alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Chris Clayton HOADLEY, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Gordon HEGGIE, and J. D. MacFarlane, Respondents-Appellees. James Richard LOWE, Petitioner-Appellant, v. COLORADO STATE BOARD OF ADULT PAROLE and J. D. MacFarlane, Respondents-Appellees. Ronald Le Roy SCHUEMANN, Petitioner-Appellant, v. COLORADO STATE BOARD OF ADULT PAROLE; J. D. MacFarlane, Respondent-Appellee. Michael Leigh SHEA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Gordon HEGGIE; J. D. MacFarlane, Defendants-Appellees.

Nos. 79-1248, 79-1384, 79-1483 and 79-1630.

United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.

Submitted March 11, 1980.

Decided April 3, 1980.

Before BARRETT, McKAY, and LOGAN, Circuit Judges.

*590PER CURIAM.

CERTIFICATION OF QUESTION OF STATE LAW

BARRETT, Circuit Judge.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, pursuant to the provisions of Colo.App.R. 21.1, hereby certifies to the Colorado Supreme Court the following question of Colorado law which is deemed to be dispositive of four causes now pending before this court. There is doubt as to whether the decisions of the Colorado Supreme Court provide controlling precedent.

> Under the law of Colorado is there an effective available procedure by which a person confined in a Colorado correctional facility can seek state judicial review of the denial of parole by the Colorado State Board of Parole? *See*28 U.S.C. § 2254(b) and (c).

STATEMENT OF FACTS

Petitioners, inmates at the Colorado State Penitentiary, were denied parole by the Colorado State Board of Parole (Board). Each of them subsequently filed in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, challenging the parole denial on various grounds. Petitioners made no attempt to seek judicial review of the Board’s action in state courts.

In the district court the petitions were assigned to different judges who reached conflicting determinations as to whether there was an effective state judicial procedure by which petitioners could present their claims. In this court, petitioners assert that Colorado law does not provide an effective judicial corrective process for review of their claims. Thus petitioners claimed the exhaustion doctrine has no application in these cases. The respondents contend that judicial review is available in the Colorado courts and petitioners must first exhaust that remedy before seeking federal relief.

