alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 32.1


              SECTION 906 CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

                            CERTIFICATION 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 Quarterly Report (the "Report") of TCI
Solutions, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the quarter ending September
30, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
(the "Report"), Lance C. Jacobs, Chief Executive Officer of the Company,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

1.      The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or
        15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

2.      The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
        respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the
        Company.

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to TCI Solutions, Inc. and will be retained by TCI Solutions, Inc. and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.



Date: November 13, 2003                      By:       /s/ Lance C. Jacobs
                                                   -----------------------------
                                                       Lance C. Jacobs
                                                       Chief Executive Officer
<PAGE>

                                                                   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

In connection with the Annual Report of Innovative Solutions and Support, Inc.
(the "Company") on Form 10-K for the period ending September 30, 2003 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
each of the undersigned officers of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that:

      (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

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

/s/ Geoffrey S. M. Hedrick
-----------------------------------------------------
Geoffrey S. M. Hedrick
Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer
December 6, 2004


/s/ James J. Reilly
-----------------------------------------------------
James J. Reilly
Chief Financial Officer
December 6, 2004
a10a75.htm




Exhibit 10(a)75


PENSION EQUALIZATION PLAN


OF ENTERGY CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES


(As Amended and Restated Effective January 1, 2009)







Certificate of Amendment







Amendment No. 1


 

 







THIS INSTRUMENT, executed this 15th day of December, 2010, but made effective  December 30, 2010, constitutes the First Amendment of the Pension Equalization Plan of Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries (As Amended and Restated Effective January 1, 2009) (the “Plan”).







All capitalized terms used in this Amendment No. 1 shall have the meanings assigned to them in the Plan unless otherwise herein defined.







Pursuant to Section 8.01 of the Plan and in accordance with the Resolutions of the Personnel Committee of the Board of Directors adopted at its meeting of December 2, 2010, the Plan is hereby amended as follows:








	
  

	
1.

	
The Plan is hereby amended by adding the following new paragraph at the end of the Plan preamble to read as follows:












The Plan is now hereby amended effective December 30, 2010, pursuant to resolutions adopted by the Personnel Committee of the Board of Directors of Entergy at its meeting held on December 2, 2010, authorizing amendments to the Plan in order to address certain market practices, external governance concerns, emerging trends and cost controls by increasing the change in ownership threshold now required in Subsection 1.04(a) to trigger one of the events constituting a Change in Control event.








	
2.  

	
Subsection 1.04(a) of the Plan is hereby amended in its entirety to read as follows:













	
(a)  

	
the purchase or other acquisition by any person, entity or group of persons, acting in concert within the meaning of Subsections 13(d) or 14(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 ("Act"), or any comparable successor provisions, of beneficial ownership (within the meaning of Rule 13d-3 promulgated under the Act) of thirty percent (30%) or more of either the shares of common stock outstanding immediately following such acquisition or the combined voting power of Entergy Corporation's voting securities entitled to vote generally and outstanding immediately following such acquisition, other than any such purchase or acquisition in connection with a Non-CIC Merger (defined in Subsection (b) below);


















IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Personnel Committee has caused this First Amendment to the Pension Equalization Plan of Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries (As Amended and Restated Effective January 1, 2009) to be executed by its duly authorized representative on the day, month, and year above set forth, but effective December 30, 2010.












ENTERGY CORPORATION


PERSONNEL COMMITTEE


through the undersigned duly authorized representative







/s/ Terry R. Seamons


TERRY R. SEAMONS


Senior Vice-President,


        Human Resources and Administration
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 41 (Wednesday, March 4, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 9400]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-4598]


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

FEDERAL MARITIME COMMISSION

[Docket No. 08-07]


Petition of Olympus Growth Fund III, L.P. and Olympus Executive 
Fund, L.P. for Declaratory Order, Rulemaking or Other Relief; Erratum

February 26, 2009.
    In the Request for Comments in Docket 08-07, served February 19, 
2009 and appearing in the Federal Register on February 25, 2009 (74 FR 
8541), the date in the first sentence is corrected to read ``March 13, 
2009.''

Karen V. Gregory,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-4598 Filed 3-3-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6730-01-P
No. 09-8284.

#### Jesse Alejo, Petitioner v. California.

559 U.S. 979, 130 S. Ct. 1704,

176 L. Ed. 2d 193,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 2045.

March 1, 2010.

