alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
ex10138ak.htm


    
      
         


      

      
         


        
          

        

      

      
         


      

    


    6-1162-TRW-0674

    


    


    American
Airlines, Inc.

    P.O. Box
619616

    Dallas-Fort
Worth Airport, Texas 75261-9616

    


    


    


    Subject:                      Business
Considerations

    


    
      	
              Reference:

            	
              Purchase
      Agreement No. 3219 (the Purchase Agreement) between The Boeing Company
      (Boeing) and American Airlines, Inc. (Customer) relating to
      Model 787-923 aircraft (Aircraft) and 787-323 and 787-823 Substitute
      Aircraft (each Substitute Aircraft)

            


    

    


    


    This
letter agreement (Letter Agreement) amends and supplements the Purchase
Agreement. All terms used but not defined in this Letter Agreement have the same
meaning as in the Purchase Agreement.

    


    1.           Basic Credit – Firm
Aircraft.

    


    [CONFIDENTIAL
PORTION OMITTED AND FILED SEPARATELY WITH THE COMMISSION PURSUANT TO A REQUEST
FOR CONFIDENTIAL TREATMENT]

    


    


    


    2.           Simulator
Package [CONFIDENTIAL PORTION OMITTED AND FILED SEPARATELY WITH THE
COMMISSION PURSUANT TO A REQUEST FOR CONFIDENTIAL TREATMENT]

    


    


    [CONFIDENTIAL PORTION OMITTED AND FILED
SEPARATELY WITH THE COMMISSION PURSUANT TO A REQUEST FOR CONFIDENTIAL
TREATMENT].

    


    


    


    


    


    


    


    3.           [CONFIDENTIAL
PORTION OMITTED AND FILED SEPARATELY WITH THE COMMISSION PURSUANT TO A REQUEST
FOR CONFIDENTIAL TREATMENT].

    


    4.           
Confidential
Treatment.

    


    Customer
and Boeing understand that certain commercial and financial information
contained in this Letter Agreement are considered by Boeing and Customer as
confidential. Customer and Boeing agree that each will treat this Letter
Agreement and the information contained herein as confidential and will not,
without the prior written consent of the other, disclose this Letter Agreement
or any information contained herein to any other person or entity, except as
provided in this Letter Agreement and or the Purchase Agreement.

    


    


    Very
truly yours,

    


    THE
BOEING COMPANY

    


    By                                          

    


    Its           Attorney-In-Fact           

    


    


    ACCEPTED
AND AGREED TO this

    


    Date:
                               ,
2008

    


    AMERICAN
AIRLINES, INC.

    


    


    By                                          

    


    
      	
               
      

            	
              Its                                          

            


    


    
      
        
          P.A. No.
3219                                                                                                                     


          Business
Considerations 

          BOEING
PROPRIETARY
#### James F. DOOLEY, Petitioner-Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent-Respondent.

No. 70084.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One.

Oct. 1, 1996.

James F. Dooley, Pacific, pro se.

Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Attorney General, Breck K. Burgess, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jef- ' ferson City, for respondent-respondent.

Before DOWD, P.J., and REINHARD and GARY M. GAERTNER, JJ.

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Petitioner Dooley appeals from the trial court’s denial of his “NUNC PRO TUNC MOTION TO CORRECT THE ERRONEOUS PRESENTENCE INVESTIGATION REPORT AS SUBMITTED IN CASE NUMBER CR186-1508FX.” The trial court found that it lacked jurisdiction to grant the relief requested. An extended opinion would have no precedential value. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).
United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit

No. 22-50014

consolidated with

No. 22-50015 

Summary Calendar

United States of America, 

Plaintiff—Appellee,

versus

Edmundo Portillo-Rodriguez, 

Defendant—Appellant.

Appeals from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 4:21-CR-701-1

USDC No. 4:21-CR-893-1

Before King, Costa, and Ho, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

Edmundo Portillo-Rodriguez appeals his conviction and sentence for 

illegal reentry in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and (b), and also appeals the 

* Pursuant to 5th Circuit 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 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

June 6, 2022

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 22-50014 Document: 00516346107 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/06/2022
No. 22-50014 

c/w No. 22-50015

2

judgment revoking his supervised release and imposing an additional term of 

imprisonment. He has not briefed, and has thus abandoned, any challenge to 

the revocation of supervised release or to his revocation sentence. See United 

States v. Reagan, 596 F.3d 251, 254-55 (5th Cir. 2010).

