alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### THEODORE ROSS, ET AL. v. EXCEL PROPERTIES CORP., ETC., ET AL.

March 24, 1987.

Petition for certification denied.
Exhibit



Exhibit 10.1



SELECTIVE INSURANCE SUPPLEMENTAL PENSION PLAN


AMENDMENT NO. 2


THIS AMENDMENT No. 2 is made by Selective Insurance Company of America (the “Company”) to the Selective Insurance Supplemental Pension Plan, As Amended and Restated Effective as of January 1, 2005 (the “Plan”).
W I T N E S S E T H:
WHEREAS, the Company maintains the Plan for the benefit of certain key employees of the Company and those of its affiliates which have adopted the Plan; and


WHEREAS, the Company amended the Plan by Amendment No. 1, dated March 25, 2013, to cease all future benefit accruals under the Plan effective as of March 31, 2016; and


WHEREAS, the Plan currently provides that benefits under the SERP for calendar months commencing on or after a participant’s Normal Retirement Age, as defined in the SERP, shall be permanently withheld in accordance with the suspension of benefits provisions of the Retirement Income Plan for Selective Insurance Company of America (the “Retirement Plan”); and


WHEREAS, the Company wishes to amend the Plan, effective as of January 1, 2020, consistent with the changes contemporaneously made to the Retirement Plan, to discontinue suspension of benefits for participants who, after payment of their benefits under the Plan has commenced, are reemployed by the Company or any of its affiliates for a specific project and for a period that is not reasonably expected to last more than twelve (12) months, each as described in the offer letter made to the participant; and


WHEREAS, the Company or its delegee may amend the Plan at any time, pursuant to Section 18(a) thereof, by an instrument in writing.


NOW, THEREFORE, effective as of January 1, 2020, the Company hereby amends Section 9(c) of the Plan to read as follows:


(c)  If a Member continues to perform Hours of Service after his Normal Retirement Age, Plan benefits for calendar months commencing on or after his Normal Retirement Age shall be permanently withheld in accordance with the suspension of benefits provisions of the Retirement Plan.  For the avoidance of doubt, effective as of January 1, 2020, Plan benefits shall not be withheld for a Member who (i) has incurred a Separation from Service, (ii) has commenced receipt of retirement benefits under the Plan, and (iii) is subsequently reemployed by the Company or an Affiliate at any time (either before or on or after January 1, 2020) for a specific project and for a period that is not reasonably expected to last more than twelve (12) months, each as described in the offer letter made to the Member.  Such benefits (y) shall be paid during the period of reemployment in the same form, in the same amounts, and at the same time(s) as the Member’s benefit payments immediately prior to the date of reemployment; and (z) shall constitute an additional benefit that is a Post-2004 Benefit.


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Amendment No. 2 is hereby executed on this 25th day of February, 2020.


SELECTIVE INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA




By: /s/ Michael H. Lanza
Name:  Michael H. Lanza
Title:  Executive Vice President and General Counsel


1
NASA Advisory Council Recommendation 

NASA Coordinate Government-Wide Effort 

to Create Common Asbestos Cost Estimate 

2013-02-05 (AFAC-Ol) 

Recommendation: 

The Council recommends that NASA, through the CFO Council, coordinate a government­


wide, collaborative effort to create common estimates and benchmarks by structure type that 


can then be used as a baseline for each agency as they create their own estimates for asbestos 


remediation (such benchmarks are lacking today). Such a government-wide collaborative 


effort should result in significant cost savings for the Agency (and for the government) and 


should lead to a satisfactory audit trail for NASA's external auditors. The participation ofthe 


Agency's Inspector General Office through the IG Council should be encouraged by the 


Administration. 


Major Reasons for Proposing the Recommendation: 


The requirement to estimate unfunded environmental liability for asbestos remediation in all 


NASA facilities has been imposed by the Federal Financial Accounting Standards Board. 


Every Federal agency has had some requirement imposed upon them. 


Consequences of No Action on the Proposed Recommendation: 


Each Federal agency will struggle to develop sound supportable estimates to comply with the 


standard, resulting in inconsistent methodology across agencies. 


NASA Response: 


NASA agrees that formulation of a Government-wide, collaborative effort to create a common 


cost estimating process for asbestos unfunded environmental liability is needed. Every Agency 


has had some requirement imposed upon them regarding this requirement and a common 


methodology would provide consistency across all agencies and save on the cost of developing 


baseline estimates. NASA concurs that the Chief Financial Officer (CFO) Council is the 


appropriate body to coordinate this Government-wide initiative. NASA submitted the proposal 


to the CFO Council for consideration. NASA's OCFO is pledged to work with the Council on 


the coordination of a common cost estimation process for the benefit of all Federal agencies. 


