanket 
Authorization

June 29, 1998.
    Take notice that on June 19, 1998, El Paso Natural Gas Company (El 
Paso), P.O. Box 1492, El Paso, Texas 79978, filed in Docket No. CP98-
627-000 a request pursuant to Sections 157.205 and 157.212 of 
Commission's Regulations under the Natural Gas Act (18 CFR 157.205, 
157.212) for authorization to modify an existing receipt point as a 
delivery point in Upton County, Texas and to thereafter operate the new 
delivery point in jurisdictional service to permit the delivery of 
natural gas to NuStar Joint Venture (NuStar), under El Paso's blanket 
certificate issued in Docket No. CP82-435-000 pursuant to Section 7 of 
the Natural Gas Act, all as more fully set forth in the request that is 
on file with the Commission and open to public inspection.
    El Paso states that NuStar has requested the delivery of pipeline 
quality natural gas as fuel for new field compression facilities in its 
gathering system. To facilitate NuStar's request, El Paso will modify a 
receipt point to a delivery point on El Paso's 20'' O.D. Upton County 
Line (Line No. 1105) and thereafter transport, under NuStar's 
interruptible Transportation Service Agreement, volumes of gas to 
NuStar's new delivery point.
    El Paso states that this proposal is not prohibited by its existing 
tariff and that El Paso has sufficient capacity to accomplish 
deliveries without detriment or disadvantage to its other customers.
    El Paso requests authorization to modify and operate the NuStar 
Joint Venture Delivery Point on its Line No. 1105 in Upton County, 
Texas. The estimated cost of NuStar Joint Venture Delivery Point is 
$5,500 and NuStar will reimburse El Paso for the cost related to the 
construction of this delivery point.
    Any person or the Commission's staff may, within 45 days after 
issuance of the instant notice by the Commission, file pursuant to Rule 
214 of the Commission's Procedural Rules (18 CFR 385.214) a motion to 
intervene or notice of intervention and pursuant to Section 157.205 of 
the Regulations under the Natural Gas Act (18 CFR 157.205) a protest to 
the request. If no protest is filed within the time allowed therefor, 
the proposed activity shall be deemed to be authorized effective the 
day after the time allow for filing a protest. If a protest is filed 
and not withdrawn within 30 days after the time allowed for filing a 
protest, the instant request shall be treated as an application for 
authorization pursuant to Section 7 of the Natural Gas Act.
David P. Boergers,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 98-17756 Filed 7-2-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
# C_2013260EN.01002701.xml

| 7.9.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 260/27 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.9.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 260/27

---

Action brought on 25 June 2013 — European Commission v Hellenic Republic

(Case C-351/13)

2013/C 260/48

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: A. Markoulli and B. Schima)

Applicant:

Defendant: Hellenic Republic

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | declare that, by failing to ensure that from 1 January 2012 laying hens are no longer reared in unenriched cage systems, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 3 and Article 5(2) of Council Directive 1999/74/EC (1) of 19 July 1999 laying down minimum standards for the protection of laying hens; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare that, by failing to ensure that from 1 January 2012 laying hens are no longer reared in unenriched cage systems, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 3 and Article 5(2) of Council Directive 1999/74/EC (1) of 19 July 1999 laying down minimum standards for the protection of laying hens;

1

| — | order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

Article 5(2) of Directive 1999/74/EC prohibits the rearing of laying hens in unenriched cage systems from 1 January 2012. In addition, Article 3 of Directive 1999/74/EC provides that the Member States are obliged to ensure that owners and holders apply in respect of laying hens only the rearing systems that are permitted by the directive.

The Commission directed the Member States’ attention to their obligations to comply with the abovementioned provisions of the directive from 2011. In accordance with the information which was supplied by the Hellenic Republic, it was clear that a significant number of owners and holders of establishments with laying hens would not be able to comply with the Hellenic Republic’s obligations under Directive 1999/74/EC by the date for compliance which is laid down by that directive.

It is apparent from the information which the Hellenic Republic has provided in the pre-litigation procedure and from more recent updates of that information that the Hellenic Republic has still not succeeded in complying with its obligations under Article 3 and Article 5(2) of Directive 1999/74/EC.

---

(1)  OJ 1999 L 203, p. 53.

