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

                                                                   Exhibit 10.19

                              Fifth Amendment to
                        CarrAmerica Realty Corporation
                     1997 Stock Option and Incentive Plan


     CarrAmerica Realty Corporation, a Maryland corporation (the "Company"),
hereby certifies as follows:

     1.  The Company deems it appropriate to execute this certificate to
evidence adoption of an amendment to its 1997 Stock Option and Incentive Plan
(the "Plan") that increased the number of shares of common stock available for
issuance pursuant to grants under the Plan from 7,200,000 to 10,000,000 (the
"Amendment").

     2.  The Board of Directors of the Company adopted the Amendment, determined
that the Amendment should be submitted to the Company's stockholders for
approval, and directed that the Amendment be submitted to the stockholders for
approval at the next annual meeting of stockholders.

     3.  The Amendment was submitted to the stockholders for approval at the
annual meeting of stockholders of the Company held on May 6, 1999, and was
approved by the stockholders.

     4.  Section 4 of the Plan therefore has been amended, effective as of May
6, 1999, and now reads as follows:

     "4. STOCK SUBJECT TO THE PLAN

     Subject to adjustment as provided in Section 16 hereof, the number of
shares of Stock available for issuance under the Plan shall be 10,000,000.
Stock issued or to be issued under the Plan shall be authorized but unissued
shares.  If any shares covered by a Grant are not purchased or are forfeited, or
if a Grant otherwise terminates without delivery of any Stock subject thereto,
then the number of shares of Stock counted against the aggregate number of
shares available under the Plan with respect to such Grant shall, to the extent
of any such forfeiture or termination, again be available for making Grants
under the Plan."

     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company has caused this certificate to be signed by
the undersigned, a duly authorized officer of the Company, as of May 6, 1999.

                                        CarrAmerica Realty Corporation


                                        By: /s/ Linda A. Madrid
                                            -----------------------------
                                            Linda A. Madrid
                                            Managing Director

Attest: /s/ Ann Marie Pulsch
        -------------------------
        Ann Marie Pulsch
        Assistant Secretary
#### VORNADO, INC. v. POTTER. IN THE MATTER OF JACK DASHOSH CHARGED WITH CONTEMPT.

May 30, 1978.

Petition for certification denied. (See 159 *N. J. Super.*33)
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                       3,162,125
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                6,282,318
<ALLOWANCES>                                   112,000
<INVENTORY>                                  4,572,939
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            14,758,825
<PP&E>                                       6,706,571
<DEPRECIATION>                               3,190,991
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              24,215,385
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        2,463,304
<BONDS>                                      3,947,653
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                    17,640,674
<OTHER-SE>                                     163,784
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                24,215,385
<SALES>                                      5,108,430
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             5,108,430
<CGS>                                        2,921,477
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                2,921,477
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             2,112,948
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              87,746
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 15,516
<INCOME-TAX>                                     5,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             10,516
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    10,516
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.00
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.00
        

</TABLE>
EXHIBIT
32.1





Certification
of Chief Executive Officer Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1350


(Section
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002)





Pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1350, the undersigned officer of Sandston Corporation (the
"Company") hereby certifies, to such officer's knowledge, that the Company's
Annual Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2009 (the "Report")
fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable,
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.





/s/ Daniel J. DormanName:
                                Daniel
      J. DormanTitle:
                                President,
      Chief Executive Officer (Principal Executive Officer)Date:
                                August
      10,
2009





The
foregoing certification (i) accompanies the filing and is being furnished solely
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1350, (ii) will not be deemed "filed" for purposes of
Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, or otherwise subject to the
liability of that section, and (iii) will not be deemed to be incorporated by
reference into any filing under the Securities Act of 1933 or the Exchange Act,
except to the extent that the small business issuer specifically incorporates it
by reference.





