alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Chanel HALL, Individually and as Next Friend and Personal Representative of the Estate of J.C.P., petitioner, v. Lasandra SMITH.

No. 12-989.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 15, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.
InfoTech USA, Inc. Exhibit 10.1 to Form 8K




EXHIBIT 10.1



[IBM CREDIT LLC
LETTERHEAD] 



March 3, 2004 



     Mr. J. Robert Patterson

 CFO and Treasurer

 Info Tech USA, Inc.

 7 Kingsbridge Road

Fairfield, NJ 07004 



Dear Mr. Patterson: 



Reference is hereby made to the
following (i) Agreement for Wholesale Financing executed on April 20, 1994, by Info Tech
USA, Inc. (“Info Tech”) (as amended, supplemented or otherwise modified from
time to time, the “Agreement”), (ii) e-mail addressed to you from Mr. Bruce
Gordon dated August 28, 2003 whereby Mr. Bruce Gordon informed you that IBM Credit would
no longer finance Info Tech’s product effective approximately 180 days from the date
of a formal notice sent by IBM Credit to Info Tech, and (iii) IBM Credit’s letter to
Info Tech dated September 5, 2003 whereby IBM Credit formally notified Info Tech of the
Termination Date (the “September 5th Letter”). All capitalized terms not
otherwise defined in this letter or the September 5th Letter shall have the respective
meanings set forth in the Agreement. 



Info Tech has requested that IBM
Credit extend the Termination Date from March 10, 2004 to April 9, 2004. As an
accommodation and to assist Info Tech in making replacement financing arrangements, IBM
Credit agrees to these requests provided Info Tech agrees to (i) a reduction of its credit
line from Two Million Five Hundred Thousand Dollars ($2,500,000) to One Million Seven
Hundred Fifty Thousand Dollars ($1,750,000) effective March 10, 2004 and (ii) the terms of
this letter. 



By executing this letter, Info Tech
reaffirms that (x) it will not be relieved of any obligations to IBM Credit arising out of
IBM Credit’s advances or commitments made before the Termination Date, (y) all of IBM
Credit’s rights and remedies under the Agreement shall be unaffected until all of
Info Tech’s obligations to IBM Credit are paid in full. IBM Credit reserves any and
all rights and remedies that IBM Credit now has or may have in the future with respect to
Info Tech, including any and all rights or remedies which it may have in the future as a
result of Customer’s failure to comply with any of the terms of the Agreement, and
(z) that no new default has occurred under the Agreement. 



Notwithstanding any other terms in
the Agreement and provided no default occurs under the Agreement, Info Tech may repay,
prior to and after the Termination Date, all such obligations according to the terms of
each billing statement provided by IBM Credit to Info Tech. 



Please acknowledge your agreement to
the terms set forth herein by signing a copy of this letter where indicated and returning
it to the attention of Mr. Bruce Gordon at the above address. 


	Sincerely, 	Acknowledged and Agreed: 




	IBM CREDIT LLC

/s/ Steven A. Flanagan 	INFO TECH USA, INC.

/s/ J. Robert Patterson 


	Steven A. Flanagan

 Manager, Global Special Handling	J. Robert Patterson

 Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer
Fletcher SMITH, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D18-98

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

June 20, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Robert T. WILLIAMS, petitioner, v. Burl CAIN, Warden.

No. 12M114.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 29, 2013.