Portillo-Rodriguez contends for the first time on appeal that § 1326(b) 

is unconstitutional because it allows for the imposition of a sentence above 

the otherwise applicable statutory maximum based on facts that are neither 

alleged in the indictment nor found by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt. He 

has filed an unopposed motion for summary disposition and a letter brief in 

which he acknowledges that his argument is foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres 

v. United States, 523 U.S. 224 (1998). Portillo-Rodriguez explains that he 

raises this issue only to preserve it for further review.

As Portillo-Rodriguez correctly concedes, the sole claim that he raises 

on appeal is foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres. See United States v. Pervis, 937 

F.3d 546, 553-54 (5th Cir. 2019). Because summary disposition is proper, see 

Groendyke Transp., Inc. v. Davis, 406 F.2d 1158, 1162 (5th Cir. 1969), PortilloRodriguez’s motion is GRANTED, and the judgments of the district court

are AFFIRMED.

Case: 22-50014 Document: 00516346107 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/06/2022
SCPW-16-0000439

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I

 

NELSON WAIKIKI, JR., Petitioner,

vs.

STATE OF HAWAI#I, Respondent.

 

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

(CR. NO. 13-1-0428)

ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

(By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, McKenna, Pollack, and Wilson, JJ.)

Upon consideration of Petitioner Nelson Waikiki Jr.’s

“Petition for Habeas Corpus,” filed on May 31, 2016, the

documents attached thereto and submitted in support thereof, and

the record, it appears that petitioner has alternative means to

seek the requested relief and presents no special reason for this

court to invoke its jurisdiction at this time. See Oili v.

Chang, 57 Haw. 411, 412, 557 P.2d 787, 788 (1976) (the supreme

court “will not exercise its original jurisdiction in habeas

corpus proceedings when relief is available in a lower court and

no special reason exists for invoking its jurisdiction”).

Accordingly, 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition for writ of

habeas corpus is denied.

Electronically Filed

Supreme Court

SCPW-16-0000439

14-JUN-2016

07:59 AM
IT IS HEREBY FURTHER ORDERED that the appellate clerks’

office shall file the petition for writ of habeas corpus without

payment of the filing fee.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai#i, June 14, 2016. 

/s/ Mark E. Recktenwald

/s/ Paula A. Nakayama

/s/ Sabrina S. McKenna

/s/ Richard W. Pollack

/s/ Michael D. Wilson

2
Executive Officer Term Sheet with P. Jerome Richey



 Exhibit 10.12 
 Addendum to Jerry Richey’s Offer Letter 
 This Addendum is made this 18th day of December, 2008
between CONSOL Energy and P. Jerome Richey. 
 WHEREAS, the parties previously entered into an offer letter agreement dated February 11,
2005 (“Offer Letter”); and 
 WHEREAS, the parties wish to clarify certain provisions of the Offer Letter solely with regard
to complying with Section 409A of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended. 
 NOW, THEREFORE, intending to be legally bound
hereby, the parties agree as follows: 
 1. Section 8 of the Offer Letter is amended by deleting the last sentence thereof and inserting
the following provision at the end of such Section: 
 “In order to receive the severance payment, you must execute, and not revoke, a
general release of all claims in a form acceptable to CONSOL Energy within thirty (30) days of your termination date. The cash portion of the severance payment will be paid in a lump sum within sixty days of your termination date after the
release becomes effective.” 
 2. The following new Section 11 if hereby added to the Offer Letter: 
 “Section 409A: Severance benefits are payable only if you are involuntarily terminated by the
Employer without cause as provided under this Offer Letter. For purposes of the Offer Letter, you shall be considered to have experienced a termination of employment only if your employment has terminated with CONSOL Energy and all of its controlled
group members within the meaning of Section 409A of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, and the regulations promulgated thereunder (“Section 409A”) Severance payments are scheduled to be made following your
termination date and within the applicable 2 1/2 month period specified in Treas. Reg. § 1.409A-1(b)(4) and are intended to
be excepted under the short-term deferral exception as specified in Treas. Reg. § 1.409A-1(b)(4). Short-term disability benefits are excluded from Section 409A. You shall have no right to designate the date of any payment under this Offer
Letter. Notwithstanding any provision of this Offer Letter to the contrary, to the extent the timing of any severance benefit payment due under this Offer Letter was modified pursuant to the transition guidance provided by the IRS concerning the
time and form of payment, any such modification shall only apply to amounts that would not otherwise be payable in 2008 and may not cause an amount to be paid in 2008 that would not otherwise be paid in 2008. To the extent any such payment can not
be made in 2008 under the transition guidance, such payment will be made in January 2009.” 
  

