alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 10.5

                                       [GLOBALCENTER LOGO]

                                       April 17, 2000

Mr. Leo J. Hindery, Jr.
Chairman & Chief Executive Officer
GlobalCenter Inc.
141 Caspian Court
Sunnyvale, California 94089


Dear Leo:

  This letter agreement is made to reflect the original intent of the parties
regarding, and to clarify certain terms of, the Employment Agreement made
between GlobalCenter Inc., a Delaware corporation ("GlobalCenter"), and you
effective as of December 5, 1999 (the "Agreement").

  The stock option granted to you under the Agreement to purchase 5.5% of the
outstanding common stock of GlobalCenter has an aggregate strike price of
$110,000,000, rather than $100,000,000.

  In addition, under the Agreement, you have the discretion to exercise the
GlobalCenter stock option described above either for GlobalCenter common stock
or for an equivalent percentage of the shares of a stock issued by Global
Crossing Ltd. to track the business of GlobalCenter (the "Tracking Stock"),
subject to appropriate adjustments without any adverse effect upon you.

  These terms of the Agreement as described in this letter agreement are
effective ab initio.

  We look forward to continuing our mutually rewarding relationship.

                              Very truly yours,

                              GLOBALCENTER INC.



                              By:  /s/ Mark J. Coleman
                                 ---------------------


AGREED TO AND ACCEPTED BY:


   /s/  Leo J. Hindery, Jr.
   ------------------------
          Leo J. Hindery, Jr.

Dated April 18, 2000
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER

Appellate case name: Jamelle Andrea Peterkin v. The State of Texas

Appellate case number: 01-18-01090-CR

Trial court case number: 1548100

Trial court: 351st District Court of Harris County

Appellant, Jamelle Andrea Peterkin, has filed a motion to extend time to file a 

supplemental brief until 30 days after a supplemental reporter’s record is filed. Appellant’s 

motion does not indicate if and when he requested the court reporter to prepare the 

supplemental record or an estimated date the record will be filed. Accordingly, we grant 

appellant’s motion and order that he file a supplemental brief, if any, no later than March 

11, 2020. 

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: /s/ Evelyn V. Keyes

 Acting individually Acting for the Court

Date: January 30, 2020
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 197 (Thursday, October 9, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Pages 59612-59613]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-24065]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

United States Patent and Trademark Office

[Docket No. PTO-C-2008-0040]


Performance Review Board (PRB)

AGENCY: United States Patent and Trademark Office.

ACTION: Notice

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

SUMMARY: In conformance with the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978, 5 
U.S.C. 4314(c)(4), the United States Patent and Trademark Office 
announces the appointment of persons to serve as members of its 
Performance Review Board.

ADDRESSES: Director, Human Capital Management, Office of Human 
Resources, United States Patent and Trademark Office, P.O. Box 1450, 
Alexandria, VA 22313-1450.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Karen Karlinchak at (571) 272-6200.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The membership of the United States Patent 
and Trademark Office Performance Review Board is as follows:
    Margaret J. A. Peterlin, Chair, Deputy Under Secretary of Commerce 
for Intellectual Property and Deputy Director of the United States 
Patent and Trademark Office.
    Stephen S. Smith, Vice Chair, Chief Administrative Officer, United 
States Patent and Trademark Office.
    John J. Doll, Commissioner for Patents, United States Patent and 
Trademark Office.
    Lynne G. Beresford, Commissioner for Trademarks, United States 
Patent and Trademark Office.
    Wendy R. Garber, Acting Chief Information Officer, United States 
Patent and Trademark Office.
    James A. Toupin, General Counsel, United States Patent and 
Trademark Office.
    Lois E. Boland, Director, Office of Intellectual Property Policy 
and Enforcement, United States Patent and Trademark Office.
    Barry K. Hudson, Chief Financial Officer, United States Patent and 
Trademark Office.
    Jefferson D. Taylor, Director, Office of Governmental Affairs, 
United States Patent and Trademark Office.
    Deborah S. Cohn, Deputy Commissioner for Trademark

[[Page 59613]]

Operations, United States Patent and Trademark Office.
    Margaret A. Focarino, Deputy Commissioner for Patent Operations, 
United States Patent and Trademark Office.
    Kenneth Berman, Director of Information Technology, International 
Broadcasting Bureau.