Enclosure
#### Raymond Abbott *v.*Sadie May Abbott (Hoskins).

[No. 2-373A60.

Filed February 7, 1974.]

*Kagan and Barker,*Martinsville, for appellant.

*Joe Heaton,*Tipton, for appellee.

Staton, J.

This is an appeal from a judgment of the Tipton Circuit Court finding Appellant Eaymond Abbott Three Thousand Five Hundred Forty-Four Dollars and Sixty-Five Cents ($3,544.65) in arrears upon his support payments. Appellee Sadie May Abbott Hoskins has confessed reversible error. We have concluded that reversible error exists. Therefore, the judgment of the trial court is reversed and this case is remanded for further proceedings. *Gross*v. *Sipusic*(1935), 101 Ind. App. 700, 9 N.E.2d 365; *Kammins*v. *Buschmann*(1960), 130 Ind. App. 534, 166 N.E.2d 654 and ARCH BOBBITT, 1 INDIANA APPELLATE PEACTICE AND PEOCEDUEE 500 (1972).

Hoffman, C.J. and Garrard, J., concur.

Note. — Eeported at 306 N.E.2d 382.
**EXHIBIT
        32.2**
  
 **CERTIFICATION
        OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER**
 **PURSUANT
        TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**
 **AS
        ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**
 **SECTION
        906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**
  *In
        March 21, 2003, Medi-Hut terminated the employment of its four senior officers
        due to corporate mismanagement in the form of accounting irregularities and
        securities fraud during the fiscal years ended October 31, 2002 and 2001.
        At the
        time of their termination, all of these former officers were the subject
        of an
        investigation by the United States Department of Justice and three were subject
        to an investigation by the Securities and Exchange Commission. On August
        19,
        2003, as a result of the United States Department of Justice investigation,
        three of the former officers pled guilty to conspiring to inflate the revenue
        and earnings of the Company and for lying to investigators and the fourth
        former
        officer pled guilty to obstruction of justice. Also in August 19, 2003, the
        former officers who were under investigation by the Securities and Exchange
        Commission agreed to a consent decree with the Securities and Exchange
        Commission. As a result of the actions of the former officers of Medi-Hut,
        certain portions of this report have been omitted where the information was
        incomplete or could not be adequately verified by the Company’s current
        management and/or the Company’s independent auditors. Consequently, the
        Company’s current Chief Financial Officer is unable to include the certification
        pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350.*
*

 This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the

doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited,

however, for its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th

Cir. R. 32.1.

** After examining the briefs and the appellate record, this three-judge

panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not be of material

assistance in the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); 10th

Cir. R. 34.1(G). The cause is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.

FILED

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

February 17, 2010

Elisabeth A. Shumaker

Clerk of Court

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

TENTH CIRCUIT

VICTORIA A. PHILLIPS,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

AT&T,

Defendant - Appellee.

No. 09-6264

(D.C. No. 09-CV-00368-C)

(W.D. Okla.)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

Before KELLY, BRISCOE, and HOLMES, Circuit Judges.**

Plaintiff-Appellant Victoria Phillips, appearing pro se, appeals from the

district court’s dismissal of her complaint without prejudice for failure to effect

service. 1 R. 46. The complaint alleges that, in June 2008, Ms. Phillips received

a phone bill from AT&T with an improper $9.99 charge. 1 R. 3. Dissatisfied

with AT&T’s handling of the matter, she filed this complaint seeking $45 million

Appellate Case: 09-6264 Document: 01018368220 Date Filed: 02/17/2010 Page: 1 
- 2 -

in damages on the theories of identity theft, fraud upon her account, wire fraud

and mail fraud. 1 R. 3. A magistrate judge granted IFP status, 1 R. 16, but then

the district court, after ordering the Plaintiff to show cause, 1 R. 39, dismissed the

complaint for inadequate proof of service, 1 R. 46. Given the grant of IFP status,

the district court was responsible for ensuring service. See Olsen v. Mapes, 333

F.3d 1199, 1204 (10th Cir. 2003).

However, under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), a court may dismiss an action

or an appeal that is frivolous or malicious or fails to state a claim on which relief

may be granted. This is just such a case. The factual allegations contained in the

complaint stray into the fanciful and delusional, see Neitzke v. Williams, 490

U.S. 319, 325 (1989), and it is certain that the complaint lacks facial plausibility

warranting the relief requested, see Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1949

(2009).