					
	CONSOL ENERGY, INC.	 		 	Agreed to:
			
	 /s/ J. Brett Harvey
	 		 	 /s/ P. Jerome Richey

	J. Brett Harvey	 		 	P. Jerome Richey
	President and Chief Executive Officer	 		 	Senior Vice President, General Counsel & Corporate Secretary
			
	Dated: December 18, 2008	 		 	Dated: December 18, 2008
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 109 (Wednesday, June 5, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Page 28573]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-14018]



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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
[Project No. 459-081 Missouri]


Union Electric Company; Notice of Availability of Environmental 
Assessment

May 30, 1996.
    In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 
and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's regulations, 18 CFR Part 
380 (Order No. 486, 52 FR 47910), the Office of Hydropower Licensing 
(OHL) reviewed an application requesting approval of the dredging 
management plan. Approval of the plan would give the licensee 
permission to issue permits for small excavation activities at the 
Osage Project, without obtaining prior Commission approval for each 
specific activity. Specifically, the dredging management plan would 
allow permits to be issued for non-project dredging activities 
involving up to 500 cubic yards (cy) of material. All proposals to 
remove more than 500 cy would be outside the scope of the plan and 
would require individual Commission approval. The intent of the plan is 
to allow the licensee to issue permits for minor activities requiring 
dredging, including the installation and repair of seawalls and 
construction of boat docks and similar minor facilities. Permits would 
not be issued without prior authorization from the U.S. Army Corps of 
Engineers. The excavation activities associated with the dredging 
management plan will occur on project lands in Benton, Camden, Miller, 
and Morgan Counties, Missouri. The Lake of the Ozarks is the reservoir 
for the Osage Project and is located on the Osage River. The staff 
prepared an Environmental Assessment (EA) for the action. In the EA, 
staff concludes that approval of the dredging management plan would not 
constitute a major federal action significantly affecting the quality 
of the human environment.
    Copies of the EA are available for review in the Reference and 
Information Center, Room 2A, of the Commission's offices at 888 First 
Street, N.E., Washington, D.C. 20426.
Lois D. Cashell,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 96-14018 Filed 6-4-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
|   | 1. | the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; 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/ Guillermo Rodriguez                      |   |   |   |   |
| Guillermo Rodriguez                          |   |   |   |   |
| Chief Financial Officer                      |   |   |   |   |
| (Principal Financial and Accounting Officer) |   |   |   |   |
# Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

June 15, 2018

No. 04

- 17

- 00467

- CV

Erasmo CANTU and Eug enia Cantu

,

Appellants

v.

FALCON INTERNATIONAL BANK

,

Appellee

From the 365th Judicial District Court, Maverick County, Texas

Trial Court No. 11

- 08

- 26743

- MCVAJA

Honorable Amado J. Abascal, III, Judge Presiding



### O R D E R

Sitting: Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice

Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice

Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

The panel has considered the appellants ’ motion for rehearing, and the motion is

DENIED.

_________________________________ Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said

court on this 15th day of June, 2018

.

___________________________________ KEITH E. HOTTLE

, Clerk of Court
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 110 (Thursday, June 6, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Page 28904]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-14279]



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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
[NAFTA-00999]


Zena Enterprises, New York, NY; Notice of Termination of 
Investigation

    Pursuant to Section 250(b)(1) of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, 
an investigation was initiated for workers of the subject firm. The 
Department inadvertently issued a certification on May 8, 1996, 
irrespective of the fact that the workers were covered under an 
existing certification. The notice will soon be published in the 
Federal Register. This notice corrects the above noted inadvertent 
action.
    On April 23, 1996, under petition NAFTA-00721, the Department 
amended the certification for all workers of R.D. Simpson, Incorporated 
(Including D & E Laundry) in Carterville, Georgia, to include an 
affiliate of the subject firm, Zena Enterprises, New York, New York 
(NAFTA-00721A). The notice was published in the Federal Register on May 
8, 1996 (61 FR 20837).
    Therefore, since the subject workers were previously certified, 
further investigation in NAFTA-00999 would serve no purpose and the 
investigation has been terminated.

    Signed at Washington, DC, this 21st day of May 1996.
Russell T. Kile,
Acting Program Manager, Policy and Reemployment Services, Office of 
Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. 96-14279 Filed 6-5-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-30-M
Paul A.



# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

June 10, 2015

N o. 04

- 15

- 00329

- CV

Michael E. GEIGER

, Appellant

v.

Paul A. HAMPEL

, Appellee

From the 407th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2013

- CI

- 13615

Honorable Renee Yanta, Judge Presiding



### ORDER

On June 1, 2015 , appellant filed a notice of appeal

, which stated appellant is appealing

from the trial court ’ s April 13, 2015 judgment. 1 On June 1, 2015 , appellant also filed an affidavit of inability to pay costs in t his court. It appears appellant did not file his affidavit in the

trial court.