    Dated: October 1, 2008.
Jon W. Dudas,
Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Director of 
the United States Patent and Trademark Office.
 [FR Doc. E8-24065 Filed 10-8-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-16-P
Exhibit 99.2

                                 CERTIFICATION

The undersigned, the trustee (the "Trustee") in respect of the Trust
Certificates (TRUCs) Series 2002-1, hereby certifies to Bear Stearns Depositor
Inc. as follows:

    1.   I have reviewed the annual report on Form 10-K and all reports on
         Form 8-K filed by U.S. Bank Trust National Association, solely as
         Trustee for the Trust Certificates (TRUCs) Series 2002-1 Trust and
         any distribution reports filed in respect of the Trust during the
         2005 calendar year;

    2.   The information in those reports, taken as a whole, 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, no misleading as
         of the last day of the period covered by the annual report;

    3.   The distribution or servicing information required to be provided to
         the depositor by the Trustee under the trust agreement for inclusion
         in these reports is included in such reports; and

    4.   I am responsible for reviewing the activities performed by the
         Trustee under the trust agreement and except as disclosed in these
         reports, the Trustee has fulfilled its obligations under the trust
         agreement.


                                    U.S. BANK TRUST NATIONAL ASSOCIATION



                                    By:      /s/ Thomas E. Tabor
                                    Name:    Thomas E. Tabor
                                    Title:   Vice President
                                    Date:     March 30, 2006
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Stephen J. Markman, Chief Justice

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano 

Richard H. Bernstein

Joan L. Larsen

Kurtis T. Wilder,

Justices

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.

 May 17, 2017

p0510

Order 

Clerk

May 17, 2017

154527

COALITION PROTECTING AUTO NO-FAULT,

MARTHA E. LEVANDOWSKI, GERALD E.

CLARK, MARY ELLEN CLARK, A. MICHAEL

DELLER, PAULINA M. DELLER, and M.

THOMAS DELLER,

Plaintiffs-Appellants,

and

BRAIN INJURY ASSOCIATION OF

MICHIGAN, ILENE IKENS, RICHARD IKENS,

KENNETH WISSER, SUSAN WISSER, 

GREGORY WOLFE, and KAREN WOLFE,

Plaintiffs-Appellees,

v SC: 154527

COA: 314310 

Ingham CC: 12-000068-CZ

MICHIGAN CATASTROPHIC CLAIMS

ASSOCIATION,

Defendant-Appellee. 

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the August 25, 2016 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the question presented should be reviewed by this Court.

BERNSTEIN, J., would grant leave to appeal.
Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Senior District Judge Richard P. Matsch

Civil Action No. 11-cv-02584-RPM

KEVIN STRINGER

RYAN O’NEILL;

JOAQUIN MARTINEZ;

CHRISTOPHER ANDERSON; and

WILLIAM LEGER, III, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,

Plaintiffs,

v.

THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Defendant.

JUDGMENT FOR ATTORNEY’S FEES

Pursuant to the Order Awarding Attorney’s Fees entered July 17, 2014, by Senior District

Judge Richard P. Matsch, it is 

ORDERED that Judgment is entered in the amount of $25,000 in favor of Plaintiff Ryan

O’Neill for his attorney’s fees in this action; it is

FURTHER ORDERED that Judgment is entered in the amount of $5,000 in favor of

Plaintiff Kevin Stringer for his attorney’s fees in this action; it is 

FURTHER ORDERED that Judgment is entered in the amount of $5,000 in favor of

Plaintiff Joaquin Martinez for his attorney’s fees in this action; it is 

FURTHER ORDERED that Judgment is entered in the amount of $5,000 in favor of

Plaintiff Christopher Anderson for his attorney’s fees in this action, and it is 

Case 1:11-cv-02584-RPM Document 108 Filed 07/17/14 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2

FURTHER ORDERED that Judgment is entered in the amount of $5,000 in favor of

Plaintiff William Leger, III for his attorney’s fees in this action.

DATE: July 17, 2014

FOR THE COURT:

JEFFREY P. COLWELL, CLERK

s/M. V. Wentz

By__________________________

Deputy

Case 1:11-cv-02584-RPM Document 108 Filed 07/17/14 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 2
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Civil Action No. 11-cv-02745-BNB

WILLIAM LAWRENCE GLADNEY,

Applicant,

v.

MR. COPENHAVEN, Warden, and

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF COLORADO,

Respondents.

ORDER TO FILE PRE-ANSWER RESPONSE

As part of the preliminary consideration of the Second Amended Application for a

Writ of Habeas Corpus Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 filed on June 26, 2012, in this

action and pursuant to Denson v. Abbott, 554 F. Supp. 2d 1206 (D. Colo. 2008), the

Court has determined that a limited Pre-Answer Response is appropriate. Respondents

are directed pursuant to Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the

United States District Courts to file a Pre-Answer Response limited to addressing the

affirmative defenses of timeliness under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d) and/or exhaustion of state

court remedies under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1)(A). If Respondents do not intend to raise

either of these affirmative defenses, they must notify the Court of that decision in the

Pre-Answer Response. Respondents may not file a dispositive motion as their PreAnswer Response, or an Answer, or otherwise address the merits of the claims in

response to this Order.

