alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**EXHIBIT 12.10**

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT 2002**

 

I, Rick Medlock, certify that: 

 

1.    I have reviewed this annual reporton Form 20-F of Inmarsat Global Limited (the “Company”); 

 

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 thecircumstances 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, fairlypresent in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the Company as of, and for, the periods presented in this report; 

 

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

 

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

 

(b)    Evaluated the effectiveness of the Company’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 ofthe period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and 

 

(c)    Disclosed in this report any change in the Company’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the period covered by the annual report that has materially affected,or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the Company’s internal control over financial reporting; and 

 

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

 

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

 

(b)    Any fraud, whether or notmaterial, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the Company’s internal control over financial reporting.
No. 16,230.

#### Duckworth *v.*Mosier.

Porcible Entry and *Detainer.*— Appeal.— *When Lies.*— Justice *of the Peace.*— Title *to Land.*— Jurisdiction.—How *Ousted.*— An action was instituted before a justice of the peace for the forcible entry and detainer of land. The judgment in the circuit court, to which the case was carried by appeal, was in favor of the plaintiff for fifteen dollars.

*Held,*that, in such action, the title to the land is not involved, and the appeal from the circuit court, if any right of appeal existed, was to the Appellate and not to the Supreme Court.

*Held,*also, where jurisdiction of the justice is asserted to be ousted be* cause title is in issue, it must so appear from the record.

From the Morgan Circuit Court.

*J. H. Jordan*and *O. Matthews,*for appellant.

*W. R. Harrison*and *G. O. Renner,*for appellee.

*459Elliott, J. —

The appellee brought this action before a justice of the peace, charging that he was in the peaceable possession of the land described, and that the appellant forcibly entered on the land, and by force retains possession thereof. The judgment in the circuit court, to which the case was carried by appeal, was in favor of the appellee for fifteen dollars.

As the case originated before a justice of the peace, the appeal from the circuit court lies to the Appellate Court, if any right of appeal at all exists, unless there is some peculiar controlling element in the case which distinguishes it from the cases over which justices of the peace have jurisdiction. There may be cases which originate before a justice of the. peace that are appealable to this court, as for instance where the title to land is put in issue, as provided by the statute. Section 1434, R. S. 1881; *Deacon*v. *Powers,*57 Ind. 489. Where the title is appropriately and rightfully put in issue, the case is not governed as to amount, or relief, by the ordinary rule of jurisdiction. *Bibbler*v. *Walker,*69 Ind. 362. But, as fully decided by the case of *Judy*v. *Citizen,*101 Ind. 18, an action for forcible entry and detainer is not one for the trial of the question of title to land. There is, therefore, no controlling element which brings the case within the jurisdiction of this court. Where title to land is rightfully made the controlling issue, that issue generally determines the jurisdiction. *Moyer*v. *Swygart,*21 Ill. App. 497. While there may be cases originating before a justice of the peace in which the title to land may be put in issue, and thus give this court ultimate appellate jurisdiction, the present is not such a case. Where jurisdiction of the justice is asserted to be ousted because title is in issue, it must so appear from the record. *Deacon*v. *Powers, supra; Melloh*v. *Demott,*79 Ind. 502.

We do not,-of course, decide whether the Appellate Court has jurisdiction, nor do we decide whether the motion to dismiss the appeal can be entertained because notice has not *460been given under the rules of court, nor any similar questions *;*we simply decide that the jurisdiction, if there be any right of appeal, is in the Appellate Court.

Filed Nov. 5, 1891.

The case is ordered to be transferred.
#### E. B. Martin and A. B. Quisenberry *v.*Robt. P. Hollowell.

Bills and Notes — Set-off by Maker.

The maker of a note can not claim a set-off against the note for the •price of goods, which was executed and delivered more than a year after the goods were delivered; and 'after the note was executed, the maker sought to procure the assignee of the note to become his surety on a note so that it might pass in payment for a stock of .goods.

APPEAL FROM. CALDWELL CIRCUIT COURT.

December 13, 1872.

*J. R.*Hewlett, *John R'odmam, for appellants.*

*R. W. Wake, for appellee.*

Opinion by

Judge P!eters :

The tobacco, the price for which appellant pleads as an off-set against the demand sued on, was delivered more than a year before the note was executed, and appellant does not even attempt to account for his failure to assert his right to the price of the tobacco at that time.

Besides Boyd proves that M'artin came to him1 with young Cannon, whose father then held the note by assignment, and requested the witness to become his (Martin’s) surety on the note in order that Cannon, the holder, might pass it to appellee in payment pro tanto for a stock of goods sold by him; to Cannon. , These transactions, and this conduct on the part of Martini are inconsistent with any pretext for a claim to an off-set against the note.

Looking to the evidence, the instruction given by the court below' was as favorable to appellant as he was legally entitled to have it.