A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document
authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears
in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required
by Section 906, has been provided to Sandston Corporation and will be retained
by Sandston Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission
or its staff upon request.
# Victor Glover Signs NASA Moon Rocket Hardware at Marshall

Artemis II Astronaut Victor Glover visits Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville, AL on Nov. 27 and signs the Artemis II Orion stage adapter.

                    -  Facebook PinterestX
-  LinkedIn Emailhttps://www.nasa.gov/image-detail/ceb-5691/Copy URL to clipboard>DownloadShareImage CreditNASA/Charles BeasonSize3600x2494pxThe 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:								  								Nov 28, 2023								 
-  									Page Editor:								   
-  								Responsible NASA Official:							  								Abigail Bowman
Exhibit 31.02



Certifications



I, Edward Escudero, certify that:



1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Petro Stopping Centers Holdings, L.P.;



2. Based on my knowledge, this 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 report;



3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this 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 report;



4. The registrants other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act
Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:



(a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated
subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;



(b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the
effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and



(c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most
recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal control over financial reporting.



5. The registrants other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over
financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the audit committee of registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):



(a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial
reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and



(b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrants internal control
over financial reporting.



|                                     
|-------------------------------------
|Date: March 29, 2005                 
|                                     
|/s/ Edward Escudero                  
|(Edward Escudero)                    
|Treasurer and Chief Financial Officer
#### PAULETTE WHITE v. THE PORT AUTHORITY OF NEW YORK AND NEW JERSEY.

July 11, 1978.

Petition for certification denied.
II 

108TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 2102

To amend title 18, United States Code, to prohibit the sale of a firearm 

to a person who has been convicted of a felony in a foreign court, 

and for other purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

FEBRUARY 23, 2004

Mr. DEWINE (for himself and Mr. SCHUMER) introduced the following bill; 

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL

To amend title 18, United States Code, to prohibit the sale 

of a firearm to a person who has been convicted of 

a felony in a foreign court, and for other purposes.

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Firearms Fairness and 

5 Security Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. PROHIBITION OF FIREARM SALES TO PERSON CON7 VICTED OF A FELONY IN A FOREIGN COURT. 

8 Section 922 of title 18, United States Code, is 

9 amended— 
2

•S 2102 IS 

1 (1) in subsection (d), by amending paragraph 

2 (1) to read as follows: 

3 ‘‘(1) is under indictment for, or has been con4 victed— 

5 ‘‘(A) in any court within the United 

6 States, of a crime punishable by a term of im7 prisonment exceeding 1 year; or 

8 ‘‘(B) in any court outside the United 

9 States, of a crime punishable by a term of im10 prisonment exceeding 1 year (except for any 

11 crime involving the violation of an antitrust 

12 law), if the conduct giving rise to the conviction 

13 would be punishable in any court within the 

14 United States by a term of imprisonment ex15 ceeding 1 year had such conduct occurred with16 in the United States;’’; and 

17 (2) in subsection (g), by amending paragraph 

18 (1) to read as follows: 

19 ‘‘(1) who has been convicted— 

20 ‘‘(A) in any court within the United 

21 States, of a crime punishable by a term of im22 prisonment exceeding 1 year; or 

23 ‘‘(B) in any court outside the United 

24 States, of a crime punishable by a term of im25 prisonment exceeding 1 year (except for any 
3

•S 2102 IS 

1 crime involving the violation of an antitrust 

2 law), if the conduct giving rise to the conviction 

3 would be punishable in any court within the 

4 United States by a term of imprisonment ex5 ceeding 1 year had such conduct occurred with6 in the United States;’’.

Æ
FILED

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

February 26, 2010

Elisabeth A. Shumaker

Clerk of Court

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

NEYEMBO MIKANDA, 

Petitioner - Appellant, 

v. 

PAUL A. KASTNER, Warden, 

Respondent - Appellee.

No. 10-6033

(D.C. No. 5:09-CV-00903-HE)

ORDER

Before HARTZ, O’BRIEN, and GORSUCH, Circuit Judges.

