alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 10.17  







Oral Independent
Contactor Agreement 



In February 2006, Sky Petroleum, Inc.
engaged Shafiq Ur Rahman as an independent contractor to assist with financial accounting
in the Company’s Dubai operations. 



Concurrent with the appointment of
Shafiq Ur Rahman as Manager of Finances and Administration of Sky Petroleum, Inc.
effective May 29, 2006, Sky Petroleum, Inc. and Mr. Rahman orally agreed to the terms of
engagement under which Mr. Rahman would provide services on an independent contactor basis
to serve as Manager of Finances and Administration of Sky Petroleum, Inc. for a consulting
fee of $5,000 per month and an educational stipend of approximately $8,500 per quarter.
The agreement was approved by resolution of the board of directors of Sky Petroleum, Inc.
IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10-11-00417-CR

SEAN REEVES,

Appellant

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

Appellee

From the 19th District Court

McLennan County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2010-1205-C1

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Sean Reeves was convicted of the offense of aggravated assault and sentenced to 

20 years in prison. See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 22.02 (West 2011). By letter dated 

November 7, 2011, the Clerk of this Court notified Reeves that his appeal was subject to 

dismissal because his notice of appeal appeared untimely and because the certification 

of defendant’s right of appeal also indicated that Reeves waived his right to appeal, and 

a document was included with his notice of appeal which indicated Reeves waived his 

right to appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(d); 26.2(a)(1). The Clerk also warned Reeves 
Reeves v. State Page 2

that the Court would dismiss the appeal unless, within 21 days of the date of the letter, 

a response was filed showing grounds for continuing the appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P.

44.3.

Reeves responded1 and indicated that his waiver was unknowingly made and 

involuntary but did not address the timeliness of his notice of appeal. Thus, the 

response does not present grounds for continuing the appeal. 

Accordingly, Reeves appeal is dismissed. Further, Reeves’ motion for extension 

of time to file his docketing statement and motion for court appointed counsel are 

dismissed as moot.

TOM GRAY

Chief Justice

Before Chief Justice Gray,

Justice Davis, and

Justice Scoggins

Appeal dismissed

Motions dismissed as moot

Opinion delivered and filed November 23, 2011

Do not publish 

[CR25]

 

1 The response did not contain a proper proof of service. See TEX. R. APP. P. 9.5. However, we use Rule 2 

to dispense with the service requirement and review the response Reeves provided. Id. 2.
FEDERAL RETIREMENT THRIFT INVESTMENT BOARD

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

June 28, 2016

FEDERAL RETIREMENT THRIFT INVESTMENT BOARD

AWARDS INVESTMENT CONSULTANT CONTRACT

Washington, D.C. -- The Federal Retirement Thrift Investment 

Board (FRTIB) announced today that it has awarded Multiple Award 

Indefinite Delivery/Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) investment 

consultant contracts with a potential period of performance of 

5-years to AON Hewitt Investment Consulting, Inc.; Mercer 

Investment Consulting LLC; NEPC, LLC; and RVK, Inc. Task orders

will be competed under the contracts amongst the four awardees. 

The four firms will assist the FRTIB with the following tasks: 

investment policy evaluation and design, portfolio governance 

and portfolio manager evaluation, investment option review and 

evaluation, investment manager search, benchmarking and 

participant behavior, research on improving operation 

efficiency, and Lifecycle Fund asset allocation and glide path 

analysis. 

These new investment consultant contracts replace two separate 

contracts currently held by AON Hewitt and Mercer. 

The TSP is a retirement savings plan for Federal employees; it is similar to 

the 401(k) plans offered by many private employers. As of May 2016, TSP 

assets totaled approximately $469.9 billion, and retirement savings accounts 

were being maintained for more than 4.9 million TSP participants. 

Participants include Federal civilian employees in all branches of 

Government, employees of the U.S. Postal Service, and members of the 

uniformed services. Additional information can be found at www.tsp.gov. 

MEDIA CONTACT:

Kim Weaver 

202-942-1641

(end)
EXHIBIT 10.10

MANAGEMENT SERVICES AGREEMENT

This MANAGEMENT SERVICES AGREEMENT (this "Agreement"), dated as of January 9, 1998 (the "Execution Date"), is made by and between GART SPORTS COMPANY, a
Delaware corporation ("Gart Sports"), GART BROS SPORTINGS GOODS COMPANY, a Colorado corporation ("Gart Bros.") and SPORTMART, INC., a Delaware corporation ("Sportmart"), on the one hand (Gart
Sports, Gart Bros. and Sportmart are hereinafter collectively referred to as the "Company"), and LEONARD GREEN & ASSOCIATES, L.P., a California limited partnership ("LGA"), on the other hand.