Wherefore the judgment of the court below is *affirmed.*
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS 

EASTERN DIVISION 

IN RE: TIKTOK, INC., 

CONSUMER PRIVACY 

LITIGATION

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

MDL No. 2948 

Master Docket No. 20 C 4699 

Judge John Z. Lee 

Magistrate Judge Sunil R. 

Harjani

NOTICE OF FILING 

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on September 8, 2020, Plaintiffs filed the attached

AMENDED EXHIBIT A in reference to the APPLICATION OF JAMES B. ZOURAS IN 

SUPPORT OF (1) HIS APPOINTMENT TO THE STEERING COMMITTEE AND (2) THE 

APPOINTMENT OF KATRINA CARROLL AND JONATHAN JAGHER AS CO-LEAD 

COUNSEL (Document #28) with the United States District Court for the Northern District 

of Illinois, Eastern Division. 

Respectfully Submitted, 

/s/ James B. Zouras

James B. Zouras 

Ryan F. Stephan 

Andrew C. Ficzko 

Megan E. Shannon 

STEPHAN ZOURAS, LLP 

100 N. Riverside Plaza, 

Suite 2150 

Chicago, Illinois 60606 

312.233.1550 

312.233.1560 f

rstephan@stephanzouras.com 

jzouras@stephanzouras.com 

aficzko@stephanzouras.com 

mshannon@stephanzouras.com 

Case: 1:20-cv-04699 Document #: 32 Filed: 09/08/20 Page 1 of 2 PageID #:314
2

Counsel for Plaintiff H.S., a minor, 

through 

her guardian, J.S. 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

 I, the attorney, hereby certify that on September 8, 2020, I filed the attached with the 

Clerk of the Court using the ECF system, which will send such filing to all attorneys of record. 

 /s/ James B. Zouras

Case: 1:20-cv-04699 Document #: 32 Filed: 09/08/20 Page 2 of 2 PageID #:315
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 22
- 1705

DARYL ANTHONY GREEN , Debtor

- Appellant ,

v. PRINCE GEORGE’S COUNTY OFFICE OF CHILD SUPPORT; PRINCE GEORGE’S COUNTY OFFICE OF CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT , Creditors

- Appellees, and
TIMOTHY P. BRANIGAN , Trustee

- Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland , at Greenbelt

. Peter J. Messitte , Senior District Judge. ( 8:21

- cv - 02441

- PJM )

Submitted : April 20 , 2023 Decided: April 24, 2023

Before KING and QUATTLEBAUM , Circuit Judges , and FLOYD , Senior Circuit Judge

.
Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

. Daryl Anthony Green, Appellant Pro Se. Karen Hess Rohrbaugh, Assistant Attorney General, OFFIC E OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland ; Timothy P. Branigan, LAW OFFICE OF TIMOTHY P. BRANIGAN, Laurel, USCA4 Appeal: 22-1705 Doc: 34 Filed: 04/24/2023 Pg: 1 of 32 Maryland for Appellee s
. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 22-1705 Doc: 34 Filed: 04/24/2023 Pg: 2 of 33 PER CURIAM: Daryl Anthony Green appeals the district court’s orders: (1) dismissing his appeal from the bankruptcy court’s order dismissing his Chapter 13 bankruptcy case, and (2) imposing a prefiling injunction against him. With respect to the dismissal order, we have reviewed the rec ord and find no reversible error and no abuse of discretion. See Fed. R. Bankr. P. 800 3 (a) (2) ; In re SPR Corp. , 45 F.3d 70, 74 (4th Cir. 1995); In re Serra Builders, Inc. , 970 F.2d 1309, 1311 (4th Cir. 1992). We also find no abuse of discretion by the district court in imposing monetary sanctions and a prefiling injunction upon finding that Green engaged in abusive, repetitive, and vexatious bankruptcy filings. Accordingly, we affirm the district court ’s order

. Green v. Prince George’s Cnty. Ofc. of C hild Support , No. 8:21

- cv - 02441

- PJM (D. Md. June 16, 2022).
We deny Green’s motions: for an extension of time to file transcripts and to amend his informal brief ; to address his appeals from the dismissal of two other bankruptcy court actions ; for judicia l notice, to strike the sanctions order, and for leave to file federal litigation ; and for a stay pending appeal and a preliminary injunction. W e dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRM ED USCA4 Appeal: 22-1705 Doc: 34 Filed: 04/24/2023 Pg: 3 of 3
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

EX PARTE: ANTONIO JOSE ADAME,

 

 Appellant.