On December 30, 2009, a United States Magistrate Judge filed his supplemental

report and recommendation that Neyembo Mikanda’s 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition be

dismissed without prejudice to the filing of a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion in United States

District Court for the District of New Jersey where Petitioner was convicted and sentenced.

Petitioner Mikanda, a federal prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a notice of appeal. We

dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. The magistrate judge’s supplemental report and

recommendation is interlocutory.

Except for proceedings conducted by a magistrate judge upon designation by a district

judge and consent of the parties pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c), decisions rendered by a

Appellate Case: 10-6033 Document: 01018374323 Date Filed: 02/26/2010 Page: 1 
2

magistrate judge are not final or immediately appealable. “[W]e have consistently

recognized that ‘[a] magistrate exercising “additional duties” jurisdiction remains constantly

subject to the inherent supervisory power of the district judge and the judge retains the

“ultimate responsibility for decision making in every instance.’” Colorado Bldg. & Const.

Trades Council v. B. B. Andersen Const. Co, 879 F.2d 809, 811 (10th Cir. 1989) (citations

omitted). Accord Lister v. Dep’t of Treasury, 408 F.3d 1309, 1312 (10th Cir. 2005). 

In the underlying habeas proceeding, the parties did not consent to final disposition

by a magistrate judge under § 636(c), and the district judge has not entered final judgment.

Consequently, the magistrate judge’s December 30, 2009 supplemental report and

recommendation does not constitute a final or immediately appealable decision under 28

U.S.C. § 1291 or under any recognized exception to the final judgment rule. 

The appeal is DISMISSED for lack of appellate jurisdiction. 

Entered for the Court,

Elisabeth A. Shumaker, Clerk

Kathleen T. Clifford

Attorney - Deputy Clerk

Appellate Case: 10-6033 Document: 01018374323 Date Filed: 02/26/2010 Page: 2
8:30 am to 8:40 am Welcome and announcements

8:40 am to 10:40 am ARMD 10-year Investment Strategy

10:40 am to 12:00 pm Overall Thrust Roadmaps Overview

12:00 pm to 1:00 pm Lunch (non-public)

1:00 pm to 1:30 pm Overall Thrust Roadmaps Overview (cont.)

1:30 pm to 2:00 pm NASA/USAF ERC Collaboration

2:00 pm to 3:00 pm Hypersonics Research Strategy

3:00 pm to 3:30 pm Work Plan and Schedule Discussion

3:30 pm to 4:15 pm Committee Deliberations

4:15pm to 4:30 pm Public Comment Period

4:30 PM Adjourn

300 E Street, SW

Washington, DC

Room 6E40

Wednesday, March 23 (Sessions are public except as noted)

NAC Aeronautics Committee Public Agenda

Wednesday, March 23, 2016

NASA Headquarters
Opinion issued July 16, 2024

In The

Court of Appeals 

For The 

First District of Texas 

————————————

NO. 01-24-00150-CV

———————————

IN RE KEVIN HROMAS, Relator

Original Proceeding on Petition for Writ of Mandamus

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Relator Kevin Hromas has filed a petition for writ of mandamus requesting 

this Court to vacate the trial court’s January 4, 2024 “Order Granting Plaintiff’s 

Motion to Disqualify Defendant’s Appraiser Kevin Hromas.”.

1

1 The underlying case is McPike v. Homeowners of America Insurance Company, 

cause number 2021-70308, pending in the 215th District Court of Harris County, 

Texas, the Honorable Elaine H. Palmer presiding.
2

We deny the petition for writ of mandamus. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(a). We 

dismiss any pending motions as moot. 

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Hightower, Rivas-Molloy, and Farris.
#### The State, on the Relation of Congressional Township, &c., *v.*Anderson and Others.

Thursday, *July*18.

In a suit by the state on a school-commissioner’s bond, the writ must show the relator’s name either on its face or by an indorsement.

There is no corporation named “Congressional township numbered 11 north, of range numbered 7 west.”