The clerk of this court is directed to transmit this certification order to the Colorado Supreme Court and copies to all parties to the proceedings in this court. The clerk shall also send to the Colorado Supreme Court copies of the briefs filed in this court by the parties and either the originals or copies of the records filed by the clerk of the United States District Court for the District of Colorado in these appeals.
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"NASA","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov","author_name":"Antonia Jaramillo","author_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/author\/ajarami1\/","title":"Artemis Landing and Recovery Director Liliana Villarreal","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"LR73Pxli6b\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/image-detail\/amf-ksc-20230201-ph-kls01_0029\/\">Artemis Landing and Recovery Director Liliana Villarreal<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/image-detail\/amf-ksc-20230201-ph-kls01_0029\/embed\/#?secret=LR73Pxli6b\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“Artemis Landing and Recovery Director Liliana Villarreal” — NASA\" data-secret=\"LR73Pxli6b\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script>\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(d,l){\"use strict\";l.querySelector&&d.addEventListener&&\"undefined\"!=typeof URL&&(d.wp=d.wp||{},d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage||(d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if((t||t.secret||t.message||t.value)&&!\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret)){for(var s,r,n,a=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),c=new RegExp(\"^https?:$\",\"i\"),i=0;i<o.length;i++)o[i].style.display=\"none\";for(i=0;i<a.length;i++)s=a[i],e.source===s.contentWindow&&(s.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message?(1e3<(r=parseInt(t.value,10))?r=1e3:~~r<200&&(r=200),s.height=r):\"link\"===t.message&&(r=new URL(s.getAttribute(\"src\")),n=new URL(t.value),c.test(n.protocol))&&n.host===r.host&&l.activeElement===s&&(d.top.location.href=t.value))}},d.addEventListener(\"message\",d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",function(){for(var e,t,s=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),r=0;r<s.length;r++)(t=(e=s[r]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\"))||(t=Math.random().toString(36).substring(2,12),e.src+=\"#?secret=\"+t,e.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",t)),e.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:t},\"*\")},!1)))}(window,document);\n<\/script>\n","thumbnail_url":"https:\/\/images-assets.nasa.gov\/image\/KSC-20230201-PH-KLS01_0029\/KSC-20230201-PH-KLS01_0029~large.jpg?w=600&h=1280&fit=clip&crop=faces%2Cfocalpoint","thumbnail_width":600,"thumbnail_height":1280}
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"NASA","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov","author_name":"Flint Wild","author_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/author\/flint-wildnasa-gov\/","title":"What Was the Apollo Program? (Grades K-4)","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"FRie6Q1N3s\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/learning-resources\/for-kids-and-students\/what-was-the-apollo-program-grades-k-4\/\">What Was the Apollo Program? (Grades K-4)<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/learning-resources\/for-kids-and-students\/what-was-the-apollo-program-grades-k-4\/embed\/#?secret=FRie6Q1N3s\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“What Was the Apollo Program? (Grades K-4)” — NASA\" data-secret=\"FRie6Q1N3s\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script>\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(d,l){\"use strict\";l.querySelector&&d.addEventListener&&\"undefined\"!=typeof URL&&(d.wp=d.wp||{},d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage||(d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if((t||t.secret||t.message||t.value)&&!\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret)){for(var s,r,n,a=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),c=new RegExp(\"^https?:$\",\"i\"),i=0;i<o.length;i++)o[i].style.display=\"none\";for(i=0;i<a.length;i++)s=a[i],e.source===s.contentWindow&&(s.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message?(1e3<(r=parseInt(t.value,10))?r=1e3:~~r<200&&(r=200),s.height=r):\"link\"===t.message&&(r=new URL(s.getAttribute(\"src\")),n=new URL(t.value),c.test(n.protocol))&&n.host===r.host&&l.activeElement===s&&(d.top.location.href=t.value))}},d.addEventListener(\"message\",d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",function(){for(var e,t,s=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),r=0;r<s.length;r++)(t=(e=s[r]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\"))||(t=Math.random().toString(36).substring(2,12),e.src+=\"#?secret=\"+t,e.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",t)),e.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:t},\"*\")},!1)))}(window,document);\n<\/script>\n","thumbnail_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/05\/apollo1.jpg?w=350","thumbnail_width":350,"thumbnail_height":362}
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"NASA","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov","author_name":"Alivia R. Carruth","author_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/author\/arcarrut\/","title":"STS-41G","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"S1gWgRjkdz\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/gallery\/sts-41g\/\">STS-41G<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/gallery\/sts-41g\/embed\/#?secret=S1gWgRjkdz\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“STS-41G” — NASA\" data-secret=\"S1gWgRjkdz\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script>\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(d,l){\"use strict\";l.querySelector&&d.addEventListener&&\"undefined\"!=typeof URL&&(d.wp=d.wp||{},d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage||(d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if((t||t.secret||t.message||t.value)&&!\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret)){for(var s,r,n,a=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),c=new RegExp(\"^https?:$\",\"i\"),i=0;i<o.length;i++)o[i].style.display=\"none\";for(i=0;i<a.length;i++)s=a[i],e.source===s.contentWindow&&(s.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message?(1e3<(r=parseInt(t.value,10))?r=1e3:~~r<200&&(r=200),s.height=r):\"link\"===t.message&&(r=new URL(s.getAttribute(\"src\")),n=new URL(t.value),c.test(n.protocol))&&n.host===r.host&&l.activeElement===s&&(d.top.location.href=t.value))}},d.addEventListener(\"message\",d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",function(){for(var e,t,s=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),r=0;r<s.length;r++)(t=(e=s[r]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\"))||(t=Math.random().toString(36).substring(2,12),e.src+=\"#?secret=\"+t,e.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",t)),e.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:t},\"*\")},!1)))}(window,document);\n<\/script>\n","thumbnail_url":"https:\/\/images-assets.nasa.gov\/image\/S84-36158\/S84-36158~large.jpg?w=600&h=1919&fit=clip&crop=faces%2Cfocalpoint","thumbnail_width":600,"thumbnail_height":1919}
N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT DENNIS L. HAM ILTON,