Petition for writ of cer-tiorari to the Court of Appeal of California, Second Appellate District, denied.
* Pursuant to Local Rule 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 Local Rule

47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 95-50894

USDC No. EP-95-CV-355

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

GABRIEL ERNESTO GARCES

Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

- - - - - - - - - -

March 24, 1997

Before KING, JOLLY, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Gabriel Garces (# 63220-080) has applied to this court for

leave to appeal in forma pauperis (IFP) from the district court’s

denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion to vacate. Garces contends

that for several reasons, he should not have received a ten-year

mandatory minimum sentence pursuant to 21 U.S.C. §§ 952(a) and

960.

IT IS ORDERED that leave to appeal IFP is DENIED, because

Garces’ appeal lacks arguable merit and is therefore frivolous. 
No. 95-50894

-2-

See Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir. 1983). 

Because the appeal is frivolous, IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the

appeal is DISMISSED. See 5th Cir. R. 42.2. 

If this court were to hold that a certificate of

appealability (COA) is required in a case such as this, COA would

be denied. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c).

IFP DENIED; APPEAL DISMISSED.
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

JUDGMENT

No. 04-15-00185-CV

BEXAR COUNTY HOSPITAL DISTRICT d.b.a. University Health System,

Appellant

v.

Theresa L. ESPINOZA,

Appellee

From the County Court at Law No. 10, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 385685

Honorable David J. Rodriguez, Judge Presiding

BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE MARION, JUSTICE ANGELINI, AND JUSTICE PULLIAM

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, this appeal is DISMISSED. Costs of 

appeal are taxed against the party who incurred them.

SIGNED May 20, 2015.

_________________________________

Jason Pulliam, Justice
No. 09-8551.

#### Lee Holden Parker, Petitioner v. Michael Randle, Director, Illinois Department of Corrections, et al.

559 U.S. 1011, 130 S. Ct. 1890,

176 L. Ed. 2d 373,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 2598.

March 22, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit denied.
August 8, 2016

Mr. Philip Jones

COO

Martin UAV

15455 Dallas Parkway

Suite 1075

Addison, TX 75001

Re: FAA–2015–5644

Dear Mr. Jones:

This letter is to provide notification that we have reviewed your petition for exemption, and 

have determined that we will continue to process your petition. 

As referenced in the June 22, 2016, letter posted to your docket at www.regulations.gov, we 

are reviewing pending Section 333 petitions to determine if the recently-issued regulation, 

Operation and Certification of Small Unmanned Aircraft Systems, Title 14, Code of Federal 

Regulations, Part 107 (www.faa.gov/uas) will satisfy your request. We have determined that 

your request requires further regulatory relief (Tier 3), and we will continue working on your 

petition for exemption. 

We have found that your petition, if granted, would set a precedent. Therefore, we will 

publish a summary of your petition in the Federal Register for public comments, if we have 

not done so already.

We will advise you of the agency’s final decision on your petition as soon as possible. If you 

have any questions regarding your petition, please contact me at 333exemptions@faa.gov. 

Sincerely,

/s/

Brenda Robeson

Program Analyst
a10a63.htm




Exhibit 10(a)63


EXECUTIVE DEFERRED COMPENSATION PLAN


OF ENTERGY CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES


(As Amended and Restated Effective January 1, 2009)







Certificate of Amendment







Amendment No. 1


 

 







THIS INSTRUMENT, executed this 15th day of December, 2010, but made effective  December 30, 2010, constitutes the First Amendment of the Executive Deferred Compensation Plan of Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries (As Amended and Restated Effective January 1, 2009) (the “Plan”).







All capitalized terms used in this Amendment No. 1 shall have the meanings assigned to them in the Plan unless otherwise herein defined.







Pursuant to Section 9.01 of the Plan and in accordance with the Resolutions of the Personnel Committee of the Board of Directors adopted at its meeting of December 2, 2010, the Plan is hereby amended as follows:








	
  

	
1.

	
The Plan is hereby amended by adding the following new paragraph at the end of the Plan preamble to read as follows:












The Plan is now hereby amended effective December 30, 2010, pursuant to resolutions adopted by the Personnel Committee of the Board of Directors of Entergy at its meeting held on December 2, 2010, authorizing amendments to the Plan in order to address certain market practices, external governance concerns, emerging trends and cost controls by increasing the change in ownership threshold now required in Subsection 2.06(a) to trigger one of the events constituting a Change in Control event.













	
2.  

