alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 10.9



Schedule to Stock Option Agreement Under Huttig Building Products, Inc.

2001 Stock Incentive Plan



|                   |  |                  |  |                  |  |                 
|------------------ |  | ---------------- |  | ---------------- |  | ----------------
|Option Holder      |  | Number Of Shares |  | Exercise Price   |  | Date of Grant   
|Barry J. Kulpa     |  | 55,000           |  | $5.875 per share |  | January 29, 2002
|Thomas S. McHugh   |  | 40,000           |  | $5.875 per share |  | January 29, 2002
|Nick H. Varsam     |  | 34,000           |  | $5.875 per share |  | January 29, 2002
|Michael A. Lupo    |  | 400,000          |  | $2.300 per share |  | April 28, 2003  
|Carl A. Liliequist |  | 100,000          |  | $2.980 per share |  | August 5, 2003  
|Hank J. Krey       |  | 25,000           |  | $2.980 per share |  | August 5, 2003
#### Henry P. Clanton *v.*State of Indiana.

[No. 2-773A153.

Filed March 26, 1974.]

*Robert G. Mann,*of Indianapolis, for appellant.

*Theodore L. Sendak,*Attorney General, *Robert A. Zaban,*Deputy Attorney General, for appellee.

Per Curiam

This cause is pending before the Court on the appellee’s Motion to Dismiss and the appellant’s Brief in Opposition thereto. The Motion to Dismiss alleges that the appellant has not preserved any error on appeal for the reason that the appellant’s Motion to Correct Errors was filed after *604the jury returned its verdict, but before the Court entered judgment by sentencing the defendant-appellant.

We have examined the record of the proceedings herein and find that appellee’s contention is true. The record reveals that the jury returned its verdict on February 17, 1973. The defendant then filed a motion for new trial on February 26, 1973. Thereafter, on March 9, 1973, a motion to correct errors was filed. On March 13,1973, the Court pronounced sentence on the verdict, entered judgment, and granted leave to the defendant to withdraw his previously filed motion for new trial. The trial court subsequently overruled the motion to correct errors on April 10,1973.

The question thus presented has previously been decided by this Court in the case of *Spall*v. *State*(1973), 156 Ind. App. 189, 295 N.E.2d 852. In the case presently before us, as well as in *Spall,*there was no motion to correct errors filed at any time subsequent to the court’s entry of judgment. The only motion to correct errors that was filed was filed after the verdict was returned but before judgment was entered thereon.

In *Spall,*we compared the language employed in the former statute and rule with the language employed in the present rules TR. 59(C) and CR. 16, and concluded that the Supreme Court intended to change the former procedure so that now, under the present rules, the motion to correct errors should not be filed until *after*the entry of judgment, but should be filed within 60 days thereafter. We then stated as follows:

> “The effect of the appellant having prematurely filed his Motion to Correct Errors before sentencing, is that he has not filed any Motion to Correct Errors directed to the judgment or sentence, and therefore has not preserved any error on appeal. Without a Motion to Correct Errors having been filed, there is no complaint in the appellate tribunal, and nothing is presented to this court for review.”

Since the question presented in this motion is the same as that presented in *Spall,*the same result must obtain.

*605The appellee’s Motion to Dismiss is sustained and this cause is dismissed.

Note. — Reported at 308 N.E.2d 726.
# Dawn M. Schaible

Deputy Director, NASA's Glenn Research Center 

          -   

Dawn M. Schaible is the deputy director of NASA’s Glenn Research Center in Cleveland. In this position, she shares with the center director responsibility for planning, organizing, and managing the agency level programs and projects assigned to the center. Glenn has a staff of more than 3,200 civil servants and support service contractors and has an annual budget of approximately $900 million.

Before becoming Glenn’s deputy director, Schaible served as director of the NASA Langley Research Center Engineering Directorate, which provides advanced technology and flight system development in support of the center’s goals. Prior to that, Schaible was appointed as the NASA deputy chief engineer in July 2014. In this role, she helped to lead the Office of the Chief Engineer in providing policy direction, oversight, and assessment for the NASA engineering and program management communities.   

Schaible previously served as the manager of the Systems Engineering Office for the NASA Engineering and Safety Center, which was established in 2003 following the Space Shuttle Columbia accident. As a founding member, she helped to establish the organization and processes to conduct independent assessments of critical, high-risk issues. Schaible began her career with NASA at the Kennedy Space Center in 1987, where she held a number of lead engineering and management positions for the Space Shuttle and International Space Station Programs.

