alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Community Resilience Workshop - Data Needs for Resilience Planning and Decision-Making

18

Session 2: The Gap Between Current and Desired Performance of the Community’s Built

Environment

Jay Wilson, Clackamas County, OR, Resilience Coordinator 

Jay Wilson is the Clackamas County Resilience Coordinator with 

the Department of Disaster Management and spearheads County 

efforts to reduce risks and assess hazards including flood, 

earthquake, wildfire, volcano, and climate change impacts. Wilson is 

the past-chair (2014-2017) of the Oregon Seismic Safety Policy 

Advisory Commission and previously worked for Oregon 

Emergency Management and as a mitigation reservist with FEMA 

Regions IX and X. Wilson recently completed a two-year 

appointment as a Community Resilience Fellow with the National 

Institute of Standards and Technology during the development of the 

2015 Community Resilience Planning Guide. He is a member of the Earthquake Engineering 

Research Institute and has completed post-earthquake reconnaissance trips to Japan (2011) and 

Central Italy (2017). Wilson holds a Master’s Degree in Geography and a Bachelor’s Degree in 

Film and lives in Portland, Oregon.

Abstract

The 2013 Oregon Resilience Plan: Bridging the Gaps, a Five-Year Review

In the five years since the delivery of the 2013 Oregon Resilience Plan (ORP), we have 

accomplished a number of initial recommendations, have many that are in progress, and have 

made great strides in overall perception of the Cascadia Subduction Zone threat and need for 

action. This presentation will look back at the performance goals, gap analysis methods, and the 

call for further detailed risk assessments for the ORP’s 50-year timeline. Looking forward, the 

presentation will cover emerging data needs and applying new research towards communityscale decisions.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 9
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                       2,695,924
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                       7,167,824
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                               280,000
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                          0
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                         650,978
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                           650,978
<LOANS>                                     63,187,559
<ALLOWANCE>                                    899,495
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              83,225,774
<DEPOSITS>                                  75,379,249 
<SHORT-TERM>                                         0
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                            856,579
<LONG-TERM>                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       591,544
<OTHER-SE>                                   6,398,402
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>              83,225,774
<INTEREST-LOAN>                              1,618,942
<INTEREST-INVEST>                               13,774
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                61,257
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                             1,693,973
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                             851,079
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             851,079
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                          842,894
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                   72,335
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                928,300
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                241,201
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                     241,201
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   150,086
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .23
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .23
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    9.82
<LOANS-NON>                                     86,381
<LOANS-PAST>                                 1,830,064
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                               858,271
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                   43,912
<RECOVERIES>                                    12,801
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                              899,495
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                           899,495
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0
        


</TABLE>
#### Barnhart *v.*Cissna et al.

Supreme *Court.—Appeal of One of Several Defendants.-.Notice to*Co-Parties.—. Where there are three defendants to a suit on a promissory note, of whom one is defaulted, and as to another the cause stands continued, and against the third, after an issue and trial, judgment is rendered, and from that judgment he appeals, without serving notice of the appeal on his co-defendants, the appeal is not properly taken.

APPEAL from the Wabash Common-Pleas.

*T. T. Weir, G. H. Voss, B. F. Davis,*and *J. A. Holman,*for appellant.

Buskirk, J

The appellees sued Murray, Stone, and Barn-

hart upon a note payable in bank. Stone pleaded his dis-, charge in bankruptcy, and the cause as to him was continued. Murray made default. Barnhart filed an answer, to which a demurrer was sustained, and he'refused to answer further. The damages were assessed by the court and judgment accordingly. A motion for a new trial was made by Barnhart, and was overruled, to which an exception was taken. Barnhart alone appeals. No notice was served upon his co-defendants, as is imperatively required by section 551 of the code, *2 G. &*H. 270. The case is not properly here. The appeal has not been taken as required by a positive statute. The appeal must be dismissed.

The appeal is dismissed, at the costs of the appellant.
Exhibit 99.2



                    CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                         18 U.S.C. 1350,
                     AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
          SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


In  connection with the Quarterly Report of AEI Real Estate  Fund
XVIII Limited Partnership (the "Partnership") on Form 10-QSB  for
the  period ended June 30, 2002, as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Mark E.
Larson,  Chief  Financial Officer of AEI Fund  Management  XVIII,
Inc.,  the Managing General Partner of the Partnership,  certify,
pursuant  to  18 U.S.C. 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 Partnership.