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

No. 08-18-00082-CR

Appeal from the

409th District Court

of El Paso County, Texas 

(TC# 20060D00063-409-1)

O R D E R

The Court GRANTS the State’s third motion for extension of time within which to file 

the brief until February 17, 2019. NO FURTHER MOTIONS FOR EXTENSION OF TIME 

TO FILE THE STATE’S BRIEF WILL BE CONSIDERED BY THIS COURT.

It is further ORDERED that the Hon. Jaime E. Esparza, the State’s attorney, prepare the 

State’s brief and forward the same to this Court on or before February 17, 2019.

IT IS SO ORDERED this 4

th day of January, 2019.

PER CURIAM

Before McClure, C.J., Rodriguez and Palafox, JJ.
United States Department of Commerce

National Institute of Standards and Technology

Certificate of Metrological Traceability For:

Colorado

This laboratory has demonstrated evidence of an unbroken chain of metrological traceability of its standards to the international system of units (SI), documented measurement uncertainties, uses documented measurement procedures, successfully 

completed training and proficiency tests, documented calibration intervals, submitted a quality management system, and 

demonstrated suitable measurement assurance for the Scope listed on this certificate.

The Office of Weights and Measures Program assesses laboratories to NIST Handbook 143 - Program Handbook for State 

Weights and Measures Laboratories and ISO/IEC 17025:2017. 

Scope

(Rev.: September 2021)

Mass Echelon I

20 kg to 1 mg

Mass Echelon II

25 kg to 1 mg 

1000 lb to 0.001 lb 

8 oz to 0.03125 oz

Mass Echelon III

50 kg to 1 mg

2500 lb to 0.001 lb

8 oz to 0.03125 oz

Weight Carts

5000 lb to 2000 lb

Volume Gravimetric, I 

100 gal to 5 gal 

Volume Transfer, II

100 gal to 5 gal

Volume Transfer, II LPG

100 gal

25 gal 

Frequency

Tuning Forks  80 mph

2024 to 2025

____________________________________

Katrice Lippa, Chief

NIST Office of Weights and Measures

Effective Dates: 2024-02-01 to 2026-01-31
Eppes Hall, 112 S. Copeland Street, Tallahassee, FL 32306-1273

850.644.4051 | www.criminology.fsu.edu

08/01/2017

NIST

100 Bureau Dr.

Gaithersburg, MD 20899

Regarding: Cybersecurity Workforce RFI

To whom it may concern, 

Attached, please find a response to the Request for Information regarding the 

current, planned, or recommended education and training programs aimed at strengthening 

the U.S. cybersecurity workforce. This is being submitted on behalf of Thomas G. 

Blomberg, Dean and Sheldon L. Messinger, Professor of Criminology, from Florida State 

University’s College of Criminology and Criminal Justice. The information was developed 

by Katherine Ray, Ph.D. graduate student. We hope that the information contained in the 

response is useful to the National Institute of Standards and Technology. We look forward 

to participating on any subsequent requests, workshops, or tasks to assist the NIST in 

reducing the gap in knowledge regarding current cybersecurity education and training. 

Please feel free to contact us if you have any questions about the response. 

Sincerely, 

Katherine Ray 

Kgr13b@my.fsu.edu

Florida State University

Eppes Hall
Good afternoon, please find my comments herewith regarding - Draft Consumer Software

Labeling Criteria

The Criteria should encourage vendors to:

1- Display symbols, wording that clearly inform customers that the computer code

powering the product or functionality they are purchasing has been developed using 3rd

party code libraries/SDKs or not.

2- Display symbols, wording that clearly inform customers that the computer code

powering the product or functionality they are purchasing has been developed using 3rd

party APIs or not.

3- Display symbols, wording that clearly inform customers that the 3rd party vendors

whose services have been used to develop the product follow privacy regimes like GDPR,

CCPA and Data Privacy norms.

4- Provide a QR code or information to that end where a customer can visit using the

Internet browser and find out what 3rd party vendors were involved in the building of the

software or functionality.

5- Provide a way for consumers to specify that they do not want their purchase decision or

private information shared with one or all or some of the 3rd party vendors involved.

6- Provide a way for the consumer to see via a QR code or something similar when the last

security audit is completed by an independent organization of the 3rd parties who have

been involved in the building of the product or functionality.

7- Provide a way for the consumer to understand the geographic location of the business

entities of the 3rd parties that are involved in the development of the product or

functionality.

8- Provide a way for the customer to see when was the last time the information above 1-7

was compiled and audited and will no longer be true (an expiry date).

9- Provide a way for the customer to contact the vendor to get more details about the

software supply chain involved in the product or functionality.

10- Provide an ombudsman service for the customer to complain about the vendor.