Schaible is an associate fellow of the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics. She received a bachelor’s degree in mechanical engineering from Bradley University, master’s degree in space systems operations from the Florida Institute of Technology, and master’s degree in engineering and management from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
##### 



EXHIBIT 32.01
 
  a)
    
    The quarterly report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the period
ended January 31, 2006 filed on the date hereof with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; andb)
    
    Information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
 Date: March 13, 2006By /s/ Henry Linsert, Jr.Henry Linsert, Jr.
Chief Executive Officer
FILED

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

March 2, 2010

Elisabeth A. Shumaker

Clerk of Court

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

CEDRICK LADON CARTER,

 Defendant - Appellant.

No. 09-6266

(D.C. No. 5:00-CR-00142-L-1)

(W.D. Okla.)

ORDER

The captioned appeal is dismissed for lack of prosecution pursuant to 10th Cir. R.

42.1.

A copy of this order shall stand as and for the mandate of this court.

Entered for the Court,

ELISABETH A. SHUMAKER, Clerk

Appellate Case: 09-6266 Document: 01018375983 Date Filed: 03/02/2010 Page: 1
UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY APPELLATE PANEL 

OF THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

————————————————— 

IN RE BROOK STREET INC., 

 Debtor. 

__________________________________ 

BROOK STREET, INC., 

 Appellant, 

 v. 

GORDON CREEK INVESTORS, LLC, 

 Appellee. 

BAP No. UT-10-006 

Bankr. No. 09-28298 

Chapter 11 

ORDER TRANSFERRING 

APPEAL 

TO U.S. DISTRICT COURT 

February 5, 2010 

————————————————— 

 The matter before the Court is the Election (“Election”) filed by Gordon Creek 

Investors, LLC (“Appellee”). In the Election, Appellee has timely filed an objection to 

the disposition of this matter by this Court. 

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 158(c)(1) and Fed. R. Bankr. P. 8001(e), it is HEREBY 

ORDERED THAT: 

(1) This appeal is transferred to the United States District Court. 

BAP Appeal No. 10-6 Docket No. 10 Filed: 02/05/2010 Page: 1 of 2
(2) Any deadlines, notices of deficiency, or orders to show cause 

previously set by this Court are VACATED. 

(3) This Court’s record is transmitted to the United States Bankruptcy 

Court. 

 For the Panel: 

Barbara A. Schermerhorn, Clerk of Court 

 By: Laura Guice 

 

 Attorney Deputy Clerk 

2

BAP Appeal No. 10-6 Docket No. 10 Filed: 02/05/2010 Page: 2 of 2
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Marilyn Kelly

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, 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. 

 _________________________________________ 

 Clerk

September 6, 2011 

d0829 

Order 

 

September 6, 2011 

143059 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 143059 

 COA: 298033 

Calhoun CC: 2009-003955-FC 

REGINALD WALLS, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

 On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the March 15, 2011 

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

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 02-6325

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

KIM GREGORY MCKINNEY,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western

District of North Carolina, at Asheville. Lacy H. Thornburg,

District Judge. (CR-00-42, CA-01-297-1)

Submitted: April 25, 2002 Decided: May 8, 2002

Before WILLIAMS and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Kim Gregory McKinney, Appellant Pro Se. Richard Lee Edwards,

Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Kim Gregory McKinney seeks to appeal the district court’s

order denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp.

2001). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion

and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate

of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the

district court. United States v. McKinney, No. CR-00-42; CA-01-

297-1 (W.D.N.C. Jan. 14, 2002). We dispense with oral argument

because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in

the materials before the court and argument would not aid the

decisional process.

DISMISSED
#### Mullis *v.*Cavins.

*Monday, May*20.

A conveyance of real estate is not admissible evidence for the grantee, without proof of its execution, although there be attached to it a certificate of its having been duly acknowledged.

The petitioner for a ferry must produce some other evidence of title to the land, on which the ferry is prayed to be established, than the mere fact of his being in possession.

ERROR to the *Washington*Circuit Court.

Blackford, J.

The board of commissioners of *Washington*county granted a ferry, on the east fork of White river, to *Cavins.*Mullís, as a party aggrieved by the grant, appealed to the Circuit Court, and the grant was confirmed.

On the • trial in the Circuit Court, *Cavins*offered in evidence a deed of conveyance to. him from one *Cox*for the *78land on which he wished to have the ferry established. The deed was objected to, but was admitted.

*H. P. Thornton*and *R. W. Thompson,*for the plaintiff.

*J. W. Payne,*for the defendant.

The objection to the admission of the deed was, that its execution was not proved. It was admitted in evidence, on the ground that there was attached to it the certificate of a justice of the peace, of its having been acknowledged before him by the grantor. The question, whether a deed *to the*party offering it, which appears to have been acknowledged and recorded, is admissible without proof of its' execution? was decided in the negative a few years ago in the case of *White*v. *McDowell, Ind.*Dist. Court, *U. S., May*term, 1833. We consider that decision to be correct. The same opinion, indeed, has been recently expressed by this Court. *Bowser*v. *Warren,*4 Blackf. 522. The Court erred, therefore, in admitting the deed in evidence.