APPEAL DISMISSED.

Entered for the Court

Paul J. Kelly, Jr.

Circuit Judge

Appellate Case: 09-6264 Document: 01018368220 Date Filed: 02/17/2010 Page: 2
# Rex Engelhardt

Mission Manager, Launch Services Program

## Contents

            -  Experience 
            -  Education 
            -  Personal 

Rex Engelhardt is a mission manager for NASA’s Launch Services Program at John F. Kennedy Space Center in Florida. His job is to lead mission integration teams, which are responsible for managing all integration and launch vehicle engineering aspects related to his assigned missions.

## Experience

Since joining NASA in 1989, Engelhardt worked as a site manager for the space shuttle mobile launch platforms, a shuttle payload integration leader, a shuttle payload operations manager, a launch site support manager, and then acted as the first Kennedy liaison to Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Maryland, which was also treated as a Project Management Development Program assignment.

Engelhardt was born in Las Cruces, New Mexico, but spent most of his childhood in Oregon. He moved to Florida in January 1983 for his first assignment in the U.S. Air Force at Cape Canaveral Air Force Station (now called Cape Canaveral Space Force Station). He left the Air Force in 1989 and joined NASA about two months later.

## Education

Engelhardt is a graduate of Cascade High School in Turner, Oregon. He graduated from Oregon State University with a Bachelor of Science in mechanical engineering in 1982. He received his Master’s in engineering management from the University of Central Florida in 1996.

## Personal

Engelhardt resides in Merritt Island, Florida. He has two children, a son, Steven, in the United States Marine Corps, and a daughter, Tiffany, a senior in high school. They have two dogs, Scout and Winter. In his spare time, Engelhardt works on his audio-video system and plays guitar. He also plays music with the youth at his church.

*Biography last updated April 2023*
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD

SPECIAL COUNSEL,

Petitioner,

V. Docket No. HQ12068310014

HENRY P. VERROT,

Respondent

FINAL DECISION

The Board has before it an Order on Settlement issued

by Administrative Law Judge Frank W. Vanderheyden in this

disciplinary action initiated under 5 U.S.C. §§ 1206(a)(g) and

1207. Respondent was charged with commission of prohibited

personnel practices. Judge Vanderheyden granted the parties'

Joint Motion for Approval of Settlement.

The Joint Motion, which included the terms of the

settlement, was signed by respondent as well as his counsel

and the Special Counsel. In the Joint Motion respondent

admitted he violated 5 U.S.C. § 2302(b)(5) and (6) by

influencing an individual to withdraw from competition for

the purpose of improving the prospects of another for

appointment to an announced position. The Joint Motion also

included the Special Counsel's recommendation of a penalty

of 60 days suspension and a $1,000 civil penalty and a

provision that if the penalty recommended by the Special
-2»

Counsel were considered inappropriate for whatever reason,

by the Judge or the Board, the parties be granted a hearing

on the appropriateness of the recommended discipline.

Judge Vanderheyden recommends that the Board enter a final

order consistent with the parties* agreement embraced within

the Joint Motion.

Accordingly, as recommended by Judge Vanderheyden, and

consistent with the Board's penalty authority under 5 U.S.C.

§ 1207 (b), the Board ORDERS that respondent BE SUSPENDED

without pay for a period of 60 days and that respondent FORFEIT

the sum of $1,000 to be paid by check or similar instrument

to the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board within 30 days of

his receipt of this opinion. The Board FURTHER ORDERS that

within 90 days of issuance of this Final Decision, Special

Counsel report to the Board on the matter of compliance with

the suspension order.

FOR THE BOARD:

(Da&e) I

W^hingttfn, b. C.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

MICHAEL HERNANDEZ GONZALEZ, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

 v. 

H. PEREZ; M. MIMS, Sheriff of Fresno 

County at Fresno County Jail; SHARP, 

Officer, 

Defendants-Appellees.

No. 22-15905 

D.C. No. 1:19-cv-01447-DAD-BAK 

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of California

Dale A. Drozd, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted August 15, 2023**

Before: TASHIMA, S.R. THOMAS, and FORREST, Circuit Judges.

California state prisoner Michael Hernandez Gonzalez appeals pro se from 

the district court’s judgment dismissing for failure to comply with court orders his 

42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging excessive force and failure to protect while 

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision 

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

FILED

AUG 18 2023

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 22-15905 

Gonzalez was a pretrial detainee. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C § 1291. 