Motion to direct the Clerk to file a petition for writ of certiorari out of time under Rule 14.5 denied.
UBER’S LIST OF TOP TEN DEPOSITIONS

Case No. 3:17-cv-00939-WHA

dc-888609 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

MICHAEL A. JACOBS (CA SBN 111664)

MJacobs@mofo.com 

ARTURO J. GONZÁLEZ (CA SBN 121490) 

AGonzalez@mofo.com 

ERIC A. TATE (CA SBN 178719) 

ETate@mofo.com 

RUDY Y. KIM (CA SBN 199426) 

RudyKim@mofo.com 

MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP

425 Market Street 

San Francisco, California 94105-2482 

Telephone: 415.268.7000 

Facsimile: 415.268.7522 

KAREN L. DUNN (Pro Hac Vice) 

kdunn@bsfllp.com 

HAMISH P.M. HUME (Pro Hac Vice) 

hhume@bsfllp.com 

BOIES SCHILLER FLEXNER LLP 

1401 New York Avenue, N.W. 

Washington DC 20005 

Telephone: 202.237.2727 

Facsimile: 202.237.6131 

Attorneys for Defendants 

UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC. 

and OTTOMOTTO LLC 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION 

WAYMO LLC, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., 

OTTOMOTTO LLC; OTTO TRUCKING LLC, 

Defendant. 

Case No. 3:17-cv-00939-WHA

UBER’S LIST OF TOP TEN 

DEPOSITIONS PURSUANT TO 

DOCKET NO. 679 

Trial Date: October 10, 2017 

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 698 Filed 06/22/17 Page 1 of 2
UBER’S LIST OF TOP TEN DEPOSITIONS

Case No. 3:17-cv-00939-WHA 1

dc-888609 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

Pursuant to the Court’s June 21, 2017 Order, Uber Technologies, Inc. and Ottomotto LLC 

(“Uber”) submit the following list of top ten depositions it wishes to take: 

No. Name Employer 

1. Pierre-Yves Droz Waymo 

2. Bryan Salesky Argo (former Waymo) 

3. William McCann Waymo 

4. Drew Ulrich Waymo 

5. Larry Page Google 

6. Zachary Morris Waymo 

7. Chris Urmson Aurora Innovation (former Waymo) 

8. John Krafcik Waymo 

9. Sebastian Thrun Udacity (former Waymo) 

10. Sam Lenius Waymo 

Dated: June 22, 2017 MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP

By: /s/ Arturo J. González

ARTURO J. GONZÁLEZ 

Attorneys for Defendants 

UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC. 

and OTTOMOTTO LLC 

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 698 Filed 06/22/17 Page 2 of 2
Exhibit 32.2




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 NRDC Acquisition Corp. (the “Company”) on
Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2008 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Richard
A. Baker, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify pursuant to
18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:




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 operation of the Company.




Date:
      March 13, 2009
            By:
            /s/
      RICHARD A. BAKERRichard
      A. BakerChief
      Executive Officer(Principal
      Financial Officer)








The
foregoing certification is being furnished as an exhibit to the Report pursuant
to Item 601(b) of Regulation S-K and Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United
States Code) and, accordingly, is not being filed as part of the Report for
purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and
is not incorporated by reference into any filings of the Company, whether made
before or after the date hereof, regardless of any general incorporation
language in such filing.
Samuel W. BOOTHE, Appellant, v. WM SPECIALTY MORTGAGE LLC, Appellee.

No. 4D18-3077

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

[February 14, 2019]

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
exv4w9






EXHIBIT 4.9




ADVANCED ENVIRONMENTAL RECYCLING TECHNOLOGIES, INC.

914 N Jefferson Street

Post Office Box 1237

Springdale, Arkansas 72765




PURCHASE CONFIRMATION




	 	 	 
	[Investor name and address]

	 	STATEMENT DATE:                     , 200        






TRANSACTION INFORMATION




SECURITY DESCRIPTION: Advanced Environmental Recycling Technologies, Inc. Renewable Unsecured Subordinated Note

TRANSACTION: PURCHASE

TYPE OF OWNERSHIP:                     

SSN:                                                             





	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	NOTE ID

	 	TERM 	 	PURCHASE DATE
	 	MATURITY DATE
	 	PAYMENT SCHEDULE
	 

	 	 	 	 
	 	 
	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 






	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	PRINCIPAL AMOUNT

	 	INTEREST RATE
	 	INVESTOR FEES
	 	NET AMOUNT
	 

	 	 
	 	 
	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 




NOTE: These securities are issued in book-entry form only; no physical certificates will be
provided.