Case 1:11-cv-02745-LTB Document 25 Filed 06/26/12 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 2
 In support of the Pre-Answer Response, Respondents should attach as exhibits

all relevant portions of the state court record, including but not limited to copies of all

documents demonstrating whether this action is filed in a timely manner and/or whether

Applicant has exhausted state court remedies.

Applicant may reply to the Pre-Answer Response and provide any information

that might be relevant to the one-year limitation period under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)

and/or the exhaustion of state court remedies. Applicant also should include

information relevant to equitable tolling, specifically as to whether he has pursued his

claims diligently and whether some extraordinary circumstance prevented him from

filing a timely 28 U.S.C. § 2254 action in this Court. Accordingly, it is

ORDERED that within twenty one (21) days from the date of this Order

Respondents shall file a Pre-Answer Response that complies with this Order. It is

FURTHER ORDERED that within twenty one (21) days of the filing of the

Pre-Answer Response Applicant may file a Reply, if he desires. It is

FURTHER ORDERED that if Respondents do not intend to raise either of the

affirmative defenses of timeliness or exhaustion of state court remedies, they must

notify the Court of that decision in the Pre-Answer Response.

Dated: June 26, 2012

BY THE COURT:

 s/ Boyd N. Boland 

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 1:11-cv-02745-LTB Document 25 Filed 06/26/12 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 2
United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 13-1102

___________________________

United States of America

lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee

v.

Orlando Straw

lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant

____________

 Appeal from United States District Court 

for the Northern District of Iowa - Cedar Rapids

____________

 Submitted: April 17, 2013

 Filed: April 22, 2013

[Unpublished]

____________

Before BYE, ARNOLD, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.

____________

PER CURIAM.

After Orlando Straw admitted violating his release conditions, the district

court revoked his supervised release and sentenced him to 9 months in prison with 1

The Honorable Linda R. Reade, Chief Judge, United States District Court for

1

the Northern District of Iowa.
no supervision to follow. Straw appeals, arguing that his sentence is unreasonable

and that the court improperly weighed the sentencing factors. We disagree. The

record shows that the district court properly considered the relevant sentencing

factors before imposing a revocation sentence that was authorized by statute and

within the applicable Guidelines range. See 18 U.S.C. §§ 3553(a), 3583(e)(3); United

States v. Petreikis, 551 F.3d 822, 824 (8th Cir. 2009) (applying presumption of

substantive reasonableness to revocation sentence within Guidelines range); United

States v. White Face, 383 F.3d 733, 740 (8th Cir. 2004) (court need not list every

§ 3553(a) factor when sentencing defendant upon revocation of supervised release).

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. We also grant

counsel leave to withdraw, subject to counsel informing Shaw about procedures for

seeking rehearing or filing a petition for certiorari.

______________________________

-2-
II 

Calendar No. 404 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1640 

To amend chapter 13 of title 17, United States Code (relating to the vessel 

hull design protection), to clarify the definitions of a hull and a deck. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JUNE 18, 2007 

Mr. LEAHY (for himself, Mr. CORNYN, Mr. KOHL, and Mr. WHITEHOUSE) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

OCTOBER 4, 2007 

Reported by Mr. LEAHY, without amendment 

A BILL 

To amend chapter 13 of title 17, United States Code (relating to the vessel hull design protection), to clarify the 

definitions of a hull and a deck. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. VESSEL HULL DESIGN PROTECTION. 

4 (a) SHORT TITLE.—This section may be cited as the 

5 ‘‘Vessel Hull Design Protection Amendments of 2007’’. 


hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMBILLS
2 

S 1640 RS

1 (b) DESIGNS PROTECTED.—Section 1301(a) of title 

2 17, United States Code, is amended by striking paragraph 

3 (2) and inserting the following: 

4 ‘‘(2) VESSEL FEATURES.—The design of a ves5 sel hull, deck, or combination of a hull and deck, in6 cluding a plug or mold, is subject to protection 

7 under this chapter, notwithstanding section 

8 1302(4).’’. 

9 (c) DEFINITIONS.—Section 1301(b) of title 17, 

10 United States Code, is amended— 

11 (1) in paragraph (2), by striking ‘‘vessel hull, 

12 including a plug or mold,’’ and inserting ‘‘vessel hull 

13 or deck, including a plug or mold,’’; 

14 (2) by striking paragraph (4) and inserting the 

15 following: 

16 ‘‘(4) A ‘hull’ is the exterior frame or body of a 

17 vessel, exclusive of the deck, superstructure, masts, 

18 sails, yards, rigging, hardware, fixtures, and other 

19 attachments.’’; and 

20 (3) by adding at the end the following: 

21 ‘‘(7) A ‘deck’ is the horizontal surface of a ves22 sel that covers the hull, including exterior cabin and 

23 cockpit surfaces, and exclusive of masts, sails, yards, 

24 rigging, hardware, fixtures, and other attachments.’’. 


hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMBILLS

hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMBILLS
Calendar No. 404 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1640 

A BILL 

To amend chapter 13 of title 17, United States 

deck. tion), to clarify the definitions of a hull and a Code (relating to the vessel hull design protecOCTOBER 4, 2007 

Reported without amendment 


hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMBILLS
<PAGE> 47

Exhibit 23 - Consent of Certified Public Accountant

Board of Directors
Pioneer Bankshares, Inc.



