alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
From: Wayne Shadd

To: Doulou, Vannice C.

Subject: NEPA categorical exemption for management agreements

Date: Tuesday, February 23, 2016 3:09:33 PM

Dear Ms. Doulou:

I am Wayne Shadd, Sr. Vice President of Operations for Warner Hospitality – Spokane. Our company

 manages the Chewelah Casino for the Spokane Tribe of Indians of Washington under a NIGCapproved management agreement.

I support your proposed change regarding the application of categorical exclusions to management

 agreements. I do not view IGRA as requiring NEPA analysis for the review and approval of gaming

 management agreements. I believe that this categorical exemption would benefit Indian Tribes

 greatly, in that it would facilitate economic development, and help tribes avoid millions of dollars in

 expenses and years in delay in development of their gaming projects.

Thank you, Wayne Shadd

CONFIDENTIALITY: This e-mail message and any attachments are confidential and

 intended solely for the use of the person(s) to whom they are addressed. If you are not the

 named addressee, you must not disclose, copy, print, distribute, take any action or rely on it

 and should notify the sender by reply. If you have received this message in error, please

 notify me immediately.
Document

Exhibit 10.2

DISNEY CORPORATE SERVICES CO., LLC
500 South Buena Vista Street
Burbank, California 91521


July 21, 2022


Mr. Horacio E. Gutierrez
Senior Executive Vice President
and General Counsel
The Walt Disney Company
500 South Buena Vista Street
Burbank, California 91521
RE: Amendment to that certain Employment Agreement, dated as of December 21, 2021, by and between Disney Corporate Services Co., LLC and Horacio E. Gutierrez (the “Employment Agreement”); and to that certain Indemnification Agreement, dated as of December 21, 2021, by and between The Walt Disney Company and Horacio E. Gutierrez (the “Indemnification Agreement”)
Dear Mr. Gutierrez:
This letter agreement will confirm that the Employment Agreement and Indemnification Agreement are hereby amended as follows, effective as of June 29, 2022:
1. The first sentence of Paragraph 2 of the Employment Agreement is hereby deleted in its entirety and replaced with the following:
During the Employment Period, Executive shall serve as Senior Executive Vice President and General Counsel, The Walt Disney Company, and in such other positions with the Company and its subsidiaries consistent with Executive’s position as Senior Executive Vice President and General Counsel, The Walt Disney Company, as the Company reasonably may assign.
2. References to “Senior Executive Vice President, General Counsel and Secretary of the Company” in the definition of “Termination for Good Reason” in Paragraph 5(e) of the Employment Agreement are hereby deleted and replaced with “Senior Executive Vice President and General Counsel, The Walt Disney Company.”
3. The reference to “Senior Executive Vice President, General Counsel and Secretary, of the Company” in the third paragraph of the Indemnification Agreement is hereby deleted and replaced with “Senior Executive Vice President and General Counsel, The Walt Disney Company.”
As amended hereby, the Employment Agreement and the Indemnification Agreement shall continue in full force and effect in accordance with their terms. If the foregoing accurately reflects your understanding of our mutual agreement, please so indicate in the space provided below and return an executed copy hereof to us at your earliest convenience.
												
	Very truly yours,	
				
	DISNEY CORPORATE SERVICES CO., LLC
				
	By:	/s/ Jim Kapenstein	
		President	
				
	Date:	July 21, 2022	
				


									
	ACCEPTED AND AGREED TO:
			
	/s/ Horacio E. Gutierrez
	Horacio E. Gutierrez
			
	Date:	July 21, 2022
PART 547—DRAFT MINIMUM TECHNICAL STANDARDS FOR CLASS II GAMING SYSTEMS AND EQUIPMENT

For Tribal Consultation

Page 1 of 2

1/26/2017 Version

547.18 What standards apply to Class II gaming systems utilizing wireless player interfaces? 

(a) If a player interface utilizes wireless technology to connect to any part of the Class II gaming system, 

the wireless gaming system must:

(1) Physically locate system components including but not limited to wireless access points (AP), 

mobility controllers, and wireless gaming servers in secured areas not easily accessible to the 

public;

(2) Disable all exposed network connectivity ports (Ethernet, USB, etc.) on the player interface, if 

applicable;

(3) Utilize an independent network for the wireless gaming system;

(4) Suspend the wireless player interface device from game play while the wireless player 

interface is located outside of the approved gaming area or loses connectivity with the wireless 

gaming system;

(5) Require the wireless player interface to re-authenticate before resuming play at the last 

known game state prior to being suspended when the wireless player interface re-enters the 

approved gaming area or re-establishes connectivity with the wireless gaming system;

(6) Implement a time period which is configurable for re-authentication; 

(b) Wireless communication with a player interface.

(1) Wireless communication between a gaming system and a player interface must be 

conducted using a method that securely links the gaming system and the player interface and 

authenticates both the player interface and the gaming system as authorized to communicate 

over that link;

(2) A wireless player interface shall be sufficiently isolated within the gaming system so as to 

restrict the player interface from unauthorized access to system components; 

(3) A wireless player interface must be designed or programmed such that it may only 

communicate with authorized gaming systems;

(4) A wireless player interface must employ encryption and strong user authentication methods;

(5) A wireless gaming system must utilize a stand-alone firewall, which must isolate the access 

points (AP) from other network components;

(6) A wireless gaming system must provide a printable report of failed network access attempts, 

including time and date stamp, device name, and hardware identifier of all devices requesting 

access to the network;
PART 547—DRAFT MINIMUM TECHNICAL STANDARDS FOR CLASS II GAMING SYSTEMS AND EQUIPMENT

For Tribal Consultation

Page 2 of 2

1/26/2017 Version

(7) A wireless gaming system must provide the capability for the administrator to disable the 

player interface at any time.

(c) Firewall Audit Logs. The firewall application must maintain an audit log of the following information 

and must disable all communications and generate an error event if the audit log becomes full:

(1) All changes to configuration of the firewall;

(2) All successful and unsuccessful connection attempts through the firewall; and

(3) The source and destination IP Address, Port Numbers and MAC addresses.
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER OF

UNION SECURITY INSURANCE COMPANY

PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

§ 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the quarterly report of Union Security Insurance Company (the Company) 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), I, Stacia N. Almquist, Treasurer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as
adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, based on my knowledge:



| | 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 Company.
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: November 9, 2007



/s/ Stacia N. AlmquistStacia N. AlmquistTreasurer and Chief Financial Officer
**Exhibit 21**

 

**Subsidiaries of Registrant**

**Year Ended January 3, 2004**

 

 
| **Subsidiaries**                                         |   | **State or  Jurisdiction****of Incorporation** |   | **Percentage  of Voting****Securities  Owned** |   |
|----------------------------------------------------------|--------|------------------------------------------------|--------|------------------------------------------------|--------|
|                                                     |   |                                           |   |                                           |   |
| AiC Analysts Limited                                     |   | United Kingdom                                 |   | 100.0                                          | %      |
|                                                     |   |                                           |   |                                           |   |
| Medical Concepts Staffing, Inc.                          |   | Minnesota                                      |   | 100.0                                          | %      |
|                                                     |   |                                           |   |                                           |   |
| Analysts International Strategic Sourcing  Services, LLC |   | Minnesota                                      |   | 100.0                                          | %      |
|                                                     |   |                                           |   |                                           |   |
| Analysts International Business Resources  Services, LLC |   | Minnesota                                      |   | 100.0                                          | %      |
|                                                     |   |                                           |   |                                           |   |
| Analysts International Business Solutions  Services, LLC |   | Minnesota                                      |   | 100.0                                          | %      |
|                                                     |   |                                           |   |                                           |   |
| Analysts International Management Services,  LLC         |   | Minnesota                                      |   | 100.0                                          | %      |

 

1

----
Court of Appeals

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A17A1137. TERRY PAUL BURTON v. THE STATE.