	
Subsection 2.06(a) of the Plan is hereby amended in its entirety to read as follows:













	
(a)  

	
the purchase or other acquisition by any person, entity or group of persons, acting in concert within the meaning of Subsections 13(d) or 14(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 ("Act"), or any comparable successor provisions, of beneficial ownership (within the meaning of Rule 13d-3 promulgated under the Act) of thirty percent (30%) or more of either the shares of common stock outstanding immediately following such acquisition or the combined voting power of Entergy Corporation's voting securities entitled to vote generally and outstanding immediately following such acquisition, other than any such purchase or acquisition in connection with a Non-CIC Merger (defined in Subsection (b) below);


















IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Personnel Committee has caused this First Amendment to the Executive Deferred Compensation Plan of Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries (As Amended and Restated Effective January 1, 2009) to be executed by its duly authorized representative on the day, month, and year above set forth, but effective December 30, 2010.












ENTERGY CORPORATION


PERSONNEL COMMITTEE


through the undersigned duly authorized representative







/s/ Terry R. Seamons


TERRY R. SEAMONS


Senior Vice-President,


                Human Resources and Administration
Amendment to Amended and Restated Employment Agreement for Douglas G. Hibberd



 Exhibit 10.17A 
 AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT 
 This Amendment to EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT
(“Amendment”), dated and effective as of February 25, 2011, (the “Effective Date”) by and between SolarWinds Australia Pty Ltd, an Australian Company (the “Company”) and Douglas Hibberd (the
“Employee”) (collectively referred to as “Parties”). 
 WHEREAS, the Parties entered into the Employment
Agreement effective January 31, 2011; 
 WHEREAS, the Parties desire to amend the Employment Agreement in order to
incorporate the changes herein; 
 WHEREAS, the Parties acknowledge the adequacy and sufficiency of consideration specified
herein; 
 IN CONSIDERATION of the premises and the mutual covenants set forth below, the parties hereby agree as follows:

 Section 6 of the Employment Agreement should be deleted and replaced with the following: 

“6. Change of Control Benefits. “Change of Control” shall be defined as a transaction or series of transactions
where the shareholders of SolarWinds, Inc. immediately preceding such transaction own, following such transaction, less than 50% of the voting securities of SolarWinds, Inc.; provided however, that a firmly underwritten public offering of the Common
Stock shall not be deemed a Change of Control. In the event of termination of the Employee’s employment by the Company other than for Cause or in the event of Constructive Termination, in each case upon or during the twelve (12) month period
after the effective date of a Change of Control, the Employee shall be entitled to (i) a lump sum cash severance amount equivalent to six (6) months of Employee’s then current annual base salary; (ii) all of Employee’s remaining
unvested Stock Options, Restricted Stock, or Restricted Stock Units grants from all of Employee’s then-outstanding grants shall immediately and fully vest as of the date of such termination, and (iii) the Employee shall receive the
consideration set forth in sections 5(c) hereof.” 
 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this
Amendment as of the date first written above. 
 SOLARWINDS AUSTRALIA PTY LTD 

 

					
			
	 	 		 	 
	Bryan A. Sims	 		 	Douglas Hibberd
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . 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 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

## FILED April 20, 2004 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 03-51041 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus DORIS DENISE MCELRATH-BEY, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. W-03-CR-114-2

-------------------- Before JOLLY, JONES, and SMITH, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Doris Denise McElrath-Bey appeals the sentence imposed following her guilty-plea conviction for one count of making a false statement during acquisition of a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(a)(6) and § 924(a)(2). She asserts that the district court erred in determining that her base offense level was 20 on account of a prior state felony conviction for residential arson. She also asserts that the district court erred in failing to grant her a downward departure from theNo. 03-51041 -2- United States Sentencing Guidelines sentencing range because she purchased a firearm in order to protect herself from threatened harm. Inasmuch as McElrath-Bey concedes that her prior state felony conviction was for arson, an enumerated crime of violence under the relevant sentencing guideline, the district court did not err in determining that the base offense level was 20. See U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(a)(4)(A) and § 4B1.2(a)(2) and comment. (n.1). The district court determined that the facts of the case did not warrant a downward departure, and therefore this court does not have jurisdiction to review the refusal to depart. United States v. Palmer , 122 F.3d 215, 222 (5th Cir. 1997). AFFIRMED IN PART; DISMISSED IN PART FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION.
##### 



Exhibit 23 Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm We consent to the incorporation by reference in this Annual Report (Form 10-K) of American
Standard Companies Inc. of our reports dated February 22, 2005, with respect to the consolidated
financial statements of American Standard Companies Inc., American Standard Companies Inc.
managements assessment of the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting, and
the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting of American Standard Companies
Inc., included in the 2004 Annual Report to Shareholders of American Standard Companies Inc. Our audits also included the financial statement schedules of American Standard Companies Inc.
listed in Item 15(a). These schedules are the responsibility of American Standard Companies Inc.
management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion based on our audits. In our opinion, the
financial statement schedules referred to above, when considered in relation to the basic
financial statements taken as a whole, present fairly in all material respects the information
set forth therein. New York, NY
February 22, 2005
No. 09-8851.