It is contended, that it was not necessary for *Gavins*to show that he had a conveyance for the land, but that possession was, of itself, *prima facie*sufficient evidence of his title. It may be answered to this, that the record contains all the evidence given at the trial, and it does not appear that Gavins’ possession of the land was proved. But, independently of that circumstance, we do not think that the mere fact of possession, is *prima facie*sufficient evidence of title to the land, under the statute, to authorise the grant of a ferry to the possessor. Rev. Code, 1831, p. 259.

*Per*Curiam.

The judgment is reversed with costs. Cause remanded, &c.
#### Yost *v.*Ditch.

*Tuesday, November*19.

In an action for an assault and battery, evidence offered by the plaintiff that he complained of the injury, recently after it was received, is admissible.

APPEAL from the *Henry*Circuit Court.

Blackford, *J.*

Ditch sued *Yost*in an action for an assault and battery. Plea, not guilty. Verdict and judgment for the plaintiff.

The only question in this cause arises out of the following testimony of one. of the witnesses, viz. “I saw the place the *185next day where the plaintiff had been beaten. The ground was trodden up. Blood on the brush and ground. Defendant said he had now paid for the apples *Ditch*had got from him. Saw *Ditch*the same day, and heard him complain that his arm was sore. Saw his hand that day hung up by a handkerchief as a sling. Saw *Ditch*the day after he was hurt.” This testimony was objected to by the defendant, but was admitted.

*C. B. Smith*and *J. St*Newman, for the appellant.

*J. B.*Ray, for the appellee.

The objection made to the judgment is, that the plaintiff’s statement to the witness of the • soreness of his arm was inadmissible evidence. We think this testimony was correctly admitted. The compláint was made so recently after the act of violence committed, as to render the proof of it admissible. The cases on the subject, and which fully support this' opinion, are collected in Roscoe’s Crim. Ev. p. 21.

*Per Curiam.*

The judgment is affirmed, with 5 *per cent.*damages and costs.
#### Clyde W. BRONSON, Sr., Petitioner, v. OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT, Respondent.

No. 02-3181.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

DECIDED: Aug. 21, 2003.

ON MOTION

PROST, Circuit Judge.

*ORDER*

Clyde W. Bronson, Sr. moves for reconsideration of the court’s order dismissing his petition for review for failure to pay the filing fee, file a brief, or file a Fed. Cir. R. 15(c) statement concerning discrimination. The Office of Personnel Management has not responded.

Bronson is presently incarcerated. Pursuant to the Prisoner Litigation Reform Act of 1995, this court may not authorize the prosecution of an appeal by a prisoner without the prepayment of fees. 28 U.S.C. § 1915. A prisoner is no longer afforded the alternative of proceeding without payment of filing fees, but must, in time, pay the $100 filing fee in its entirety. When funds exist, an initial partial payment must be made consisting of 20 percent of the greater of (a) the average monthly deposits to the prisoner’s account or (b) the average monthly balance in the prisoner’s account for the six-month period immediately preceding the filing of the notice of appeal. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1). Thereafter, the prisoner is required to make monthly payments of 20 percent of the preceding month’s income credited to the prisoner’s account. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2). The correctional institution with custody of the prisoner must forward payments from the prisoner’s account each time the amount in the account exceeds $10 until the $100 filing fee is paid in full. *Id.*

Bronson has filed a supplemental in for-ma pauperis form for prisoners authorizing the disbursement of funds from his prison account to pay the court’s $100 filing fee.* By separate letter, the custodian of Bronson’s prison account has been directed to make the necessary arrangements to forward the filing fee to the court.

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED THAT.

*58(1) Bronson’s motion for reconsideration is granted. The September 18, 2002 dismissal order is vacated, the mandate is recalled, and the petition for review is reinstated.

(2) Bronson’s motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is denied.

(3) Bronson’s case will proceed upon receipt of the initial partial payment.

*

 Bronson has also submitted an informal brief and a Fed. Cir. R. 15(c) statement concerning discrimination.
#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. TONY GOODYEAR.

January 28, 1987.

Petition for certification denied.
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 18
- 6650
NOBLE DREW ALI, a/k/a Joseph Lee McElveen Bey , Petitioner

- Appellant ,

v. HAROLD W. CLARK E , Director of Virginia Department of Corrections , Respondent

- Appellee

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia , at Norfolk

. Mark S. Davis , District Judge. ( 2:17

- cv - 00340

- MSD

- LRL )

Submitted : October 23, 2018 Decided: October 26, 2018

Before NIEMEYER, KING, and WYNN , Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion

.