WHEREAS,
the Company desires to obtain from LGA, and LGA desires to provide, certain management, consulting and financial planning services on an ongoing basis and certain financial
advisory and investment banking services in connection with major financial transactions that may be undertaken from time to time in the future;

NOW,
THEREFORE; in consideration of the foregoing and the mutual agreements contained herein, the parties hereto agree as follows:

1.    Retention.



2.    Compensation.



1

---



3.    Term.



4.    Decisions/Authority of Management Advisor.



5.    Indemnification.



2

---



6.    Miscellaneous.



3

---

IN
WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Management Services Agreement as of the date first appearing above.

| |  | GART SPORTS COMPANY, a Delaware corporation                       
| |  | ------------------------------------------------------------------
| |  | By:                                                               
| |  | Name:                                                             
| |  | Title:                                                            
| |  | GART BROS. SPORTING GOODS COMPANY, a
Colorado corporation         
| |  | By:                                                               
| |  | Name:                                                             
| |  | Title:                                                            
| |  | SPORTMART, INC., a Delaware corporation                           
| |  | By:                                                               
| |  | Name:                                                             
| |  | Title:                                                            
| |  | LEONARD GREEN & ASSOCIATES, L.P., a
California limited partnership
| |  | By:                                                               
| |  | Name:                                                             
| |  | Title:                                                            

4

---

QuickLinks
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                           6,722
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                17,669
<PP&E>                                       1,534,986
<DEPRECIATION>                                  69,932
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,529,703
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           44,407
<BONDS>                                        506,129
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                         88
<COMMON>                                           420
<OTHER-SE>                                     737,586
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,529,703
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               171,104
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   90,821
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              16,977
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 65,422
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                  1,183
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    45,260
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.23
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.22


</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 32.1


SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATION





In connection with the report of INUVO, INC. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), I, Richard K. Howe, Chief Executive 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; 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: May 6, 2010
By:
/s/ Richard K. HoweRichard K. Howe,Chief Executive Officer,principal executive officer




A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 24
- 0343 STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee, vs. LILA LYNN LORD,

Defendant and Appellant
.

**ORDER** Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, and good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension of time to and including September 27 , 202 4, within which to prepare, file, and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

August 26 2024

08/26/2024

Case Number: DA 24-0343
#### HENRY W. PASCARELLA ET AL. *v.*COMMISSIONER OF REVENUE SERVICES ET AL.

*Daniel W. Moger, Jr.,*in support of the petition.

*Heather J. Wilson,*assistant attorney general, in opposition.

Decided April 21, 2010

The plaintiffs’ petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 119 Conn. App. 771 (AC 30526), is denied.

VERTEFEUILLE, J., did not participate in the consideration of or decision on this petition.
<PAGE>

Exhibit 10.11.6     Quaker City Bank Change in Control Agreement Renewal and
                    Extension Acknowledgment between Quaker City Bank and Robert
                    C. Teeling dated July 1, 2000.



                                QUAKER CITY BANK
                          CHANGE IN CONTROL AGREEMENT
                      RENEWAL AND EXTENSION ACKNOWLEDGMENT



Name of Participant:              Robert C. Teeling
                    --------------------------------------------------------



The undersigned participant does hereby acknowledge that, at their regularly
scheduled meeting onJune 15, 2000, the Board of Directors of Quaker City Bank
acted to renew and extend the Quaker City Bank Change in Control Agreement with
the undersigned participant to a full twenty-four (24) month term, until June
30, 2002.


Dated this ___1st___ day of ____July____, A.D., ______2000_______.