Pe t i tione r-Appe lla

nt, v. B OARD OF PAR OLE HEARINGS and Ne il M c Dowe ll, W arde n,

R e sponde nts-Appe lle e s. No. 11-16437 D.C . No. 1:10-c v-01972-OWW M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Ea ste rn Distric t of C a lifornia Olive r W . W ange r, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d M arc h 8, 2017 ** B e fore : LEAVY, W . FLETC HER , and OW ENS, C irc u it Judge s. De nnis L. Ha

m ilton a ppe a ls pro se from

the distric t c ourt’ s judgm e n t de ny ing his 28 U.S.C . § 2254 ha be a s pe tition c ha lle nging a 2009 de c ision by

the 

# FIL ED MAR 14 2017 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U
. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.

* * The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without ora l a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a )(2).B oa

rd of Parole He arings de ny ing pa role an d de fe rring his ne x t pa role he aring in a c c orda nc e with C a lifornia Pe na l C ode § 3041.5 (“ M a rsy ’ s La w ” ). W e dism iss. This c ourt issue d a

c e rtific a te of a

p pe a la bility (“ C OA” ) on whe t

he r a pplic a tion of M arsy ’ s La

w to de la y Ham ilton’ s ne x t pa

role he aring viola

te s the Ex Post Fa c to C la

use . W e va c a te the C OA a s im provide ntly

gran te d a nd dismiss this a ppe a l for la c k of jurisdic t ion. Se e N e ttle s v . Grounds , 830 F.3d 922, 934-35 (9th C ir. 2016) (e n ba

nc ) (holding tha

t c la im s fa ll outside “ t

he c o re of ha

be a s c orpus” if suc c e ss will not ne c e ssa

rily le a d to im

m e diate or e arlie r re le a se from c onfine m e nt), c e rt. de nie d , 580 U.S. __ (U.S. Ja n. 9, 2017) (No. 16-6556); Phe lps v . Alame da , 366 F.3d 722, 727-28, 730 (9th C ir. 2004) (m e rits pa ne l ha s the powe r to rule on the p roprie ty

of a C OA). The dism issa l of this a

ppe a l doe s not pre c lude Ham i lton from pursuing c onditions of c onfine m e nt c la im s in a prope rly file d c ivil rights ac tion unde r 42 U.S.C . § 1983. All pe nding m otions a

re de nie d a s m oot. DISM I SSE D.

1 1 - 1 6 4 3 7 2
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

 

 Having considered the parties’ stipulation, 

IT IS ORDERED: 

1. That the Stipulation for Dismissal (Doc. 57) is granted; 

2. That Defendant Educational Credit Management Corporation is dismissed 

with prejudice; 

3. That each party shall bear its own costs and attorneys’ fees; and 

4. That the Clerk of Court shall terminate Defendant Educational Credit 

Management Corporation as a party in this action. 

 Dated this 14th day of December, 2016.

Honorable Steven P. Logan

United States District Judge

Christopher Hutchison, 

 

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

Experian Information Solutions, Inc., et 

al., 

Defendants. 

)

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

)