Noble Drew Ali , Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Noble Drew Ali seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting t he recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2012). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller

- El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322,
336

- 38 (2003). When the district court denies relief on proc edural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack , 529 U.S. at
484

- 85. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Ali has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, deny a certificate of appealability , and dismiss the appeal. We also deny Ali’s motion for an injunction. We dispense with oral ar gument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
Exhibit 32

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

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 ManTech International Corporation (the Company) Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31,
2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), we, George J. Pedersen, Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and Kevin M. Phillips, Chief Financial 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, 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: April 30, 2010



|       |  |                                                               
|------ |  | --------------------------------------------------------------
|By:    |  | /s/    GEORGE J. PEDERSEN                                     
|Name:  |  | George J. Pedersen                                            
|Title: |  | Chairman of the Board of Directors and
Chief Executive Officer
|       | 
|By:    |  | /s/    KEVIN M. PHILLIPS                                      
|Name:  |  | Kevin M. Phillips                                             
|Title: |  | Chief Financial Officer                                       



29
N OTE : This disposition is nonprecedential.



# United States **Court of Appeals**  **for the Federal Circuit**

______________________

INTELLECTUAL VENTURE S II LLC, Appellant

v.

AISIN SEIKI CO., LTD ., TOYOTA MOTOR CORPORATION, AMERICA N HONDA MOTOR CO., INC., Appellees

______________________

2019

- 1800, 2019

- 1801

______________________

Appeals from the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in No s . IPR2017

- 01494, IPR2017

- 01539, IPR2018

- 00440, IPR2018

- 00444.

__ ____________________

JUDGMENT

______________________

P AUL A. S TEWART

, Knobbe, Martens, Olson & Bear, LLP, Irvine, CA, argued for appellant. Also represented by

E DWARD M. C ANNON

, D AVID G ERARD J ANKOWSKI

.

R OBERT C ARTER M ATTSON

, Oblon, McClelland, Maier &Neustadt, Alexandria, VA, argued for all appellees. Appellee Aisin Seiki Co., Ltd. also represented by J OHN S HERMAN
K ERN

, E RIC W. S CHWEIBENZ

. Case: 19-1800 Document: 64 Page: 1 Filed: 03/23/2020J AMES R. B ARNEY , Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP, Washington, DC, for appellee Toyota Motor Corporation. Also represented by J OSHUA G OLDBERG

, W ILLIAM P RATT

, D AVID R EESE

.

J OHN C ARACAPPA , Steptoe & Johnson, LLP, Washington, DC, for appellee American Honda Motor Co., Inc. Also represented by J AMES R ICHARD N UTTALL , Chicago, IL.

______________________

T HIS C AUSE ha ving been heard and considered, it is

O RDERED and A DJUDGED :

P ER C URIAM (N EWMAN

, O’M ALLEY

, and T ARANTO

, Circuit Judges ).

AFFIRMED. See Fed . Cir. R. 36.

E NTERED BY O RDER OF THE C OURT

March 23, 2020

Date /s/ Peter R. Marksteiner

Peter R. Marksteiner
Clerk of Court Case: 19-1800 Document: 64 Page: 2 Filed: 03/23/2020
# Automated Aerial Refueling

NASA Dryden's Automated Aerial Refueling (AAR) project evaluated the capability of an F/A-18A aircraft as an in-flight refueling tanker with...

NASA Dryden's Automated Aerial Refueling (AAR) project evaluated the capability of an F/A-18A aircraft as an in-flight refueling tanker with...

NASA Dryden's Automated Aerial Refueling (AAR) project evaluated the capability of an F/A-18A aircraft as an in-flight refueling tanker with...

NASA Dryden's Automated Aerial Refueling (AAR) project evaluated the capability of an F/A-18A aircraft as an in-flight refueling tanker with...

NASA Dryden's Automated Aerial Refueling (AAR) project evaluated the capability of an F/A-18A aircraft as an in-flight refueling tanker with...

NASA Dryden's Automated Aerial Refueling (AAR) project evaluated the capability of an F/A-18A aircraft as an in-flight refueling tanker with...

NASA Dryden's Automated Aerial Refueling (AAR) project evaluated the capability of an F/A-18A aircraft as an in-flight refueling tanker with...

A NASA F/A-18 flies over the Dryden Flight Research Center and Rogers Dry Lake on December 11, 2002. The aircraft...

A NASA F/A-18 flies over the Dryden Flight Research Center and Rogers Dry Lake on December 11, 2002. The aircraft...

A NASA F/A-18 flies over the Dryden Flight Research Center and Rogers Dry Lake on December 11, 2002. The aircraft...