	 	 	 
	INTEREST PAYMENT INFORMATION
	 	 
	ACCOUNT NAME:

	 	BANK:
	ACCOUNT #:

	 	ROUTING NUMBER:
	INTEREST PAYMENT METHOD: ACH (Direct Deposit)
	 	 





Your interest payments will be automatically deposited directly into the account listed above.
Please verify the account information. If it is incorrect, please call Sumner Harrington Investor
Services at 800-234-5777.



All interest payments will be made in accordance with the Interest payment schedule shown in the
previous section. If your note pays interest monthly and the monthly interest payment date you
selected is within five business days of the Purchase Date, your first interest payment will be
made the following month and will include all of the interest earned since the Note Issue Date. If
an interest payment date falls on a Saturday, Sunday, or legal holiday, the payment will be made on
the next business day.



SECURITIES OFFERED THROUGH SUMNER HARRINGTON LTD.



Sumner Harrington Ltd. was the selling agent for the Issuer in this transaction and is sending you
this confirmation statement on the Issuer’s behalf. The Issuer will pay Sumner Harrington Ltd.
fees and commissions of up to 3% of the Net Amount as its selling agent plus other fees for
providing marketing and other services, but this will not affect your interest or principal.



PLEASE CALL SUMNER HARRINGTON LTD. INVESTOR SERVICES AT 800-234-5777 IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS.




			
	 	 	 
	Sumner Harrington Ltd.
	 	(800) 234-5777
	11100 Wayzata Blvd., Suite 170
	 	investorservices@sumnerharrington.com
	Minneapolis, MN 55305
	 	www.sumnerharrington.com
EXHIBIT 23.1


             INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM'S CONSENT


The Board of Directors
River Exploration, Inc.
(an exploration stage company)


We consent to the use in the 10K of River Exploration, Inc. (an exploration
stage company) of our Auditors' Report dated February 5, 2009 on the balance
sheet of River Exploration, Inc. (an exploration stage company) as at November
30, 2008 and 2007, and the related statements of operations, stockholders'
equity (deficit) and cash flows for the years ended November 30, 2008 and 2007
and the period from incorporation November 1, 2006 to November 30, 2008.





MACKAY LLP
CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS


\s\ MacKay LLP

Vancouver, British Columbia
Canada

February 25, 2009
* This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of

law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The court generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3. 

## F I L E D United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### DEC 11 2002 

### PATRICK FISHER Clerk UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

TENTH CIRCUIT

MAXIMO HERNANDEZ, JR., Plaintiff - Appellant,

v. F. WHITTEN PETERS, Secretary of the Air Force, in his official capacity; COLONEL GARY D. DILLS, ex 377th ABW Wing Commander, in his official and individual capacities; COLONEL POLLY PEYER, ex 377th ABW Wing Commander, in her official and individual capacities; COLONEL JAN D. EAKLE, current 377th ABW Wing Commander, in her official capacity; and GEORGE P. ELDER, Staff Attorney, in his official and individual capacities, Defendants - Appellees. No. 01-2370 D.C. No. CIV-00-1312 PK/LFG (D. New Mexico)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

Before MURPHY , BALDOCK , and O’BRIEN , Circuit Judges.1 Hernandez also asserts the district court erred by (1) placing the case on