                              /s/ Mark E Larson
                                  Mark E. Larson
                                  Chief Financial Officer of
                                  AEI Fund Management XVIII, Inc.,
                                  the Managing General Partner
                                  August 6, 2002
No. 16,101.

#### Peterson *v.*Evansville & Terre Haute Railroad Company.

Filed February 15, 1893.

Appeal from the Sullivan Circuit Court.

*W. C. Multz,*for appellant.

*J. E. Iglehart, E. Taylor, J. T. Mays*and *H. J. Hays,*for appellee.

McCabe, J.

This case is in all respects, except the name of the appellant, precisely like *White*v. *Evansville, etc., R. R. Co.,*133 Ind. 480, decided at this term, and on the authority of that case the judgment of the Circuit Court is affirmed.
11203.

#### Jackson *et al. v.*Hunter.

Decided January 20, 1921.

Stephens, J.

According to the answer of the .Supreme Court to a certified question in this case (150 *Ga.*789, 105 S. E. 304), it was error to dismiss the affidavit of illegality.

*Judgment reversed.*

*Jenkins, P. J., and Sill, J., conew.*

*117Affidavit of illegality; from Effingham superior court — Judge Lovett. November 20, 1919.

*Sectbroolc & Kennedy,*for plaintiffs in error.

*D. II. Glarh,*contra.
**EXHIBIT
      32**





**CERTIFICATION
      PURSUANT TO**


**18
      U.S.C. SECTION 1350**








William
      C. Owens as Chief Executive Officer and President of Owens Financial Group,
      Inc., the General Partner of Owens Mortgage Investment Fund, a California
      Limited Partnership (the “Registrant”), and Bryan H. Draper, as Chief Financial
      Officer and Secretary of Owens Financial Group, Inc., hereby certify, pursuant
      to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, that:


(1)           
      the Registrant’s Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2007, as
      filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
“Report”) fully complies with the applicable 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 Registrant.








/s/
      William C. Owens


William
      C. Owens


Chief
      Executive Officer and President of Owens Financial Group, Inc., General
      Partner


November
      14, 2007








/s/
      Bryan H. Draper


Bryan
      H.
      Draper


Chief
      Financial Officer and Secretary of Owens Financial Group, Inc., General
      Partner


November
      14, 2007
---

EXHIBIT 32.01





CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO


RULE 13a-14(b) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934


AND 18 U.S.C.  SECTION 1350





In connection with the Annual Report of SWK Holdings Corporation (the “Registrant”) on Form 10-K for the annual period ended December 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, John F.  Nemelka, Interim Chief Executive Officer of the Registrant, certify, in accordance with Rule 13a-14(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and 18 U.S.C.  Section 1350, that to the best of my knowledge:





(1) The Report, to which this certification is attached as Exhibit 32.01, 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 Registrant.





Date: April 29, 2010

/s/ John F. NemelkaJohn F. NemelkaInterim Chief Executive Officer





A signed original of this written statement required by Rule 13a-14(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and 18 U.S.C.  Section 1350 has been provided to the Registrant and will be retained by the Registrant and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
11165.

#### Parcel Delivery Company v. American Oil Pump *&*Tank Company.

Stephens, J.

1. “ Where the parties have reduced to writing what appears to be a complete and certain agreement, importing a legal obligation, it will, in the absence of fraud, accident, or mistake, be conclusively presumed .that the writing contains the whole of the agreement between them, and parol evidence of prior or contemporaneous conversations, representations, or statements will not be received for the purpose of adding to or varying the written instrument.” *Case Threshing Machine Co.*v. *Broach,*137 *Ga.*602 (73 S. E. *6601063). A custom or usage which is repugnant to the terms of an express contract is not permitted to operate against it, and evidence of it is inadmissible; for while usage may be admissible to explain what is doubtful, it is never admissible to contradict what is plain. *Park*v. *Piedmont & Arlington Life Ins. Co.,*48 *Ga.*601, 606.