                                          QUAKER CITY BANK


/s/ Robert C. Teeling                     By:  /s/ Frederic R. McGill
-------------------------                    --------------------------
Participant                               President
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 34 (Tuesday, February 20, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Page 10899]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-4107]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration


Center for Substance Abuse Prevention; Notice of Meeting

    Pursuant to Pub. L. 92-463, notice is hereby given of the meeting 
of the Center for Substance Abuse Prevention (CSAP) Drug Testing 
Advisory Board to be held in March 2001. A portion of the meeting will 
be open and will include a Department of Health and Human Services drug 
testing program update, a Department of Transportation drug testing 
program update, and an update on the draft guidelines for alternative 
specimen testing and on-site testing.
    If anyone needs special accommodations for persons with 
disabilities, please notify the Contact listed below.
    The meeting will also include the review, discussion, and 
evaluation of sensitive National Laboratory Certification Program 
(NLCP) internal operating procedures and program development issues. 
Therefore, a portion of the meeting will be closed to the public as 
determined by the SAMHSA Administrator in accordance with Title 5 
U.S.C. 552b(c)(2), (4), and (6) and 5 U.S.C. App.2, Sec. 10(d).
    A roster of the board members may be obtained from: Mrs. Giselle 
Hersh, Division of Workplace Programs, 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockwall II, 
Suite 815, Rockville, MD 20857, Telephone: (301) 443-6014. The 
transcript for the open session will be available on the following 
website: www.health.org/workplace. Additional information for this 
meeting may be obtained by contacting the individual listed below.

    Committee Name: Center for Substance Abuse Prevention Drug 
Testing Advisory Board.
    Meeting Date: March 6, 2001; 8:30 a.m.-4:30 p.m.; March 7, 2001; 
8:30 a.m.-3:30 p.m.
    Place: Residence Inn Bethesda, 7335 Wisconsin Avenue, Bethesda, 
Maryland 20814.
    Type: Open: March 6, 2001; 8:30 a.m.-Noon; Closed: March 6, 
2001; Noon-4:30 p.m.; Closed: March 7, 2001; 8:30 a.m.-3:30 p.m.
    Contact: Donna M. Bush, Ph.D., Executive Secretary, Telephone: 
(301) 443-6014, and FAX: (301) 443-3031.

    Dated: February 13, 2001.
Toian Vaughn,
Committee Management Officer, Substance Abuse and Mental Health 
Services Administration.
[FR Doc. 01-4107 Filed 2-16-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4162-20-P
<PAGE>


                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.19



TO:      Peter Jarrett

FROM:    Robert J. DePasqua

RE:      Separation Agreement

DATE:    7/12/2000

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

As a vice president and officer of the corporation, in the event that the
Company terminates your employment for any reason other than "cause", you will
be entitled to the separation package outlined below. This correspondence
supersedes all previous correspondence related to this subject.

o    You will be notified in writing that your employment is being terminated.
     An effective date will be identified.

o    You will receive six months salary continuation, from the effective date,
     during which:

     o    You will remain an employee on "inactive" status whereby your benefits
          will continue as usual,
     o    You will no longer be present at the Company,
     o    Your stock options will continue to vest as usual,
     o    You will be provided with Executive Outplacement Services at a cost
          not to exceed $15,000.

o    Your employment with the Company will terminate at the completion of your
     six months of salary continuation. Your last paycheck will include earned,
     unused vacation time in accordance with Company policy.

o    From your date of termination, you will have the option of continuing your
     medical and dental coverage through COBRA for up to 18 months. For the
     first 6 months of COBRA, if you (and your eligible dependents) are
     uninsured, Focal will pay the entire premium cost. Beginning with the
     seventh month, you will be responsible for the entire premium.

o    To receive this separation package, you will be required to sign a document
     that releases Focal from any liability with regard to your employment.
8082 Notice of Inconsistent Treatment or Amended Return OMB No. 1545-0790 Form (Administrative Adjustment Request (AAR)) Expires 2-28-96 (Rev. February 1993)

(For use by partners, S corporation shareholders, REMIC

residual interest holders, and TMPs) Attachment

Department of the Treasury Sequence No. 84 Internal Revenue Service © See separate instructions.