#### David L. White, Petitioner v. United States.

559 U.S. 987, 130 S. Ct. 1728,

176 L. Ed. 2d 206,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 1997.

March 1, 2010.

Petition for writ of cer-tiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit denied.

Same case below, 332 Fed. Appx. 601.
ex10_18.htm









Exhibit 10.18







SUMMARY OF NAMED EXECUTIVE OFFICER COMPENSATION







Effective as of January 1, 2010, the following are the annual base salaries of the Chief Executive Officer and the four other most highly compensated executive officers of Schweitzer-Mauduit International, Inc.  No named executive officer has an employment contract with the Company.  The named executive officers participate in various compensation plans and other arrangements as described in the Company’s 2011 Proxy Statement.













	
 


 

	
 

	
Chairman,


CEO

	
 

	
Executive Vive


President,


Finance and


Strategic


Planning

	
 

	
Vice President, LIP

	
 

	
Chief Operating


Officer and


Executive Vice


President, Paper


Business

	
 

	
Executive Vice


President, 


Reconstituted 


Tobacco 


Business


	
2010 Base Salary

	
 

	
US$725,000

	
 

	
US$355,000

	
 

	
US$298,700

	
 

	
US$435,000

	
 

	
 E303,575
No. 09-9185.

#### Adnan Alisic, Petitioner v. United States.

559 U.S. 1024, 130 S. Ct. 1928,

176 L. Ed. 2d 396,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 2353.

March 22, 2010.

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

Same case below, 357 Fed. Appx. 778.
408 P.2d 46

#### Application of Don Gregor for a Writ of Habeas Corpus. Don GREGOR, Petitioner, v. STATE of Arizona, Frank A. Eyman, Warden, Arizona State Prison, et al., Respondents.

No. 2 CA-HC 9.

Court of Appeals of Arizona.

Nov. 24, 1965.

Rehearing Denied Jan. 4, 1966.

Review Denied Feb. 1, 1966.

Don Gregor, in pro. per.

Darrell F. Smith, Atty. Gen., Phoenix, for respondents.

KRUCKER, Chief Judge:

Petitioner, Don Gregor, filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus. He was sentenced to the Arizona State Prison for a term of not less than 30 nor more than 35 years, commencing March 3, 1949. The petition states that 35 years, 7 months and 5 *285days have been served as of the date of filing the petition on September *7,*1965.

We have carefully examined the petition and the calculations made by the petitioner, as well as the applicable statutes. Examination of the petition indicates that the petitioner claims 13 years, 11 months statutory time under the provisions of A.R.S. § 31-251.

From our examination of the appropriate statutes, the maximum statutory time earned from the time of commencement of the sentence to date of filing the petition, under the provisions of A.R.S. § 31-251, would be 6 years.

The total time served, with all allowable credits, including the double time under A.R.S. § 31-252, as stated in the petition, would not total the minimum or maximum amount of the petitioner’s sentence.

It is, therefore, ordered that the petition for writ of habeas corpus is denied.

HATHAWAY and MOLLOY, JJ., concur.
No. 11-7243.

#### Rodericol Murphy, Petitioner v. Jeri Ann Sherry, Warden.

565 U.S. 1127, 132 S. Ct. 1036,

181 L. Ed. 2d 763,

2012 U.S. LEXIS 13.

January 9, 2012.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit denied.
No. 09M83.

#### Juan Wiggins, Petitioner v. William F. Logan, et al.

559 U.S. 1047, 130 S. Ct. 2366,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 2985.

176 L. Ed. 2d 560,

April 5, 2010.

Motion to direct the Clerk to file a petition for writ of certiorari out of time denied.
No. 09-7147.

#### Frank M. Muniz, Petitioner v. Lupe Marshall, Warden.

559 U.S. 1003, 130 S. Ct. 1934,

176 L. Ed. 2d 360,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 2557.

March 22, 2010.

Motion of petitioner for reconsideration of order denying leave to proceed in forma pauperis denied.
# C_2017281EN.01000101.xml

| 25.8.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 281/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.8.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 281/1

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.8401 — J&J/Actelion)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2017/C 281/01)

On 9 June 2017, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the internal market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) in conjunction with Article 6(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1). The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

1

| — | in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32017M8401. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32017M8401. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.

1

---