Decided September 27, 1920.

Certiorari; from Fulton superior court—Judge Pendleton. October 14, 1919.

*Lawton Nalley,*for plaintiff in error.

*W. S. Dillon, C. M. Lancaster,*contra.

2. In a suit by a seller against a purchaser to recover the purchase-money for a gas tank which had been sold by the plaintiff to the defendant under a written contract which purports to contain the entire agreement between the parties, any bare representation or promise without consideration, not embodied in the contract made by the agent for the seller with the purchaser, that the seller would install the tank in accordance with the ordinances of the city, or any custom obtaining that the seller was in the habit of installing tanks sold by it in accordance with the ordinances of the city, which custom was known to the purchaser, can form no part of such, contract.

3. Where the seller was under no contractual obligation to install the tank which it had sold to the purchaser, but gratuitously undertook to install the same and did install it, and afterwards, with or without the purchaser’s consent, removed the tank at the instance of the city ñre-inspector and cast it aside on the premises of the purchaser, and there left it in a good but useless condition, such conduct on the part of the seller constituted no breach of the contract on its part; nor was there any rescission of the contract.

4. Where in such a suit the defendant’s plea set up an illegal defense, but was held good against a demurrer, and.where evidence was admitted in support of the plea, such defense could, on a motion to direct a verdict for the plaintiff, be disregarded altogether.

5. With the defendant’s illegal defense and the evidence in support thereof disregarded, • the verdict for the plaintiff finding for the purchase-money was demanded. The judge of the municipal court who tried the case did not err in directing a verdict for the plaintiff, and the certiorari was properly overruled.

*Judgment affvnned.*

*Jenkins, P. J., and Smith, J., concur.*
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1709 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1709

  To allow members of federally recognized Tribes to use their Tribal 
   government identification documents in obtaining a firearm from a 
                  federally licensed firearms dealer.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 22, 2023

 Mr. Johnson of South Dakota (for himself, Mrs. Peltola, Mr. Cole, Mr. 
   Zinke, Mr. Armstrong, Mr. Bacon, Mr. Crenshaw, Mr. Newhouse, Mr. 
LaMalfa, Ms. Mace, Mrs. Bice, Mr. Lamborn, Mrs. Miller-Meeks, Mr. Mann, 
  and Mr. Smith of Nebraska) introduced the following bill; which was 
               referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To allow members of federally recognized Tribes to use their Tribal 
   government identification documents in obtaining a firearm from a 
                  federally licensed firearms dealer.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Tribal Firearm Access Act''.

SEC. 2. ALLOWING MEMBERS OF FEDERALLY RECOGNIZED TRIBES TO USE THEIR 
              TRIBAL GOVERNMENT IDENTIFICATION DOCUMENTS IN OBTAINING A 
              FIREARM FROM A FEDERALLY LICENSED FIREARMS DEALER.