Name(s) shown on return Identifying number

General Information

1 Notice of (check boxes that apply): (a) Inconsistent treatment (b) Amended return (administrative adjustment request (AAR))

2 For TMPs filing on behalf of the pass-through entity—check box if this is a substituted return (see instructions) ©

3 Check applicable box to identify type of pass-through entity: (a) Partnership (b) S corporation (c) REMIC

4 Identifying number of pass-through entity 6 Tax shelter registration number (if applicable) of pass-through entity

5 Name, address, and ZIP code of pass-through entity 7 Internal Revenue Service Center where pass-through entity filed its return

8 Tax year of pass-through entity / / to / /

9 Your tax year / / to / /

Inconsistent or Amended (Administrative Adjustment Request (AAR)) Items

(b) Inconsistency is in,

or amendment (AAR)

is to (check boxes that

apply)

(c) Amount as shown on

Schedule K-1, Schedule

Q, or similar statement, or

your return, whichever

applies (see instructions)

(a) Description of inconsistent or amended

(administrative adjustment request (AAR)) items

(see instructions)

(e) Difference between

(c) and (d) (d) Amount you are reporting

Amount of

item

Treatment

of item

10

11

12

13

Explanations—Enter the Part II item number before each explanation. If more space is needed, continue

your explanations on the back.

For Paperwork Reduction Act Notice, see separate instructions. Form 8082 (Rev. 2-93)

Part III

Part I

Part II

Cat. No. 49975G
Form 8082 (Rev. 2-93) Page2

Explanations (continued)

Part III
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2194 Referred in Senate (RFS)]

103d CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 2194

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

               August 3 (legislative day, July 20), 1994

  Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Governmental 
                                Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
                   For the relief of Merrill Lannen.

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

SECTION 1. RELOCATION EXPENSES FOR MERRILL LANNEN.

    Merrill Lannen of Tampa, Florida, shall be deemed to be an employee 
whose transfer in March 1985 from the United States Postal Service to 
the United States Army Corps of Engineers entitled him to travel, 
transportation, and relocation expenses authorized, at the time of the 
transfer, under subchapter II of chapter 57 of title 5, United States 
Code, for other transferred employees within the meaning of chapter 57 
of such title.

            Passed the House of Representatives August 2, 1994.

            Attest:

                                           DONNALD K. ANDERSON,

                                                                Clerk.
```
#### Daniel CARRERA-VIRULA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 06-73773.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Argued and Submitted Dec. 9, 2010.

Filed Dec. 17, 2010.

*194David B. Landry, Esq., San Diego, CA, for Petitioner.

Ronald E. Lefevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Carol Federighi, Esq., U.S. Department of Justice Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, D.C., Andrew B. Insenga, U.S. Department of Justice Civil Division, Station Washington, D.C., I & AMP;NS, San Diego, CA, for Respondent.

Before: TROTT, WARDLAW, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.

MEMORANDUM *

Daniel Carrera-Virula, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) decision reversing the Immigration Judge’s grant of deferral of removal under the Convention Against Torture. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and we dismiss in part and deny in part the petition for review.

We review the BIA’s legal determinations de novo and its factual findings for *195substantial evidence. *Zheng v. Ashcroft,*332 F.3d 1186, 1193 (9th Cir.2003). The BIA’s decision must be upheld unless the evidence compels a contrary result. *INS v. Elias-Zacarias,*502 U.S. 478, 481 n. 1, 112 S.Ct. 812, 117 L.Ed.2d 38 (1992).

The BIA’s conclusion that Carrera-Virula was not more likely than not to be tortured if removed to Guatemala is supported by substantial evidence, and the BIA applied the correct legal standard. *See Reyes-Reyes v. Ashcroft,*384 F.3d 782, 788 (9th Cir.2004); *Zheng,*332 F.3d at 1194-96. There is no dispute that Carr-era-Virula was tortured before he left Guatemala nearly 30 years ago. Carrera-Virula testified, however, that if he returned to Guatemala he would move to the capital city, where he would “[pjrobably” be safe. Internal relocation is a factor the BIA must consider in determining whether a person will more likely than not be tortured. 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c)(3)(ii).

Carrera-Virula’s due process argument fails because he does not explain how he was prejudiced by the gap in the transcript. *See Tampubolon v. Holder,*610 F.3d 1056, 1063 (9th Cir.2010) (prejudice is required for a due process violation). Further, the BIA found that any defect in the transcript did not materially affect its ability to review the issues on appeal.

Carrera-Virula claims that the BIA’s remand to the Immigration Judge improperly prohibited him from presenting further evidence. We lack jurisdiction over this issue because Carrera-Virula did not raise it before the BIA. *See*8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1); *Brezilien v. Holder,*569 F.3d 403, 412 (9th Cir.2009).

PETITION DENIED IN PART and DISMISSED IN PART.

*

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.