alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EX-10.10






Exhibit 10.10






www.WyndhamWorldwide.com




December 31, 2008




Thomas Anderson

4 Arrowhead Trail

Sparta, NJ 07871




Dear Tom:




     Reference is made to that letter confirming our discussion regarding your new expanded
responsibilities in connection with your employment with Wyndham Worldwide Corporation (“Wyndham
Worldwide”), dated March 24, 2008 (the “Offer Letter”). In order to comply with the requirements
of Section 409A of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, and the regulations and guidance
issued thereunder (collectively, “Code Section 409A”), Wyndham Worldwide would like to further
clarify the terms of your bonus, perquisites and severance benefit set forth in the Offer Letter.



     Your bonus and any bonus modifier under the Wyndham Worldwide bonus plan will be paid to you
at such time as shall be determined by the Compensation Committee of Wyndham Worldwide’s Board of
Directors, but in no event later than the last day of the calendar year following the calendar year
such bonus is earned. In accordance with our new reimbursement policy, Wyndham Worldwide will
reimburse all taxable business expenses to you on or before the last day of your taxable year
following the taxable year in which the expenses are incurred.



     In the event your employment with Wyndham Worldwide is terminated by Wyndham Worldwide other
than for cause (as defined by Wyndham Worldwide) and other than in connection with your disability,
which prevents you from performing services for Wyndham Worldwide for a period of 6 months, subject
to the terms and conditions set forth in the Offer Letter, you will receive severance pay equal to
two years of your then current base salary plus target bonus (excluding bonus modifier) in the form
of a lump sum payment no later than the 60th day following the date of termination;
provided that, to the extent your severance payment is subject to Code Section 409A, your
termination of employment must constitute a “separation from service” under Code Section 409A.



     Although Wyndham Worldwide does not guarantee to you any particular tax treatment relating to
any payments made or benefits provided to you in connection with your employment at Wyndham
Worldwide, it is intended that such payments and benefits be exempt from, or comply with, Code
Section 409A, and all provisions of this letter and the Offer Letter shall be construed in a manner
consistent with the requirements for avoiding taxes or penalties under Code Section 409A.













 





     Except as provided herein all terms and conditions set forth in the Offer Letter shall remain
in effect.



Regards,




	 	 	 
	/s/ Mary Falvey
 

Mary Falvey

	 	 
	Executive Vice President, Human Resources and Enterprise Services
	Wyndham Worldwide
	 	 
	 
	 	 
	Understood and accepted as of December 31, 2008
	 
	 	 
	/s/ Thomas Anderson
 

Thomas Anderson

	 	 
	 
	 	 
	cc:     S. Holmes
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



I, Scott Elgood, President and Principal Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer of Transglobal Mining Corp. certify that:



1.

I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Transglobal Mining Corp;



2.

Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this quarterly report; and



3.

Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this quarterly report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this quarterly report.





Date:  May 15, 2007





Transglobal Mining Corp.





By:

/s/Scott Elgood



Scott Elgood, President

(Principal Executive Officer,

Principal Financial Officer)
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                          16,204
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  145,091
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               161,295
<PP&E>                                       2,610,640
<DEPRECIATION>                                 233,089
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,538,846
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           12,915
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 2,538,846
<SALES>                                        287,912
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               304,131
<CGS>                                           43,079
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                2,314,186
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (2,010,055)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (2,010,055)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (2,010,055)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
Letter Agreement-Mark Peek



 Exhibit 10.33 
 [VMware, Inc. letterhead] 
 November 24, 2008 
 Mark Peek 
 VMware, Inc. 
 3401
Hillview Ave. 
 Palo Alto, CA 94304 
 Dear Mark, 
 This letter agreement amends the letter agreement (the “Letter Agreement”) dated June 13, 2007 relating to the 433,216 restricted stock units that were
granted to you on June 7, 2007 under the VMware 2007 Equity and Incentive Plan (the “RSUs”). The last sentence of the first paragraph of the Letter Agreement is hereby deleted in its entirety and replaced with the following paragraph:

 “In addition, the RSUs will become immediately vested in full if there is a change in control (as defined on Appendix A) and following such change in
control (1) your employment is terminated by VMware without Cause (as defined on Appendix A) or (2) you terminate your employment because your duties have been materially diminished such that you no longer serve as a Chief Financial
Officer of a public entity. 
 In order for you to invoke a termination due to the condition in clause (2) above, (A) you must provide written
notice to the chief officer of VMware’s Human Resources group of your intention to terminate due to such condition within 90 days of the initial existence of such condition and providing VMware with 30 days from receipt of the notice to remedy
such condition, and (B) VMware must fail to remedy such condition within the 30 day cure period.” 
 Please indicate your agreement with the terms
of this letter by a signing a copy of this letter and returning it my attention. 
  

