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

                                                                Exhibit 10(c)(1)
                                    [FORM OF]
                          WAIVER AND RELEASE AGREEMENT
          For Participation in the Change in Control Severance Plan and
           Amended and Restated Supplemental Executive Retirement Plan


         This Waiver and Release Agreement is entered into by and between
Battle Mountain Gold Company ("Company") and ______ ("Executive").

         WHEREAS, the Company adopted the Battle Mountain Gold Company Change
in Control Severance Plan effective December 2, 1997 ("Severance Plan") and
the Battle Mountain Gold Company Supplemental Executive Retirement Plan as
amended and restated effective December 2, 1997 ("SERP");

         WHEREAS, participation in the Severance Plan and SERP require that
the Executive waive and release all of his or her rights under any plans,
employment agreements, other agreements, offer letter, and other
communications, whether oral or written;

         NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises:

1.       Effective as of the date hereof, Executive waives and releases any and
         all of his or her rights under [reference to existing agreement or
         arrangement] [with respect to severance benefits payable in the event
         of a change in control and supplemental retirement benefits under the
         SERP including supplemental retirement benefits payable in the event
         of a change in control contained in such [same reference]. "Change in
         control" for purposes of this Agreement shall have the same meaning as
         set forth in the Severance Plan.]

2.       Company agrees that the Executive is a Participant in the Severance
         Plan and SERP effective July 19, 1999 subject to the terms of such
         plans and the Committee's right to terminate Executive's participation
         in the Severance Plan and SERP as specified in such plans.

         IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Executive and a duly authorized representative of
         the Company have executed this document on the date or dates indicated
         below:

EXECUTIVE:


                                        Date:
----------------------------                 -------------------------------


BATTLE MOUNTAIN GOLD COMPANY



By:                                     Date:
   -------------------------                 -------------------------------
#### Davis *v.*Hubbs and Another.—In error.

THE notice to an execution-debtor of a motion for an order on the sheriff to sell property without appraisement, stated the judgment to be for 225 dollars and 3 cents. The record showed that the judgment in the case was for 255 dollars and 3 cents. *Held,*that the notice was insufficient.

END OF MAY TERM, 1846.
**Exhibit 31.2**
**CERTIFICATION**
I, David M. Riddiford, certify that:
1.  I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Action Performance Companies, Inc.; 2.  Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report; 3.  Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations, and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisreport; 4.  The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:
 a)  Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosurecontrols and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, ismade known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period inwhich this report is being prepared;  b)  Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this reportbased on such evaluation; and  c)  Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter(the registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that hasmaterially affected, or is reasonable likely to materially affect, the registrantsinternal control over financial reporting; and
5.  The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and theaudit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions):
 a)  All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operationof internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adverselyaffect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize, and report financialinformation; and  b)  Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employeeswho have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting.   /s/ David M. Riddiford     David M. Riddiford
National Aeronautics and Space Administration

Headquarters
Washington, DC 20546-0001 7
January 13, 2020
Reply to Attn of: General Law Practice Group
TO: Distribution
FROM: Agency Counsel for Ethics

SUBJECT: Guidance Regarding Attendance by NASA employees at the Keough School of
Global Affairs, University of Notre Dame Lunch on January 16, 2020

On January 16, 2020, the Keough School of Global Affairs, University of Notre Dame will
host a lunch at the Keough School of Global Affairs Washington Office, starting at 12:00
noon. The event will provide a forum for informal discussion on global affairs. The
estimated value of the event, including all food and beverages, is $15 per person.

This event is open to the public. Accordingly, invited NASA employees may accept the food
and beverages provided at this event without further formality.

. y a
“ <
AP ae

Lf WA a
ma —__

Adam F. Greenstone
WILLAMETTE INDUSTRIES, INC.
                                                          First Interstate Tower
                                                          Portland, Oregon 97201

J. A. Parsons
Executive Vice President
                                August 13, 1999
                                AIRBORNE #4511518244


Bank of American National Trust
and Savings Association
Agency Management Services #5596
1455 Market Street, 12th Floor
San Francisco, CA  94103

Attn:  Mr. Carl F. Fye

Dear Mr. Fye:

In  accordance  with Article  10.02 of our loan  agreement,  dated May 10, 1996,
Willamette  Industries,  Inc.  hereby gives notice of its intent to  permanently
reduce the revolving  commitment  by  $200,000,000  in  accordance  with Article
2.07(b), effective August 23, 1999.