1

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
The schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
Company's Consolidated Balance Sheet at December 31, 1996 and the
Company's Consolidated Statement of Operations for the year ended
December 31, 1996, and is qualified in its entirety by reference to
such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                             402
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                     9683
<ALLOWANCES>                                       408
<INVENTORY>                                       4962
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 15576
<PP&E>                                            7868
<DEPRECIATION>                                    2373
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   21178
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            10585
<BONDS>                                           2023
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                          1221
<OTHER-SE>                                        5899
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     21178
<SALES>                                          40697
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 41724
<CGS>                                            33804
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    33804
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   111
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 816
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   2677 
<INCOME-TAX>                                       225
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               2452   
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                      2452
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.85
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.85
        

</TABLE>
No. 10-663.

#### Aleksandr Malyutin, Petitioner v. Condoleeza Rice, former Secretary of State, et al.

562 U.S. 1140, 131 S. Ct. 949,

178 L. Ed. 2d 756,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 337.

January 10, 2011.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit denied.
# C_2016419EN.01000302.xml

| 14.11.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 419/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.11.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 419/3

---

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 15 September 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Bucureşti, Curtea de Apel Oradea — Romania) — SC Star Storage SA v Institutul Naţional de Cercetare-Dezvoltare în Informatică (ICI) (C-439/14), SC Max Boegl România SRL and Others v RA Aeroportul Oradea and Others (C-488/14)

(Joined Cases C-439/14 and C-488/14) (1)

1

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directives 89/665/EEC and 92/13/EEC - Public procurement - Review procedures - National legislation making the admissibility of appeals against the acts of a contracting authority subject to giving a ‘good conduct guarantee’ - Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Article 47 - Right to an effective remedy))

(2016/C 419/04)

Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Referring court

Curtea de Apel Bucureşti, Curtea de Apel Oradea

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: SC Star Storage SA (C-439/14), SC Max Boegl România SRL, SC UTI Grup SA, Astaldi SpA, SC Construcții Napoca SA (C-488/14)

Applicants:

Defendants: Institutul Naţional de Cercetare-Dezvoltare în Informatică (ICI) (C-439/14), RA Aeroportul Oradea, SC Porr Construct SRL, Teerag-Asdag Aktiengesellschaft SC Col-Air Trading SRL, AVZI SA, Trameco SA, Iamsat Muntenia SA (C-488/14)

Defendants:

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

Article 1(1) to (3) of Council Directive 89/665/EEC of 21 December 1989 on the coordination of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to the application of review procedures to the award of public supply and public works contracts, as amended by Directive 2007/66/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2007, and Article 1(1) to (3) of Council Directive 92/13/EEC of 25 February 1992 coordinating the laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to the application of Community rules on the procurement procedures of entities operating in the water, energy, transport and telecommunications sectors, as amended by Directive 2007/66, and read in the light of Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union must be interpreted as meaning that they do not preclude national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which makes the admissibility of any action against an act of the contracting authority subject to the obligation for the applicant to constitute a good conduct guarantee that it provides to the contracting authority, if that guarantee must be refunded to the applicant whatever the outcome of the action.

---

(1)  OJ C 448, 15.12.2014.

1

OJ C 26, 26.01.2015.

---
EXHIBIT 10.1


 


AMENDMENT


TO


FEDEX CORPORATION


RETIREMENT PARITY PENSION PLAN


 


The FedEx Corporation Retirement Parity Pension Plan, as amended (the “Plan”),
is hereby amended, effective January 1, 2005, as follows:


 


1.     Article 5 of the Plan shall
be amended by addition of the following as a new subsection (e) at the end
thereof:


 


Notwithstanding any Plan provision to the contrary, no elections,
distributions or other actions will be permitted under the Plan with respect to
benefits accrued after December 31, 2004 unless such actions are in compliance
with the requirements of Section 409A of the Internal Revenue Code and the
rules and regulations promulgated thereunder.


 


2.     Section 2.2 of Appendix B
and Appendix C of the Plan shall be amended by addition of the following at the
end thereof:


 


Notwithstanding any Plan provision to the contrary, no elections,
distributions or other actions will be permitted under the Plan with respect to
benefits accrued after December 31, 2004 unless such actions are in compliance
with the requirements of Section 409A of the Internal Revenue Code and the
rules and regulations promulgated thereunder.
No. 10-6526.

#### Donald Hanton, Petitioner v. United States.

562 U.S. 990, 131 S. Ct. 436,

178 L. Ed. 2d 338,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 8184.

October 18, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied.

Same case below, 375 Fed. Appx. 340.