Anirban Banerjee, Ph.D.
Exhibit 21.1

SUBSIDIARIES OF POLYPORE INTERNATIONAL, INC.

|Name of Subsidiary                              |  | State or jurisdiction of
Incorporation or Organization
|----------------------------------------------- |  | ------------------------------------------------------
|Alnery No. 104 Limited                          |  | Hong Kong                                             
|Celgard K.K.                                    |  | Japan                                                 
|Celgard Korea Ltd.(1)                           |  | Korea                                                 
|Celgard, LLC                                    |  | Delaware                                              
|Daramic (Shanghai) Battery Separators Co., Ltd. |  | China                                                 
|Daramic NSG Tianjin PE Separator Co., Ltd.      |  | China                                                 
|Daramic (Thailand) Limited                      |  | Thailand                                              
|Daramic Acquisition Corporation.                |  | Delaware                                              
|Daramic Asia, Inc.                              |  | Delaware                                              
|Daramic Holding S.A.S.                          |  | France                                                
|Daramic International, Inc.                     |  | Delaware                                              
|Daramic S.A.S.                                  |  | France                                                
|Daramic S.r.l.                                  |  | Italy                                                 
|Daramic Separadores de Baterias Ltda.           |  | Brazil                                                
|Daramic, LLC                                    |  | Delaware                                              
|Membrana GmbH                                   |  | Germany                                               
|Microporous Holding Corporation                 |  | Delaware                                              
|Microporous Products, GmbH                      |  | Austria                                               
|Polypore Acquisition GmbH                       |  | Germany                                               
|Polypore B.V.                                   |  | Netherlands                                           
|Polypore C.V.                                   |  | Netherlands                                           
|PP Holding Corporation                          |  | Delaware                                              
|Daramic Battery Separator India Private Limited |  | India                                                 

---

---



QuickLinks
#### Ronald E. ROGERS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. DESA INTERNATIONAL, INC., Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., Lowe’s Home Centers, Inc., and Northern Tool & Equipment Company, Inc., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 02-1247.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

Nov. 29, 2004.

*ORDER*

In view of the length of the bankruptcy proceedings,

*729IT IS ORDERED THAT:

The appeal is dismissed without prejudice to reinstatement within 30 days after the bankruptcy stay is lifted or the proceeding concluded. Because this is a procedural dismissal for the convenience of the court and not a dismissal on the merits, no mandate will issue at this time.
exv10w1



 






Exhibit 10.1




AGREEMENT




     This Agreement (this “Agreement”), effective as of September 1, 2005, is made by and between
Vought Aircraft Industries, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the “Company”), and Kenneth W. Cannestra
(the “Director”).



     WHEREAS, the Director is a member of the Board of Directors of the Company (the “Board”);



     WHEREAS, the Company and the Director wish to discontinue the Director’s service as a member
of the Board;



     WHEREAS, the Director has been entitled to receive certain compensation from the Company in
connection with his service as a member of the Board;



     WHEREAS, the Director has been granted certain options for common stock of the Company under
the terms of the Amended and Restated 2001 Stock Option Plan of Vought Aircraft Industries, Inc.
(the “Stock Option”); and



     WHEREAS, the Company and the Director mutually desire to settle and forever resolve any and
all obligations that may exist regarding compensation payable to the Director as a result of his
service as a member of the Board.



     NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the covenants and undertakings contained herein, and for
other good and valuable consideration, the sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, the Company
and the Director hereby agree as follows:



     1. Resignation of Directorship. Effective as of September 1, 2005, the Director
hereby resigns his membership on the Board.



     2. Payment by Company. The Company shall pay the Director an amount of cash equal to ten
thousand dollars ($10,000), subject to reduction for all applicable withholding taxes.



     3. Acceleration of Stock Options. That portion of the Director’s Stock Option which
remains eligible for vesting on December 31, 2005 will be accelerated and immediately vested.



     4. Full Settlement of All Obligations. The Director acknowledges and agrees that the
foregoing consideration represents settlement in full of all outstanding obligations owed to the
Director by the Company with respect to all compensation to which the Director may otherwise be
entitled in connection with his service as a member of the Board. Nothing in this Agreement shall
affect any rights that Director may otherwise have as a stockholder of the Company as set forth in
any Stockholders’ Agreement, or, except as described above, any rights that the Director may have
pursuant to any Stock Option Agreement to which he is a party.



 









 




Nothing in this agreement shall affect any rights that the Director may have to indemnification
pursuant to the terms of the By-Laws of the Company.




     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company and the Director have caused this Agreement to be executed
effective as of the date first above written.



	 	 	 	 	 
	 	VOUGHT AIRCRAFT INDUSTRIES, INC.

 	 
	 	By:  	/s/ Tom D. Risley
 	 
	 	 	Name:  	Tom D. Risley 	 
	 	 	Title:  	Chairman, President &
Chief Executive Officer 	 
	 
	 	DIRECTOR

 	 
	 	/s/ Kenneth W. Cannestra
 	 
	 	Kenneth W. Cannestra