    (a) In General.--Section 922(t)(1)(D) of title 18, United States 
Code, is amended by inserting ``, or a valid identification document 
issued by a Tribal government'' before the period.
    (b) Definition.--Section 921(a) of such title is amended by adding 
at the end the following:
    ``(38) The term `Tribal government' means the recognized governing 
body of any Indian or Alaska Native Tribe, band, nation, pueblo, 
village, community, component band, or component reservation, 
individually identified (including parenthetically) in the list 
published most recently as of the date of the enactment of this 
paragraph pursuant to section 104(a) of the Federally Recognized Indian 
Tribe List Act of 1994 (25 U.S.C. 5131(a)).''.
    (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section shall take 
effect on the date that is 90 days after the date of enactment of this 
Act.
                                 <all>
```
QuickLinks
 -- Click here to rapidly navigate through this document





































 



 
 

  EXHIBIT 10.40    
    


 
    Annual Incentive Bonus Plan for Fiscal 2015    
    


        On June 26, 2014, the Board of Directors (the "Board") of Flextronics International Ltd. (the "Company") approved the
Company's Annual Incentive Bonus Plan for fiscal year 2015. The plan provides its executive officers with the opportunity to earn annual cash bonuses based upon the achievement of pre-established
performance goals. Total bonus opportunities will be based on achievement of annual targets. The plan provides for 50% of the bonus to be based on the achievement of quarterly objectives and 50% to be
based on the achievement of annual objectives. Performance goals under the plan will be: revenue growth, earnings per share, operating profit, and return on invested capital targets at the Company
level; and revenue growth, operating profit (as a percentage of sales), profit after interest (as a percentage of sales), new business wins and other business-specific business unit targets at the
business unit level for certain executives. The plan allows awards to provide for different metrics, target levels and weightings for different executives. 



        Under
the Annual Incentive Bonus Plan, target award opportunities are set at various percentages of base salary, which will be: 150% of base salary in the case of the Chief Executive
Officer; 110% of base salary in the case of the Chief Financial Officer; and between 80% and 110% of base salary in the cases of other officers. Actual payout opportunities for each bonus component
will range from a threshold of 50% of target to a maximum of 200% of target for the quarterly payouts and 300% of target for the annual bonuses, in each case based on achievement of the performance
measures. If the Company or business unit fails to achieve the threshold level for any performance measure, no payout is awarded for that measure. For purposes of determining achievement of award
opportunities, the incentive bonus plan uses adjusted, non-GAAP measures. 











QuickLinks



EXHIBIT 10.40


Annual Incentive Bonus Plan for Fiscal 2015
[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 246 (Tuesday, December 23, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 77016]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-30008]



[[Page 77016]]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Human Genome Research Institute; Notice of Closed 
Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following 
meeting.
    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 
U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: Center for Inherited Disease Research Access 
Committee.
    Date: January 16, 2015.
    Time: 11:30 a.m. to 3:00 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: National Institutes of Health, 5635 Fishers Lane, 
Bethesda, MD 20892 (Telephone Conference Call).
    Contact Person: Camilla E. Day, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer 
CIDR, National Human Genome Research Institute National Institutes 
of Health, 5635 Fishers Lane, Suite 4075, Bethesda, MD 20892, 31-
402-8837, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#6704060a0e0b0b064903061e27090e0f49000811"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="0d6e6c606461616c23696c744d636465236a627b">[email protected]</span></a>.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.172, Human 
Genome Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS)


    Dated: December 17, 2014.
David Clary,
Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 2014-30008 Filed 12-22-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
#### J. D. Jones *v.*W. O. Hampton’s Assignee.

Promissory Note — Assignor.

Where a promissory note not discounted by an incorporated bank, not being negotiable as well as payable in bank, one signing on the back thereof is only liable as assignor and cannot be sued until the maker of the' note has been prosecuted to insolvency.

APPEAL PROM BOYD CIRCUIT COURT.

December 6, 1875.

Opinion by

Judge Cofer :

John M. Dunlap executed a note for one hundred fifty dollars, payable ninety days after date, at the Ashland National Bank, to the order of the appellant, J. D. Jones. The note was indorsed by Jones for the accommodation of the maker, and was delivered to him to raise money by a sale thereof.

Dunlap sold and delivered the note to Wilson, Andrews & Co., who were private bankers. Wilson, Andrews & Co. made an assignment of all their effects to Hampton before maturity of the note, and Hampton, as assignee, indorsed the note to A. C. Campbell, cashier of the Ashland National Bank, for collection and credit. The note was protested for non-payment, and suit was brought thereon by Hampton, assignee, against both Dunlap and Jones. Jones demurred to the petition, and his demurrer was overruled. He then filed an answer, and a trial was had, which resulted in a judgment against him; and he prosecuted this appeal to obtain its reversal.

*890/. *D. Jones, for appellant. L. T. Moore, for appellee.*

The note was not discounted by an incorporated bank, and not being negotiable as well as payable in bank, could not have been placed upon the footing of a. foreign bill of exchange, if it had been discounted in the bank where it was payable. Sec. 21, Chap. 22, Gen. Stat. The appellant was, therefore, only liable as assignor. Sec. 14, Chap. 22, Gen. Stat., and cannot be sued until the maker of the note has been prosecuted to insolvency.

The court, therefore, erred in overruling the demurrer. Judgment *reversed,*and cause remanded with directions to sustain the demurrer and dismiss the petition as to the appellant.