	
	Sincerely,
	
	 /s/ Paul Maritz

	Paul Maritz
	President and Chief Executive Officer

 ACCEPTED AND AGREED TO
this 24th day of November, 2008. 
  

	
	 /s/ Mark Peek

	 Mark Peek
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 130 (Friday, July 5, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Page 35201]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-17081]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
[Docket No. ER96-2183-000]


New York State Electric & Gas Corporation; Notice of Filing

June 26, 1996.
    Take notice that on June 19, 1995, New York State Electric & Gas 
Corporation (NYSEG), tendered for filing pursuant to Sec. 35.12 of the 
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's Regulations, 18 CFR 35.12, as an 
initial rate schedule, an agreement with Virginia Electric and Power 
Company (VEPCO). The agreement provides a mechanism pursuant to which 
the parties can enter into separately scheduled transactions under 
which NYSEG either capacity and associated energy or energy only as the 
parties may mutually agree.
    NYSEG request that the agreement become effective on June 20, 1996, 
so that the parties may, if mutually agreeable, enter into separately 
scheduled transaction under the agreement. NYSEG has requested waiver 
of the notice requirements for good cause shown.
    NYSEG served copies of the filing upon the New York State Public 
Service Commission and VEPCO.
    Any person desiring to be heard or to protest said filing should 
file a motion to intervene or protest with the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE, Washington, DC 20426, in 
accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice 
and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 18 CFR 385.214). All such motions or 
protests should be filed on or before July 10, 1996. Protests will be 
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to 
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the 
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a motion to 
intervene. Copies of this filing are on file with the Commission and 
are available for public inspection.

Lois D. Cashell,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 96-17081 Filed 7-3-96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3686 Introduced in House (IH)]

104th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 3686

To amend the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 to prohibit the licensing 
of a permanent or interim nuclear waste storage facility outside the 50 
      States or the District of Columbia, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             June 20, 1996

 Mr. Abercrombie (for himself, Mrs. Mink of Hawaii, Mr. Faleomavaega, 
Mr. Underwood, Mr. Frazer, and Mr. Miller of California) introduced the 
    following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Commerce

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 to prohibit the licensing 
of a permanent or interim nuclear waste storage facility outside the 50 
      States or the District of Columbia, and for other purposes.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. LIMITATION ON AUTHORITY TO LICENSE NUCLEAR WASTE STORAGE 
              FACILITIES.

    Title I of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 (42 U.S.C. 10121 et 
seq.) is amended by inserting after section 101 the following:

``SEC. 102. LIMITATION ON AUTHORITY TO LICENSE, CONSTRUCT, OR OPERATE 
              NUCLEAR WASTE STORAGE FACILITIES.