Accordingly, on that date, the total committed line will be as follows:

     Revolving commitment before reduction        $650,000,000
     Reduction                                     200,000,000
                                                  ------------
     New revolving commitment amount              $450,000,000
                                                  ============

                                   Sincerely,



                                   J. A. Parsons

JAP/dlw

bcc  Duane McDougall
     Greg Hawley
     Greig Goddard
# Drone Maze

		Back to search page	

## Audience

Students

## Grade Levels

Grades 5-8, Grades 9-12

## Subject

Physical Science, Flight and Aeronautics

## Type

Play and Learn

Print the maze and help the drone find its way to the house to deliver a package.

Drone Maze (PDF)
BOSTON FINANCIAL TAX CREDIT FUND VII, A LIMITED PARTNERSHIP


                                 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


In connection with the Quarterly Report of Boston Financial Tax Credit Fund VII
(the "Fund") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended September 30, 2004 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
the undersigned, the Executive Vice President, hereby certifies 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; and

2.   the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
     respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Fund.



                                                      /s/Jenny Netzer
                                                      Jenny Netzer
                                                      Executive Vice President
                                                      MMA Financial, LLC

                                                      Date:  November 12, 2004









A signed original of this written statement required by section 906 has been
provided to the Fund and will be retained by the Fund and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

<PAGE>
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 32.2

                                  CERTIFICATION

      Pursuant to 18 U.S.C.  Section 1350, the undersigned  officer of Stonepath
Group, Inc. (the "Company") hereby certifies that the Company's Annual Report on
Form 10-K for the period ending  December 31, 2004 (the "Report") fully complies
with the  requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities  Exchange Act
of 1934 and that the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material  respects,  the  financial  condition  and results of operations of the
Company.


Date: March 31, 2005                     By: /s/ Thomas L. Scully
                                             --------------------
                                             Thomas L. Scully
                                             Chief Financial Officer, Vice
                                             President and Controller

      This certification is made solely for purposes of 18 U.S.C.  Section 1350,
subject  to the  knowledge  standard  set forth  therein,  and not for any other
purpose. It is not being filed as part of the Report or as a separate disclosure
document.

      A signed  original of this written  statement  required by Section 906 has
been provided to Stonepath Group,  Inc. and will be retained by Stonepath Group,
Inc. and furnished to the Securities  and Exchange  Commission or its staff upon
request.


                                      105
HSPD-12 Implementation Status Report 

Updated Date: 

Number of Employees requiring PIV credentials* 

Number of Employees requiring a NACI (or at least equivalent) that have not previously undergone a background check* 

Number of Employees requiring a NACI (or at least equivalent) with background investigation in process* 

Number of Employees with completed/ adjudicated NACI (or equivalent background investigation)* 

Total Number of PIV credentials Issued to Employees* 

Number of Contractors requiring PIV credentials 

Number of Contractors requiring NACI (or at least equivalent) that have not previously undergone a background check 

Number of Contractors requiring a NACI (or at least equivalent) with background investigation in process 

Number of Contractors with completed/ adjudicated NACI (or equivalent background investigation) 

Mar/2007 18,750 0 N/A N/A 0 70,996 52,885 N/A N/A 

Jun/2007 18,693 2,808 N/A N/A 17 56,487 35,159 N/A N/A 

Sept/2007 18,787 0 N/A N/A 14 54,005 15,363 N/A N/A 

Dec/2007 17,751 208 2,578 16,051 86 58,909 3,747 30,459 24,753 

Mar/2008 17,414 203 2,221 16,377 1,394 58,422 4,036 29,395 26,391 

Jun/2008 7,286 636 4,136 14,033 11,519 34,710 3,605 25,684 26,099 Sep/2008 1,696 253 3,806 14,376 16,739 24,147 3,094 21,053 36,499 

Implementation Plan Summary

[Planned Date of Full 

Implementation] 

10/27/2008

[Planned Total Number 

of NACIs to be 

verified/completed for 

current employees and 

contractors by Oct. 27, 

2007*] 

N/A

Next Major M

10/27/2008– Completion o
UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY APPELLATE PANEL 

OF THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

————————————————— 

IN RE JENNIFER DEANTHA MORRO, 

 Debtor. 

__________________________________ 

JENNIFER DEANTHA MORRO, 

 Appellant. 

BAP No. NM-10-017 

Bankr. No. 10-10670 

Chapter 7 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL 

May 6, 2010 

————————————————— 

On April 20, 2010, this Court entered an Order Reopening Appeal (“Order”). The 

Order required the Appellant to do the following by May 4, 2010, or the appeal would be 

dismissed: 

File a memorandum of law providing a legal explanation as to why the appeal 

should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction due to the untimeliness of the 

filing of the Notice of Appeal. Fed. R. Bankr. P. 8002.