No. CV-15-02351-PHX-SPL

ORDER 

Case 2:15-cv-02351-SPL Document 58 Filed 12/14/16 Page 1 of 1
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"NASA","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov","author_name":"Monika Luabeya","author_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/author\/mluabeya\/","title":"Women of NASA Langley Research Center","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"G1fGHEF2je\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/image-detail\/53548171424-81c8fe55ce-o\/\">Women of NASA Langley Research Center<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/image-detail\/53548171424-81c8fe55ce-o\/embed\/#?secret=G1fGHEF2je\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“Women of NASA Langley Research Center” — NASA\" data-secret=\"G1fGHEF2je\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script>\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(d,l){\"use strict\";l.querySelector&&d.addEventListener&&\"undefined\"!=typeof URL&&(d.wp=d.wp||{},d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage||(d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if((t||t.secret||t.message||t.value)&&!\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret)){for(var s,r,n,a=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),c=new RegExp(\"^https?:$\",\"i\"),i=0;i<o.length;i++)o[i].style.display=\"none\";for(i=0;i<a.length;i++)s=a[i],e.source===s.contentWindow&&(s.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message?(1e3<(r=parseInt(t.value,10))?r=1e3:~~r<200&&(r=200),s.height=r):\"link\"===t.message&&(r=new URL(s.getAttribute(\"src\")),n=new URL(t.value),c.test(n.protocol))&&n.host===r.host&&l.activeElement===s&&(d.top.location.href=t.value))}},d.addEventListener(\"message\",d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",function(){for(var e,t,s=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),r=0;r<s.length;r++)(t=(e=s[r]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\"))||(t=Math.random().toString(36).substring(2,12),e.src+=\"#?secret=\"+t,e.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",t)),e.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:t},\"*\")},!1)))}(window,document);\n<\/script>\n","thumbnail_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/03\/53548171424-81c8fe55ce-o.jpg?w=600","thumbnail_width":600,"thumbnail_height":450}
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

January 29, 2007 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 132510 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman, PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Justices 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 132510 

 COA: 267278 
 Wayne CC: 98-005425-01

MICHAEL W. ANDREWS, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the September 28, 2006 

order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because the defendant has 

failed to meet the burden of establishing entitlement to relief under MCR 6.508(D). 

d0122 

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. 

January 29, 2007 

 Clerk
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Elizabeth A. Weaver

Maura D. Corrigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway, 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

February 4, 2009 

d0122 

Order 

 

February 4, 2009 

137206 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 137206 

 COA: 285518 

Macomb CC: 2006-002056-FH 

BOBBY JOE STENNETT, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

 On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the July 9, 2008 order of 

the Court of Appeals is considered and, it appearing to this Court that the case of People 

v Jackson (Docket No. 135888) is pending on appeal before this Court and that the 

decision in that case may resolve an issue raised in the present application for leave to 

appeal, we ORDER that the application be held in ABEYANCE pending the decision in 

that case.
#### George Parkerson *v.*Isaac W. Cohn.

New Trial — Witnesses Absent Without Consent or Negligence of Defendant.

The absence of witnesses, who had been summoned, and appeared, but absented themselves without the consent or knowledge of the defendant, will justify a new trial.

APPEAL FROM HARDIN CIRCUIT COURT.

November 20, 1869.

*Wintersmith, for appellant.*

*Vertrees Brown & Murray, for appellee.*

Opinion of the Court by

Judge Peters:

The facts which the absent witnesses would prove as disclosed in the affidavit of the attorney of appellant, were material to the issue. He stated that the witnesses had been in attendance during the term, that he had conversed with one of them and knew he would prove the material facts, as the witness told him and they were absent without the consent or procurement of his client, or himself. As they had been in attendance it should be presumed they had been summoned, and if there had been any want of diligence in failing to have subpoenas for the witnesses, or in having them summoned, the papers of the case would have shown it. But on the motion for a new trial the witnesses swore they had been summoned, and account for their absence, which was without the consent or knowledge of appellant, or her counsel.

The grounds for a continuance were clearly made out, and the motion of appellant, therefore, should have been sustained.