administrative track and not permitting him an opportunity to conduct discovery; and (2) considering a copy of a letter from Defendant Dills without first verifying its authenticity. Hernandez failed to raise either issue before the district court and is not entitled to assert these arguments for the first time on appeal. See United States v. Botefuhr , 309 F.3d 1263, 1279 (10th Cir. 2002). -2- Plaintiff Maximo Hernandez, Jr. appeals the district court’s grant of Defendants’ motion to dismiss. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. The parties to this case are familiar with its facts and procedural history, and we will not repeat them here. This court reviews de novoa district court's dismissal of a complaint pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). See McDonald v. Kinder-Morgan, Inc. , 287 F.3d 992, 997 (10th Cir. 2002). We will affirm a dismissal “only when it appears that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of the claims that would entitle the plaintiff to relief.” Id . We accept all well-pleaded allegations of the complaint as true and construe them in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. Id . On appeal, Hernandez asserts the trial court erred in dismissing his Title VII claims for lack of jurisdiction and his remaining claims for failure to state a claim on which relief could be granted. 1 The district court memorandum and order set forth a detailed explanation of the-3-

grounds for dismissal. We affirm substantially for the reasons stated by the district court. AFFIRMED. Entered for the Court,

Bobby R. Baldock Circuit Judge
Steven HYPOLITE, petitioner, v. Mike KNOWLES, Warden, et al.

No. 12-7211.

Supreme Court of the United States

May 13, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.
Alexander SAMUEL, petitioner, v. Michael BLOOMBERG, Mayor of the City of New York, et al.

No. 12-7927.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 15, 2013.

Petition for rehearing denied.
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 99


           WINTHROP RESIDENTIAL ASSOCIATES III, A LIMITED PARTNERSHIP
                            FORM 10-QSB JUNE 30, 1997


Supplementary information required pursuant to section 9.4 of the partnership
agreement:

1.    Statement of cash available for distribution for the three months ended 
      June 30, 1997:

        Net Income                                                   $ 324,000
        Add:     Depreciation and amortization                          45,000
        Less:    Equity in income of Local Limited Partnerships         (3,000)
                 Cash to reserves                                     (339,000)
                                                                     ---------
        Cash Available for Distribution                              $  27,000
                                                                     =========
        Distributions allocated to General Partners                  $   2,000
                                                                     =========
        Distributions allocated to Limited Partners                  $  25,000
                                                                     =========


2.    Fees and other compensation paid or accrued by the Partnership to the
      General Partners, or their affiliates, during the three months ended June
      30, 1997:

        Entity Receiving                  Form of
        Compensation                    Compensation                   Amount
        ----------------            ------------------------------     ------
        General Partners            Interest in Cash Available for 
                                      Distribution                     $2,000

        WFC Realty Co., Inc.        Interest in Cash Available for
        (Initial Limited Partner)     Distribution                     $    5






                                    12 of 12
Wilner SALOMON, petitioner, v. FLORIDA.

No. 12-8522.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 15, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District, denied.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. Jesse Frank HARRISON, Defendant—Appellee.

No. 03-10200.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Argued and Submitted April 14, 2004.

Decided April 26, 2004.

Ann B. Scheel, AUSA, Office of the U.S. Attorney, Phoenix, AZ, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Thomas M. Hoidal, Esq., Phoenix, AZ, for Defendant-Appellee.

Before THOMPSON, TASHIMA, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.

The Order of the district court, dated March 12, 2003, and entered March 13, 2003, suppressing the defendant’s in-custody statements, is AFFIRMED for the reasons stated in said Order.
Paul Anthony WHITE, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D19-1427

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

May 31, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Bridget M. McCormack, Chief Justice

David F. Viviano,

Chief Justice Pro Tem

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Richard H. Bernstein

Elizabeth T. Clement

Megan K. Cavanagh,

Justices

Order 

September 3, 2019

157335-7(130)

157340-2

MELISSA MAYS, MICHAEL ADAM MAYS,

JACQUELINE PEMBERTON, KEITH JOHN

PEMBERTON, ELNORA CARTHAN, 

RHONDA KELSO, and ALL OTHERS

SIMILARLY SITUATED,

Plaintiffs-Appellees,

SC: 157335-7

v COA: 335555, 335725, 335726 

Ct of Claims: 16-000017-MM

GOVERNOR OF MICHIGAN, STATE OF 

MICHIGAN, DEPARTMENT OF

ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY, and

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN

SERVICES,

Defendants-Appellants,

and

DARNELL EARLEY and JERRY AMBROSE,

Defendants-Appellees,

and

CITY OF FLINT,

Not Participating. 