BAP Appeal No. 10-17 Docket No. 12-1 Filed: 05/06/2010 Page: 1 of 2
File a Statement of Interested Parties. Previously 10th Cir. BAP L.R. 8018-

3(f); filing requirements now governed by the revised 10th Cir. BAP L.R. 

8001-4(b) effective May 1, 2010. 

Pay to the bankruptcy court the filing and docketing fees, or in the alternative 

file a fee waiver application. 28 U.S.C. § 1930(b), (c).

The deadline has expired without any response to the Order. 

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that this appeal is DISMISSED for failure 

to prosecute. Fed. R. Bankr. P. 8001(a); 10th Cir. BAP L.R. 8018-4(c). The Appellant is 

advised that the revised 10th Circuit BAP Local Rules effective May 1, 2010, are 

available at the BAP’s website (www.bap10.uscourts.gov) or may be obtained by 

contacting the BAP Clerk’s Office. 

 For the Panel: 

Barbara A. Schermerhorn, Clerk of Court 

 By: 

 

 Gregory Wright 

Deputy Clerk 

2

BAP Appeal No. 10-17 Docket No. 12-1 Filed: 05/06/2010 Page: 2 of 2
No. 50.

#### Drury Porter, plaintiff in error, *vs.*Elijah Pierce, defendant in error.

[1.] To a Sheriff who fails to execute a *ca. sa.*it is no excuse that the defendant in *ca. sa.*has been already arrested under anotner *ca. sa.*and has given a bond, &c. for his appearance, to take the benefit of the Honest Debtors’ Act.

Rule *vs.*Sheriff, in Baker Superior Court. Decided by ■Judge Perkins, November Term, 1855.

This rule was taken against the Sheriff, to show cause why he had not arrested James D. Hampton, under a *ca. sa.*in favor of Drury Porter. The Shoriff responded that Hampton had been previously arrested under another *ca. sa.*and had given bond for his appearance at Baker Superior Court, to take the benefit of the Honest Debtors’ Act, and that the plaintiff in the second *ca. sa.*had been notified as a creditor.

*269The Court discharged the rule, and this decision is assigned as error.

Lyon, for jolaintiff in error.

.‘Strozier., for defendant in error.

By *the Court.*

Benning, J.

delivering the opinion.

[1.] The question is, whether it is an excuse to a Sheriff for the failure'to execute a *ca. sa.*that he has already executed another *ca. sa.*against the same defendant, but in favor of another plaintiff, and that on executing that *ca. sa.*the defendant gave him a bond to appear at Court and take the benefit of the Honest Debtors’ Act, and notified the plaintiff in the non-executed *ca. sa.*of his intention to take the benefit of the Act.

And we think that it is not. The plain command which a *ca. sa.*gives to a Sheriff is, that he arrest the defendant in the *ca. sa.*It is his duty to obey this command, if he can. That the defendant has been arrested under one *ca. sa.*and has given a bond to appear in Court and take the benefit of the Honest Debtors’ Act, under that arrest, does not exempt him from arrest under another *ca. sa.*

■And reasons are obvious, why it ought not to exempt him. 'The arresting creditor may compromise or abandon his suit. If he does either, of what use to any'other creditor, would be ;the notice ?

And property may come to the hands of the debtor, after he has been arrested and has filed his schedule. A new ar’•rest would compel him to put this property in the new schedule which, by a new arrest, he would have to file. Thus, the existence of such property, would be found out.

There is no question made in this case, as to what degree ■of punishment the Court ought to inflict on a Sheriff for failing to arrest a person who is insolvent; whether it ought to *270make Mm pay the debt, or less than the debt, or ought to imprison him? And of course no such question is decided.--

In *Howard vs.*Crawford, *Gov.*(15 *Ga.*422,) the case was an action on the Sheriff’s bond against the sureties. And the decision of this Court amounted to this: that the measure of damages was what would be compensation for the real injury, or rather loss, sustained by the creditor.

We think this case was one in which the rule ought to have been made absolute against the Sheriff; and then, that he should not have been discharged from the contempt until he had been made to suffer punishment' to some extent.
EXHIBIT 32

CERTIFICATION

The
undersigned certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, that:

|    |                                                                                                                                                                                                
|--- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|(1) | The accompanying Quarterly
 Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2009 fully complies with
 the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of
 1934; and
|    |                                                                                                                                                                                                
|(2) | The information contained
 in the accompanying report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
 financial condition and results of operations of the Company.                            

|      |                |  |                        
|----- | -------------- |  | -----------------------
|Date: | August 7, 2009 |  | /s/ Bernard
 P. Aldrich
|      |                |  | Chief Executive Officer
|      |               
|Date: | August 7, 2009 |  | /s/ Robert
 M. Wolf    
|      |                |  | Chief Financial Officer

---
**THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS**

**Post Office Box 12248**

**Austin, Texas 78711**

**(512) 463-1312**

January 04, 2008

Mr. Charles Black McFarland

Vinson & Elkins L.L.P.