    ``The Commission shall not have authority, under this Act or any 
other law, to issue a license for, and it shall be unlawful for any 
person to construct or operate, a facility or repository for interim or 
permanent storage of low-level radioactive waste, high-level 
radioactive waste, or spent nuclear fuel at a place outside 1 of the 50 
States or the District of Columbia.''.
                                 <all>
```
#### STATE of Missouri, Plaintiff/Respondent, v. Lamont GORDON, Defendant/Appellant. Lamont GORDON, Movant/Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent/Respondent.

Nos. 61806, 63489.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One.

Dec. 7, 1993.

*897Robert E. Steele, Jr., Asst. Appellate Defender, St. Louis, for appellant.

Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., Joanne E. Beal, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.

Before CRANDALL, P.J., and REINHARD and CRIST, JJ.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

Defendant appeals his conviction, by a jury, of possession of a controlled substance, § 195.202, RSMo Supp.1992. He was sentenced by the court as a prior and persistent, class X, minimum term offender and a prior and persistent drug offender. He also appeals the denial, after an evidentiary hearing, of his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief. We affirm.

We have reviewed the record and find the claims of error are without merit; the judgment of the motion court is based on findings of fact that are not clearly erroneous. A written opinion would have no precedential value nor serve any jurisprudential purpose. Rule 30.25(b); Rule 84.16(b).
# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

October 16, 2019

No. 04

- 19

- 00693

- CR

IN RE John Michael POPE , Jr.

Original Mandamus Proceeding 1

ORDER

On October 9, 2019, r elator filed a petition for writ of mandamus. After considering the

petition and because relator is represented by trial counsel, this court concludes relator is not

entitled to the relief sought. Accordingly, the petition for writ of mandamus is DENIED. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 52.8(a).

It is so ORDERED on October 16, 2019

.

_____________________________ Liza A. Rodriguez, Justice

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

court on this 16th day of October, 2019

.

_____________________________ Luz Estrada, Chief Deputy Cler k

1 This proceeding arises out of Cause No. 2018

- CR

- 12867, styled The State of Texas v. John Michael Pope, Jr.

, pending in the 437th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas, the Honorable Lori I. Valenzuela presiding.
* 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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

April 12, 2006

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-51237

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

JORGE CHAVIR-CASTRO, also known as Jorge

De Jesus Chavir, also known as Jorge Allende,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 5:04-CR-662-ALL

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

Before JONES, Chief Judge, and JOLLY and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Appealing the Judgment in a Criminal Case, Jorge ChavirCastro raises arguments that are foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres

v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998), which held that a

prior conviction is a sentencing factor under 8 U.S.C. 

§ 1326(b)(2) and not a separate criminal offense. The

Government’s motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, and the

judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 132 (Tuesday, July 9, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Pages 36037-36038]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-17338]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 36038]]

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Office of the Secretary


Public Information Collection Requirement Submitted to the Office 
of Management and Budget (OMB) for Review; Notice

    The Department of Defense has submitted to OMB for a clearance, the 
following proposal for collection of information under the provisions 
of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35).
    Title and OMB Control Number: Acquisition Management Systems and 
Data Requirements Control List (AMSDL); OMB Number 0704-0188.
    Type of Request: Revision.
    Number of Respondents: 1,300.
    Responses per Respondent: 540.
    Annual Responses: 702,000.
    Average Burden per Response: 110 hours.
    Annual Burden Hours: 77,220,000.
    Needs and Uses: The AMSDL is a list of data requirements used in 
Department of Defense contracts. The information collected hereby, is 
used to support the design, test, manufacture, training, operation and 
maintenance of procured items.
    Affected Public: Business or other for profit; Not-for-profit 
institutions.
    Frequency: On occasion.
    Respondent's Obligation: Required to obtain or retain benefits.
    OMB Desk Officer: Mr. Peter N. Weiss.
    Written comments and recommendations on the proposed information 
collection should be sent to Mr. Weiss at the Office of Management and 
Budget, Desk Officer for DoD, Room 10236, New Executive Office 
Building, Washington, DC 20503.
    DOD Clearance Officer: Mr. William Pearce.
    Written requests for copies of the information collection proposal 
should be sent to Mr. Pearce, WHS/DIOR, 1215 Jefferson Davis Highway, 
Suite 1204, Arlington, VA 22202-4302.

    Dated: July 2, 1996.
Patricia L. Toppings,
Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
[FR Doc. 96-17338 Filed 7-8-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5000-04-M
Exhibit 32.1







CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 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 TRB Systems International, Inc. (the "Company") for the year ended June 30, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Byung Yim, the Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge:



(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.







Date:  October 13, 2009



|/s/ Byung Yim                                                 |  | 
|------------------------------------------------------------- |  | 
|Byung Yim                                                     |  | 
|Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer           |  | 
|(Principal Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer) |  |
# Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

November 25, 2019

No. 04

- 19

- 00088

- CV

ELG OIL, LLC AND ELG UTILITY, LLC,

Appellant s

v.

STRANCO SERVICES, LLC,

Appellee

From the 218th Judicial District Court, Karnes County, Texas

Trial Court No. 16

- 03

- 00056

- CVK

- A

Honorable Russell Wilson, 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 Appel lee ’s Motion for Rehearing, and the m otion 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 25th da y of November, 2019

.

___________________________________ MICHAEL A. CRUZ

, Clerk of Court
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1

               CONSENT OF ERNST & YOUNG LLP, INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements
(Form S-8 Nos. 333-65394, 333-52968, 333-32400, 333-89495, 333-89497, and
333-45375) of Corixa Corporation of our report dated January 25, 2002, with
respect to the consolidated financial statements of Corixa Corporation included
in this Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31, 2001.


                                                  /s/ Ernst & Young LLP


Seattle, Washington
February 27, 2002
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

CHARLES PRITCHETT,

Plaintiff,

v.

TOM BEECHMAN,

Defendant.

___________________________________ /

Case Number: 08-14714

JUDGE PAUL D. BORMAN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

Plaintiff filed a complaint on November 7, 2008, against Defendant Tom Beechman.

Plaintiff’s complaint, in its entirety and without alterations, is recounted below:

On 11-7-08, I Charles Pritchett [am] writting [sic] you a letter about my money[,]

and I have not heard from you[.] [Y]our time[] is up[.] [T]he color of the paper ha[s]

change[d] on you again, for the money you ored [sic] me. I’m now filing a complaint

in the United State[s] Court, for nonpayment, of worker’s conpensations [sic] an[d]

unemployment insurance. This ha[s] been going on long enough. This ha[s] to stop.

You have been sued for an undisclosed amount of money, and you have failed to

respond[] to a law sued [sic]. 

“[A] district court may, at any time, sua sponte dismiss a complaint for lack of subject matter

jurisdiction pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure when the allegations

of a complaint are totally implausible, attenuated, unsubstantial, frivolous, devoid of merit, or no

longer open to discussion.” Apple v. Glenn, 183 F.3d 477, 479 (6th Cir. 1999). The Court finds that

Plaintiff’s complaint is, on its face frivolous and devoid of merit. 
2

Accordingly, the Court DISMISSES this action pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1).

SO ORDERED.

s/Paul D. Borman 

PAUL D. BORMAN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Dated: November 24, 2008

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

Copies of this Order were served on the attorneys of record by electronic means or U.S. Mail on

November 24, 2008.

s/Denise Goodine 

Case Manager
1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

GARY HUNTER, #135890,

Plaintiff,

v. CIVIL NO. 5:09-CV-10299

HONORABLE JOHN CORBETT O’MEARA

MICHIGAN DEPT. OF CORR., et al.,

Defendants.

___________________________________/

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S LETTER REQUEST

FOR WAIVER OF THE FILING FEE

Before the Court is Plaintiff’s letter request for a waiver of the $350.00 filing fee for his

civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The Court granted his application to proceed without

prepayment of costs and fees, allowing him to pay the full filing fee in installments. The Court

has since dismissed Plaintiff’s complaint under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B) and 1915A for

failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted and ruled that an appeal cannot be taken

in good faith. Plaintiff seeks to relieve himself from payment of the $350.00 filing fee until he

has been released on parole due to limited prison funds.

Under the Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”), a prisoner who qualifies to proceed in

forma pauperis in a civil rights action is still liable for the civil action filing fee and must pay the

fee through partial payments as outlined in 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b). The PLRA does not allow any

exemptions to the requirement that an indigent prisoner pay the filing fee over time, nor does it

provide for a waiver or extended delay in paying the fee. See, e.g., White v. Paskiewicz, 89 F.
2

App’x 582, 584 (6th Cir. 2004) (citing In re Prison Litigation Reform Act, 105 F.3d 1131,

1133-34 (6th Cir.1997)); McGore v. Wrigglesworth, 114 F.3d 601, 605 (6th Cir. 1997)). 

Plaintiff is liable for the full filing fee, to be paid in installments, even though he was granted in

forma pauperis status and his complaint was dismissed. Plaintiff’s letter request for a waiver is

therefore DENIED.

SO ORDERED.

s/John Corbett O’Meara 

United States District Judge

Date: August 16, 2010

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon the parties of

record on this date, August 16, 2010, using the ECF system and/or ordinary mail.

s/William Barkholz 

Case Manager