_________________________________________/

MELISSA MAYS, MICHAEL ADAM MAYS,

JACQUELINE PEMBERTON, KEITH JOHN

PEMBERTON, ELNORA CARTHAN, 

RHONDA KELSO, and ALL OTHERS

SIMILARLY SITUATED,

Plaintiffs-Appellees,

SC: 157340-2

v COA: 335555, 335725, 335726

Ct of Claims: 16-000017-MM
I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 September 3, 2019

2

Clerk

GOVERNOR OF MICHIGAN, STATE OF 

MICHIGAN, DEPARTMENT OF

ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY, and

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN

SERVICES,

Defendants-Appellees,

and

DARNELL EARLEY and JERRY AMBROSE,

Defendants-Appellants,

and

CITY OF FLINT,

Not Participating.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Chief Justice, the motions of plaintiffs-appellees to extend the time 

for filing their brief and to allow a brief that is no more than 65 pages are GRANTED. The 

brief will be accepted for filing if submitted on or before October 16, 2019.
Marco Antonio MORALES-PEREZ, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 12-9283

Supreme Court of the United States

April 15, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.
**Exhibit 32.2**

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 on Form 10-K of Total Nutraceutical Solutions, Inc. (the “Company”) for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), Marvin S. Hausman, M.D. Acting Principal Financial and Accounting Officer of the Company, hereby certifies, 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 results of operations of the Company. 

| Dated:  May 18, 2011

By:  /s/ Marvin S. Hausman, M.D.

 

       Marvin S. Hausman, M.D.

 

       Acting Principal Accounting and Financial Officer 

This certification accompanies each Report pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of §18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. 

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request. |
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
Joseph MURCHISON, petitioner, v. Terry RUSSELL.

No. 12-8771.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 22, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit denied.
#### Phillip J. HILLER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Jo Anne BARNHART, Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 03-2842.

United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit.

Argued April 20, 2004.

Decided April 21, 2004.

Dana W. Duncan, Schmidt, Grace & Duncan, Wisconsin Rapids, WI, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Danielle A. Pedderson, Social Security Administration, Office of the General Counsel, Chicago, IL, for Defendant-Appellee.

Before EASTERBROOK, EVANS, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.

Order

An administrative law judge determined that Phillip Hiller’s shoulder, knee, and back impairments do not render him disabled. The Appeals Council declined to review that decision. The district court concluded that the administrative decision is supported by substantial evidence and uninfluenced by any legal error. After receiving briefs and hearing oral argument, we conclude that the district court’s evaluation of this litigation requires no elaboration. Accordingly, for substantially the reasons the district court gave, the judgment is

Affirmed.
David HUNT, petitioner, v. Matthew KRAMER, Warden.

No. 12-8890.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 29, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.
EXHIBIT
23.2








CONSENT
OF INDEPENDENT PETROLEUM ENGINEERS AND GEOLOGISTS





We hereby consent to the references to
our firm, in the context in which they appear, and to the references to and the
incorporation by reference of our audit letter dated February 4, 2010, included
in the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Pioneer Southwest Energy Partners L.P. (the
"Partnership") for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2009, as well as in
the notes to the financial statements included therein. We also hereby consent
to the incorporation by reference of the references to our firm, in the context
in which they appear, and to our audit letter dated February 4, 2010, into the
Partnership’s previously filed Registration Statements on Form S-8 (No.
333-150627) and on Form S-3 (No. 333-162566) in accordance with the requirements
of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended.








NETHERLAND,
SEWELL & ASSOCIATES, INC.





By:
            
            /s/
      C.H. (Scott) Rees IIIC.H.
      (Scott) Rees III, P.E.Chairman
      and Chief Executive Officer








Dallas,
Texas


February
26, 2010