We review for abuse of discretion, Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 640 (9th 

Cir. 2002), and we affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing Gonzalez’s 

action because, despite multiple, explicit warnings, Gonzalez failed to comply with 

orders instructing him to cease filing duplicative and baseless motions. See id. at 

642-43 (discussing the five factors for determining whether to dismiss under Fed. 

R. Civ. P. 41(b) for failure to comply with a court order); Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 

F.2d 1258, 1260 (9th Cir. 1992) (although dismissal is a harsh penalty, the district 

court’s dismissal should not be disturbed absent “a definite and firm conviction” 

that it “committed a clear error of judgment” (citation and internal quotation marks 

omitted)).

All pending motions and requests are denied.

AFFIRMED.
#### REYNALDO DE LOS SANTOS, ETC., ET AL. v. SADDLEHILL, INC., ETC., ET AL.

February 27, 1987.

Petition for certification denied.
# SLS Core Stage Progress

In February 2012, Space Launch System Program Manager Todd May shares SLS progress on the core stage with NASA Deputy Associate Administrator Lori Garver during her visit to NASA's Michoud Assembly Facility in New Orleans. The Boeing Company of Huntsville, Ala., is developing the core stage for SLS. Image credit: NASA/Michoud

Read More

                    -  Facebook PinterestX
-  LinkedIn Emailhttps://www.nasa.gov/image-detail/sls-core-stage-progress/Copy URL to clipboard>DownloadShareSize852x638pxThe National Aeronautics and Space Administration
NASA explores the unknown in air and space, innovates for the benefit of humanity, and inspires the world through discovery.
- About NASA's Mission
Join Us- Home
- News & Events
- Multimedia
- NASA+
- Missions
- Humans in Space
- Earth & Climate
- The Solar System
- The Universe
- Science
- Aeronautics
- Technology
- Learning Resources
- About NASA
- NASA en Español
Follow NASA-   
-   
-   
-   
- 
- More NASA Social Accounts
- NASA Newsletters
- Sitemap
- For Media
- Privacy Policy
- FOIA
- No FEAR Act
- Office of the IGBudget & Annual Reports
Agency Financial Reports
Contact NASA
Accessibility
-  									Page Last Updated:								  								Mar 18, 2023								 
-  									Page Editor:								   
-  								Responsible NASA Official:							  								Abigail Bowman
Court of Appeals

Sixth Appellate District of Texas

J U D G M E N T

William Charles Gatewood, Jr., Appellant

No. 06-22-00006-CR v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

Appeal from the 5th District Court of 

Bowie County, Texas (Tr. Ct. No. 

21F0801-005). Opinion delivered by Chief 

Justice Morriss, Justice Stevens and Justice 

van Cleef participating.

As stated in the Court’s opinion of this date, we find no error in the judgment of the court 

below. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

We note that the appellant, William Charles Gatewood, Jr., has adequately indicated his 

inability to pay costs of appeal. Therefore, we waive payment of costs.

RENDERED SEPTEMBER 28, 2022

BY ORDER OF THE COURT

JOSH R. MORRISS, III

CHIEF JUSTICE

ATTEST:

Debra K. Autrey, Clerk
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK>     0000892038
<NAME>    TELEPAD CORPORATION
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                  9-MOS         
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>             DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                  SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                        187,145
<SECURITIES>                  0
<RECEIVABLES>                 1,783,979
<ALLOWANCES>                  112,171
<INVENTORY>                   2,716,675
<CURRENT-ASSETS>              4,712,652
<PP&E>                        898,020
<DEPRECIATION>                (600,353)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                8,435,002
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>         5,071,753
<BONDS>                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>         1,009,850
<PREFERRED>                   0
<COMMON>                      130,219
<OTHER-SE>                    2,223,180
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>  8,435,002
<SALES>                       4,277,103
<TOTAL-REVENUES>              4,863,084
<CGS>                         3,383,177
<TOTAL-COSTS>                 3,926,969
<OTHER-EXPENSES>              321,304
<LOSS-PROVISION>              0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>            (109,226)
<INCOME-PRETAX>               (2,976,742)
<INCOME-TAX>                  0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>           (2,976,742)
<DISCONTINUED>                0
<EXTRAORDINARY>               0
<CHANGES>                     0
<NET-INCOME>                  (2,976,742)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                 (0.24)
<EPS-DILUTED>                 (0.24)
        

</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                               0
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      570
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                   570
<PP&E>                                          44,302
<DEPRECIATION>                                  40,786
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   4,086
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                              122
<BONDS>                                          3,293
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                         671
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     4,086
<SALES>                                          2,045
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 2,045
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                      453
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   797
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 293
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    502
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                502
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       502
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .03
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .03
        

</TABLE>