1001 Fannin Street, Suite 2500

Houston, TX 77002-6760

Mr. Walter C. Brocato

Office of the Attorney General of Texas

P. O. Box 12548

Austin, TX 78711-2548

RE:Case Number:  07-0681

Court of Appeals Number:  11-05-00064-CV

Trial Court Number:  2002-22,286

Style:JOHN S. BEESON, TRUSTEE, JOHN BEESON, AND PAUL SIROTA

v.

STATE OF TEXAS

Dear Counsel:

Today the Supreme Court of Texas granted the Joint Motion to Abate Case Pending Completion of the Parties’ Proposed Settlement and issued the enclosed abatement order in the above-referenced case.  The case is removed from the Court’s active docket until further order of this Court.  

Sincerely,

Blake A. Hawthorne, Clerk

by Claudia Jenks, Chief Deputy Clerk

**Case No. 07-0681Page 1**
# NASA’s Curious Universe – NASA

Official National Aeronautics and Space Administration Website
11TH COURT OF APPEALS

EASTLAND, TEXAS

JUDGMENT

Johnny Wayne Robertson, * From the 441st District Court

 of Midland County

Trial Court No. CR45429.

Vs. No. 11-17-00350-CR * November 27, 2019

The State of Texas, * Memorandum Opinion by Wright, S.C.J.

(Panel consists of: Bailey, C.J.,

Stretcher, J., and Wright, S.C.J., sitting

by assignment)

(Willson, J., not participating)

This court has inspected the record in this cause and concludes that there 

is no error in the judgment below. Therefore, in accordance with this court’s 

opinion, the judgment of the trial court is in all things affirmed.
Dismissed and Opinion Filed October 30, 2014 

S 

In The 

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-14-01347-CV 

IN RE KEVIN MENNIEFEE, Relator 

Original Proceeding from the 86th District Court 

Kaufman County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. 28736A-86 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

Before Chief Justice Wright, Justice FitzGerald, and Justice Francis 

Opinion by Justice FitzGerald 

Relator filed this petition for writ of mandamus seeking to compel rulings on three 

motions filed in conjunction with his petition for writ of habeas corpus. The trial court signed an 

order on August 13, 2013 designating issues with regard to the petition for writ of habeas corpus, 

ordering affidavits from relator’s trial and appellate counsel regarding relator’s ineffective 

assistance of counsel claim, and granting the state leave to file an amended answer. 

Relator attached three file stamped motions, among other things, in support of his petition 

for writ of mandamus. His “Motion for Statutory Presumption of Innocence,” file stamped 

September 20, 2013, invokes the presumption of innocence, argues that the state failed to 

produce evidence sufficient to support his guilty plea, and complains of ineffective assistance of 

counsel. His “Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law,” file stamped March 20, 2014, 

complains of the failure of his trial and appellate counsel to prepare sworn affidavits regarding 
 –2– 

the relator’s ineffective assistance of counsel claim. His “Motion for Evidentiary Hearing,” file 

stamped April 7, 2014, seeks an evidentiary hearing on the petition for writ of habeas corpus. 

Because each of the motions touches or concerns the very issues raised by the petition for 

writ of habeas corpus, this Court lacks jurisdiction over relator’s petition for writ of mandamus. 

The intermediate courts of appeals have no original jurisdiction over petitions for habeas corpus 

relief in connection with criminal proceedings. See TEX. GOV'T CODE ANN. § 22.221(d) (West 

2004) (limiting habeas corpus jurisdiction of intermediate courts of appeals to civil matters); 

TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 11.05 (West 2005) (granting original jurisdiction in cases 

seeking writs of habeas corpus in criminal cases to the court of criminal appeals, districts courts, 

and county courts). Accordingly, the intermediate courts of appeals also have no mandamus 

jurisdiction in matters related to pending petitions for writ of habeas corpus. “Article 11.07 

contains no role for the courts of appeals; the only courts referred to are the convicting court and 

the Court of Criminal Appeals. Should an applicant find it necessary to complain about an action 

or inaction of the convicting court, the applicant may seek mandamus relief from the Court of 

Criminal Appeals.” In re McAfee, 53 S.W.3d 715, 718 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2001, 

orig. proceeding). 

We DISMISS the petition for want of jurisdiction. 

 141347F.P05 

/Kerry P. FitzGerald/ 

KERRY P. FITZGERALD 

JUSTICE