A party who cannot pay the costs of an appeal must file an affidavit of indigence “ in the trial court with or before the notice of appeal. ” T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 20.1(c)(1). Appe llant ’ s affidavit

was therefore due in the trial court on June 1, 2015 , the date his notice of appeal was filed, or a

motion for extension of time to file the affidavit was due in this court on or before June 16, 2015

. See id. R. 20.1(c)(1), (3).

We con strue the affidavit filed in this court on June 1, 2015, as a motion for extension of

time to file the affidavit in the trial court. The affidavit was filed within the fifteen

- day deadline

1 We note that on May 28, 2015, the district clerk filed a notification of late record in this court in which the clerk stated: “The prose [sic] is appealing the Judge’s notes from May 11, 2015, which is not an ORDER , therefore a Clerk’s Record will not be pre pared.” First, we note that appellant’s notice of appeal specifically states he is appealing from a judgment signed April 13, 2015. Second, and more importantly, i t is not for the district clerk to

determin e whether an appeal may be prosecuted or whether this court has jurisdiction over any particular appeal ; rather, that is within the province of the appellate court.” We shall , at the appropriate time, determine whether appellant may prosecute the appeal. Accordingly, the notification of late record fi led May 28, 2015, is DENIED AS

MOOT

.set forth in rule 20.1(3). See id. R. 20. 1(c)(3). Accordingly, w e GRANT the motion to extend time to file an affidavit of inability to pay costs.

We further ORDER that any contest to the affidavit of indigence must be filed in

this court on or before June 22, 2015

. If no contest is timely filed, appellant will be deemed indigent and entitled to a clerk’s record and reporter’s record without cost.

We ORDER the clerk of this court to send copies of the affidavit and this order to appellant, appellee, all counsel (if any), the district clerk, the court reporter, and the trial court judge. See id. R. 20.1(d)(2). All other appellate deadlines are suspended until further order of

this court.

_________________________________ Marialyn Barnard, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said

court on this 10th day of June, 2015

.

___________________________________ Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
**EXHIBIT 32.2**

 

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

** **

In connection withthe Quarterly Report of CombiMatrix Corporation (the “Company”) on Form 10-Qfor the quarterly period ended September 30, 2007, as filed with the Securitiesand Exchange Commission on November 7, 2007 (the “Report”), I, Scott R. Burell,Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,that:

 

1. The Reportfully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

 

2. The informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 
|   | By:                            |
|--------|--------------------------------|
|   |                           |
|   | /s/  Scott R. Burell           |   |
|   | Scott  R. Burell               |
|   | Chief  Financial Officer       |
|   | (Principal  Financial Officer) |
|   | November  7, 2007              |

 

 

A signed original of this written statement requiredby Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (“Section 906”), or otherdocument authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signaturethat appears in typed form within the electronic version of this writtenstatement required by Section 906, has been provided to the Company and will beretained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commissionor its staff upon request.

 

1

----
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 114 (Wednesday, June 12, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Page 29770]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-14794]



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


DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and 
Production Act of 1993--the TRAAMS Venture Team

    Notice is hereby given that, on May 13, 1996, pursuant to Section 
6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 
15 U.S.C. Sec. 4301, et seq. (``the Act''), the TRAAMS Venture Team 
(the ``TRAAMS Team'') has filed written notifications simultaneously 
with the Attorney General and with the Federal Trade Commission 
disclosing (1) the identities of the parties and (2) the nature and 
objectives of the TRAAMS Venture Team research project. The 
notifications were filed for the purpose of invoking the Act's 
provisions limiting the recovery of antitrust plaintiffs to actual 
damages under specified circumstances. Pursuant to Section 6(b) of the 
Act, the identifies of the current participants in the TRAAMS Venture 
Team are: Terabank Systems, Inc., Santa Clara, CA; Energy Conversion 
Devices, Inc., Troy, MI; Polaroid Corporation, Cambridge, MA; Science 
Applications International Corporation, San Diego, CA; Motorola 
Corporation, Tempe, AZ; Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA; 
University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ; and NASA/Goddard Space Flight 
Center, Greenbelt, MD.
    The nature and objective of the TRAAMS Team is to perform a 
research program with the goal of development of a tape-based rapid 
access affordable mass storage system including a prototype optical 
tape cartridge and tape drive. The activities of the TRAAMS Team will 
be partially funded by an award from the Advanced Technology Program, 
National Institute of Standards and Technology, Department of Commerce.
    Additional information about the TRAAMS Venture Team research 
project may be obtained by contacting Ms. Janet V. LaFever, Science 
Applications International Corporation, McLean, VA.
Constance K. Robinson,
Director of Operations, Antitrust Division.
[FR Doc. 96-14794 Filed 6-11-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-01-M