Wherefore, the judgment is reversed, and the cause is remanded with directions to set aside the verdict, award a new trial, and for further proceedings consistent herewith.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>					5

<PERIOD-TYPE>      		3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>				DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>				   JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>	    				MAR-31-2000
<CASH>					               79,822
<SECURITIES>	              				0
<RECEIVABLES>		          		9,447
<ALLOWANCES>               				0
<INVENTORY>	               				0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>      			276,018
<PP&E>	               				91,843
<DEPRECIATION>	        			10,070
<TOTAL-ASSETS>		     		1,288,217
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>		1,094,516
<BONDS>		           			1,936,961
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>	       		0
<PREFERRED>	               				0
<COMMON>		                			578
<OTHER-SE>		       			(1,743,838)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>		1,288,217
<SALES>				             	180,866
<TOTAL-REVENUES>		      		12,784
<CGS>				              		(38,309)
<TOTAL-COSTS>		        		(38,309)
<OTHER-EXPENSES>	           			0
<LOSS-PROVISION>	           			0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>		   		(69,630)
<INCOME-PRETAX>		     		(318,651)
<INCOME-TAX>	               			0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>	  		(318,651)
<DISCONTINUED>		             		0
<EXTRAORDINARY>	            			0
<CHANGES>	                 				0
<NET-INCOME>	        			(318,651)
<EPS-BASIC>		          		(.058)
<EPS-DILUTED>			          	(.058)

</TABLE>
<PAGE>

                                                                   Exhibit 10.26

                                AMENDMENT NO. 1
                                     TO THE
               TENNECO AUTOMOTIVE INC. DEFERRED COMPENSATION PLAN

     This Amendment No. 1 (the "Amendment") to the Tenneco Automotive Inc.
Deferred Compensation Plan (the "Plan") is hereby adopted by Tenneco Automotive
Inc. (the "Company") effective as of the date set forth below. Capitalized
terms used and not otherwise defined herein shall have the meanings ascribed to
such terms in the Plan.

     1. AMENDMENT OF SECTION 4(b). Section 4(b) of the Plan is hereby amended
and restated to read in its entirety as follows:

      "(b) Directors who are not employees of the Company or its subsidiaries
      (hereinafter referred to as "Outside Directors") will receive as part of
      their compensation for service on the Company's Board of Directors sixty
      (60) percent of their annual retainer fee through credits deferred subject
      to the terms of this Plan in the Automotive stock index account. Amounts
      credited to the Automotive stock index account under this Section 4(b)
      will be settled either in cash or, if the Company so elects, shares of the
      Company's common stock and will be offered under the Company's principal
      equity incentive plan then in effect."

     2. AMENDMENT OF SECTION 6(b). Section 6(b) of the Plan is hereby amended
and restated to read in its entirety as follows:

      "(b) Automotive stock index account -- the amount of deferral will be
      invested in the Tenneco Automotive Inc. stock equivalent account. Any
      investment in this account will be measured solely by the performance of
      the Company's common stock (including dividends that will be reinvested).
      Amounts credited to this account will be settled either in cash or, if the
      Company so elects, shares of the Company's common stock and will be
      offered under the Company's principal equity incentive plan then in
      effect."

     3. NO OTHER CHANGES. Except to the extent expressly amended by the terms of
this Amendment, all provisions of the Plan shall remain in full force and
effect following the date hereof and shall not be modified by this Amendment.

     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company has caused the Plan to be amended as set
froth herein by its respective officers thereunder duly authorized, effective
as of March 11, 2003.

                                        TENNECO AUTOMOTIVE INC.

                                        By: /s/ Mark P. Frissora
                                            ------------------------------------
                                            Mark P. Frissora
                                            Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

WO 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

United States of America, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Thomas Freeman, 

Defendant. 

No. CR-15-50180-01-PHX-SPL 

 

ORDER OF DETENTION 

 

A detention hearing on the Superseding Petition on Supervised Release was held on 

January 25, 2019. 

The Court Finds that the Defendant has knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily 

waived his right to a preliminary revocation hearing. 

 The Court Further Finds that the Defendant has failed to sustain his burden of proof 

by clear and convincing evidence pursuant to Rule 32.1(a)(6), FED.R.CRIM.P., that he is 

neither a serious flight risk nor a danger to the community. United States v. Loya, 23 F.3d 

1529 (9th Cir. 1994). 

IT IS ORDERED that the Defendant shall be detained pending further order of the 

court. 

 Dated this 25th day of January, 2019. 

Honorable John Z. Boyle 

United States Magistrate Judge