ERROR to the *Clay*Circuit Court.

Blackford, J.

— This was a suit on a bond given to the state, conditioned for the discharge of the duties of a school-commissioner. The writ is indorsed as follows: u This action is brought for the use of congressional township numbered 11 north, of range numbered 7 west.” The declaration commences in these words : “ The state of Indiana, for the use of congressional township numbered 11 north, of range numbered 7 west, plaintiff, complains,” &c. The suit was dismissed on the defendants’ motion.

The cause of dismissal was, that the proper name of the relator was not indorsed on the writ. No doubt, the writ in these cases must show the name of the relator either on its face or by an indorsement. The indorsement here, on which alone the plaintiff relied to prove that the writ showed the name of the relator, is not sufficient. There is no corporation named “Congressional township numbered 11 north, of range numbered 7 west.” The corporate name of the township is “The inhabitants of congressional township No. 11 north, in the county of,” &c. R. S. 1838, p. 509.— Stat. 1841, p. 64.

The declaration is also substantially defective, as the same *223mistake occurs there that appears in the indorsement on the writ.

*J. M.*Hanna, for the plaintiff.

*J. Cowgill,*for the defendants.

The suit was correctly dismissed.

*Per Curiam.*

— The judgment is affirmed.
Exhibit 32.1

SECTION 906 CERTIFICATION

Of President

In connection with the Annual Report of eDiets.com, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Stephen J. Rattner, President of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the
best of my knowledge and belief:

(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 result of operations of the Company.

Date: March 29, 2007



By:

/s/ Stephen J. RattnerName:

Stephen J. RattnerTitle:

President


A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
has been provided to eDiets.com, Inc. and will be retained by eDiets.com, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR
. 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 5 TH C IR
. R. 47.5.4. 

### REVISED AUGUST 29, 2008 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-50691 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Plaintiff-Appellee

v. J FIDEL LOPEZ-ZAMORA Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 5:06-CR-458-ALL
Before GARZA, CLEMENT, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * J. Fidel Lopez-Zamora appeals his sentence for illegal reentry following deportation. Lopez-Zamora contends that the 41-month term of imprisonment imposed in his case, based on the enhanced penalty provisions of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b), exceeds the statutory maximum sentence allowed for the § 1326(a) offense charged in his indictment. The Government moves for summary United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D August 20, 2008 Charles R. Fulbruge III ClerkNo. 07-50691

2 affirmance on the grounds that Lopez-Zamora’s argument is foreclosed by Almendarez-Torresv. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998). As Lopez-Zamora concedes, the Government is correct. See Almendarez-Torres, 523 U.S. at 235; United States v. Garza-Lopez, 410 F.3d 268, 276 (5th Cir. 2005). Lopez-Zamora filed a motion for appointment of counsel in July 2007, after his counsel had moved to withdraw. The motion to withdraw was denied, and Lopez-Zamora has filed no pleading seeking removal of counsel. Therefore, his motion for appointment of counsel is DENIED as moot. Because Lopez-Zamora’s argument is foreclosed, the Government’s motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED . The Government’s alternative motion for an extension of time for filing an appellate brief is DENIED, and the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 95-3122
MICHAEL MCRAE, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus STATE OF MARYLAND, Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services; ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF MARYLAND, Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District ofMaryland, at Baltimore. Frederic N. Smalkin, District Judge. (CA95-3388-S) Submitted: May 16, 1996 Decided: May 28, 1996 Before RUSSELL, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Michael McRae, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals from the district court's order dismissing his employment discrimination action. We have reviewed the recordand the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. McRae v. Maryland , No. CA-95-3388-S (D. Md. Nov. 21, 1995). We note that to the extent Appellant sought reconsideration of the district court's dismissal of his prior action, rather than to file a newaction, relief was properly denied. Appellant presented no information to support a finding that the district court abused its discretion in determining that Appellant's first action was untimely.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.

AFFIRMED