In 2009, Terry Burton pled guilty to kidnapping, and the trial court imposed a

twenty-year sentence, with the first ten yearsto be served in prison, and the remainder

to be served on probation. In 2016, Burton filed a “Petition for Mandamus,” in which

he raised various challenges to his conviction and sentence. The trial court denied

Burton’s petition, and he filed this direct appeal. We lack jurisdiction.

A trial court order refusing to grant mandamus relief ordinarily is directly

appealable. See OCGA § 5-6-34 (a) (7). Here, however, while styled as a petition

for a writ of mandamus, Burton’s petition is, in substance, a motion to vacate a void

conviction and/or sentence. See Planet Ins. Co. v. Ferrell, 228 Ga. App. 264, 266

(491 SE2d 471) (1997) (“[P]leadings, motions and orders are to be construed

according to their substance and function and not merely as to their

nomenclature. . . .”).

To the extent that Burton seeks to challenge his conviction, “a petition to

vacate or modify a judgment of conviction is not an appropriate remedy in a criminal

case,” Harper v. State, 286 Ga. 216, 218 (1) (686 SE2d 786) (2009), and any appeal

from an order denying or dismissing such a motion must be dismissed, see id. at 218

(2);see also Roberts v. State, 286 Ga. 532, 532 (690 SE2d 150) (2010). To the extent

that Burton seeks to challenge the validity of his sentence, a direct appeal may lie

from an order denying a motion to vacate or correct a void sentence only if the

defendant raises a colorable claim that the sentence is, in fact, void. See Harper, 286

Ga. at 217 n.1; Burg v. State, 297 Ga. App. 118, 119 (676 SE2d 465) (2009). 

“Motions to vacate a void sentence generally are limited to claims that – even

April 20, 2017
assuming the existence and validity of the conviction for which the sentence was

imposed – the law does not authorize thatsentence, most typically because it exceeds

the most severe punishment for which the applicable penal statute provides.” von

Thomas v. State, 293 Ga. 569, 572 (2) (748 SE2d 446) (2013). When a sentence is

within the statutory range of punishment, it is not void. Jones v. State, 278 Ga. 669,

670 (604 SE2d 483) (2004). Here, Burton has not raised a colorable claim that his

sentence is void, as his challenges to his sentence are premised entirely on his

challenges to the validity of his conviction.

Consequently, we lack jurisdiction to consider this appeal, which is hereby

DISMISSED.

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________

I certify that the above is a true extract from

the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court

hereto affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

04/20/2017
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                             771
<SECURITIES>                                 1,296,285
<RECEIVABLES>                                   21,481
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,318,537
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           21,852
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                   1,296,685
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,318,537
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 2,510
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  2,510
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     2,510
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .41
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
July 12, 2021

National Indian Gaming Commission Strategic Plan

National Indian Gaming Commission

Page 1 of 2

NIGC Strategic Plan

Background

Why does the NIGC have a strategic plan?

Under the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, the NIGC develops a strategic plan pursuant to the

requirements of the Government Performance and Results Act Modernization Act of 2010.

A federal agency’s strategic plan reflects the Agency’s current priorities and initiatives and how it

will accomplish them. The NIGC’s strategic plan presents its long-term goals and strategies for

achieving effective federal regulation of Indian gaming in coordination with regulatory partners.

How does the NIGC develop a strategic plan?

In addition to consulting with tribal governments about its strategic plan, the NIGC, led by the

NIGC Chairman conducts a comprehensive review of the Agency, its mission, and current

initiatives in order to outline a plan for review. The NIGC also engages with the Office of

Management and Budget to formulate the objectives and strategies based on goals established

from the NIGC’s current mission, priorities, and emphasis areas.

What is the time line for publishing the NIGC strategic plan?