     We consent to the use of our report dated February 2, 2001 on the financial
statements of Pioneer Bankshares,  Inc. for the periods ending December 31, 1999
and 2000 included in this Form 10KSB.

                                    S. B. Hoover & Company, L.L.P.




Harrisonburg, VA
March 29, 2001
Exhibit 99(k)

ANNUAL SERVICER'S CERTIFICATE

HSBC FINANCE CORPORATION, successor by merger to

Household Finance Corporation ("HSBC Finance")

HRSI FUNDING, INC. II

HOUSEHOLD PRIVATE LABEL CREDIT CARD MASTER NOTE TRUST I

_____________________________________________________________

	I, Steven H. Smith, Servicing Officer of HSBC Finance, as Servicer, DO HEREBY CERTIFY, in accordance with the Section 3.09 of the Master Indenture, dated as of June 12, 2001 (as amended and restated), by and among Wilmington Trust, as Owner Trustee of the Household Private Label Credit Card Master Note Trust I, (the "Issuer"), and U.S. Bank, National Association, as Indenture Trustee, that:

	1.  A review of the activities of the Issuer from January 1 through December 31, 2004 and of its performance under this Master Indenture has been made under my supervision, and

To the best of my knowledge, based on such, the Issuer has complied with all conditions and covenants under the Master Indenture throughout such year. Based on such review, the Issuer has, to the best of my knowledge, performed in all material respects its obligations under the Master Indenture throughout such year and no default in the performance of such obligations has occurred or is continuing except as set forth below.

				None

 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have signed this certificate this 1st day of March, 2005.                              

 

					HSBC Finance Corporation, as Servicer

 

				  _/s/ Steven H. Smith                              							Steven H. Smith

					Servicing Officer
THE STATE EX REL. BAUM, APPELLANT, v. INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION OF OHIO ET AL.,

APPELLEES. 

[Cite as State ex rel. Baum v. Indus. Comm. (1998), ___ Ohio St.3d ___.] 

Workers’ compensation – Court of appeals’ judgment reversed and cause 

returned for compliance with State ex rel. Noll. 

(No. 97-1098 – Submitted October 12, 1998 – Decided December 30, 1998.) 

APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Franklin County, No. 96APD05-666. 

__________________ 

 Brian & Brian and Richard F. Brian, for appellant. 

 Betty D. Montgomery, Attorney General, and Cordelia A. Glenn, Assistant 

Attorney General, for appellee Industrial Commission. 

 Black, McCuskey, Souers & Arbaugh and Mary E. Randall, for appellee 

Republic Engineered Steels, Inc. 

__________________ 

 The judgment of the court of appeals is reversed, and the cause is returned 

to the Industrial Commission for further proceedings in compliance with State ex 

rel. Noll v. Indus. Comm. (1991), 57 Ohio St.3d 203, 567 N.E.2d 245. 

 DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY and PFEIFER,JJ., concur. 

 MOYER, C.J., COOK and LUNDBERG STRATTON,JJ., dissent. 

__________________ 

 LUNDBERG STRATTON, J., dissenting. I dissent and would affirm the court 

of appeals. 

 MOYER, C.J., and COOK,J., concur in the foregoing dissenting opinion.
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1537 Enrolled Bill (ENR)]

        S.1537

                       One Hundred Tenth Congress

                                 of the

                        United States of America

                          AT THE FIRST SESSION

          Begun and held at the City of Washington on Thursday,
            the fourth day of January, two thousand and seven

                                 An Act

 
  To authorize the transfer of certain funds from the Senate Gift Shop 
        Revolving Fund to the Senate Employee Child Care Center.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. TRANSFERS FROM SENATE GIFT SHOP REVOLVING FUND.
    Section 2(c) of Public Law 102-392 (2 U.S.C. 121d(c)) is amended by 
adding at the end the following:
    ``(3) The Secretary of the Senate may transfer from the fund to the 
Senate Employee Child Care Center proceeds from the sale of holiday 
ornaments by the Senate Gift Shop for the purpose of funding necessary 
activities and expenses of the Center, including scholarships, 
educational supplies, and equipment.''.

                               Speaker of the House of Representatives.

                            Vice President of the United States and    
                                               President of the Senate.
```