The NIGC updates its strategic plan every four years. The Office of Management and Budget’s

schedule impacts the NIGC’s timeframe for developing the strategic plan. Specifically, the

Office of Management and Budget advises on strategic goals and objectives along with detailed

performance information such as performance goals and indicators. The NIGC anticipates a late

fall or early winter 2021 submission to the Office of Management and Budget and that the final

four year strategic plan for 2022-2026 will be transmitted to the U.S. Congress and made

available to the public in February 2022.

What strategic goals will be relevant to the NIGC’s future work?

Currently the Agency is considering building on the work related to past strategic plans in orderto

broaden and strengthen the Agency’s focus around four strategic goals that

focus primarily on the emphasis areas of the NIGC and articulate the Commission’s priorities.

The four strategic goals are the following: Agency Accountability, Preparedness in the

Regulatory Community, Indian Gaming Industry Integrity, and Innovative Outreach and

Collaboration.

Proposed Questions for Tribal Leaders

What external risk factors highlight possible challenges the NIGC may encounter in achieving its

goals?
July 12, 2021

National Indian Gaming Commission Strategic Plan

National Indian Gaming Commission

Page 2 of 2

How can the NIGC goals address opportunities and challenges unique to the regulation of Indian

Gaming at the regional level?

What long-term trends in the Indian gaming industry and in the gaming regulatory community

could exceed the next four years and how should the NIGC’s strategic plan account for these

long-term trends?
96-2247.

#### State ex rel. The Plain Dealer v. Ohio Dept. of Ins.

In Mandamus. On motion to strike affidavit of Douglas A. Andrews. Motion denied.

Cook and Lundberg Stratton, JJ., would also disqualify Douglas A. Andrews as counsel.

Moyer, C.J., and Resnick, J., dissent and would grant the motion to strike.
**EXHIBIT 32.2**

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

****In connection with the Annual Report of Angelica Corporation (the ‘‘Company’’) on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended January 27, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the ‘‘Report’’), I, James W. Shaffer, Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that: 

      (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and 

      (2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

|                                                                                                 | /s/ James W. Shaffer                James W. ShafferVice President and Chief FinancialOfficer of Angelica CorporationApril 12, 2007 |
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
**Exhibit 23.1**

 

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

 

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements of Andrea Electronics Corporation and Subsidiaries (the“Company”) on Form S-3 (333-114245, 333-69248, 333-51424, 33-83173, 333-61115), and Form S-8 (333-82738, 333-31946, 333-82375, 333-52129, 333-45421, 333-38609, 333-35687, 033-84092, 333-14385) of our report dated March 7, 2005 with respectto our audit of the consolidated financial statements of the Company as of December 31, 2004 and 2003 and for the years then ended which report is included in this Annual Report on Form 10-KSB. 

 

/s/ Marcum and Kliegman LLP 

 

Marcum and Kliegman LLP 

Melville, New York

 

April 14, 2005****
96-2400.

#### Davis v. Sam’s Club.

Cuyahoga App. No. 69647. Reported at 77 Ohio St.3d 1526, 674 N.E.2d 377. On motion for reconsideration. Motion denied.
<PAGE>
 
                                                                    EXHIBIT 11.1

                          CREDENCE SYSTEMS CORPORATION

                      COMPUTATION OF NET INCOME PER SHARE
                    (IN THOUSANDS, EXCEPT PER SHARE AMOUNTS)



<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                      YEAR ENDED OCTOBER 31,
                                                                    ---------------------------
                                                                     1996      1995      1994
                                                                    -------   -------   -------

<S>                                                                 <C>       <C>       <C>
Weighted average shares outstanding.........................         21,531    20,273    18,521
Common equivalent shares from stock options.................            399       711     1,228
                                                                    -------   -------   -------
Number of shares used in computing per share amounts........         21,930    20,984    19,749
                                                                    =======   =======   =======

Net income..................................................        $37,703   $30,354   $19,193
                                                                    =======   =======   =======

Net income per share........................................        $  1.72   $  1.45   $  0.97
                                                                    =======   =======   =======
</TABLE>


                                                                              51