alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Amendment to Restricted Stock Agreement



 Exhibit 10.2 
 MOTIVE, INC. 
 AMENDMENT TO RESTRICTED STOCK AGREEMENT 
 WHEREAS, Motive, Inc. (the “Company”) and Alfred Mockett (the “Grantee”) entered into a Restricted Stock
Agreement dated February 20, 2006 (the “Agreement”); and 
 WHEREAS, Section 17 of the Agreement provides
for its amendment by written agreement of the Company and the Grantee; and 
 WHEREAS, the Company and the Grantee wish to amend the
Agreement to clarify the application of the Motive, Inc. Amended and Restated Equity Incentive Plan, as amended (the “Plan”), to the Agreement; 
 NOW, THEREFORE, Section 1 of the Agreement is hereby amended by restating the second sentence thereof in its entirety to read as follows: 
 “However, this Award shall nonetheless be subject to the terms, conditions and provisions of the Plan, except to the extent that the provisions of
this Agreement are inconsistent therewith, in which case the provisions of this Agreement shall govern.” 
 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the
Company and the Grantee have caused this Amendment to be executed the 16 day of June, 2008. 
  

			
	 MOTIVE, INC.

		
	By:	 	 /s/ Jack Greenberg

		 	Jack Greenberg
		 	General Counsel
	
	 GRANTEE

	
	 /s/ Alfred Mockett

	Alfred Mockett
EX-10.1






EXHIBIT 10.1




SIXTH AMENDMENT TO THE

COMMUNITY HEALTH SYSTEMS, INC. 401(K) PLAN




     WHEREAS, CHS/Community Health Systems, Inc. (the “Company”) has previously established and
currently maintains the Community Health Systems, Inc. 401(k) Plan (the “Plan”); and



     WHEREAS, the Company has retained the right to amend the Plan in Section 8.1 of the Plan; and



     WHEREAS, the Company’s parent corporation, Community Health Systems, Inc. (“CHS”), has
entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger by and among CHS, Triad Hospitals, Inc. (“Triad”),
and FWCT-1 Acquisition Corporation, dated as of March 19, 2007 (the “Merger Agreement”), under
which a wholly-owned subsidiary of CHS will be merged with and into Triad, and Triad will become a
wholly-owned subsidiary of CHS (the “Merger”); and



     WHEREAS, the Company desires to amend the Plan in connection with the Merger Agreement to
revise the definition of Compensation under the Plan and Exhibit A to the Plan relating to
eligibility.



     NOW, THEREFORE, the Plan is hereby amended in the following respects, effective as of the
times set forth herein:



     1. The following shall be added as the last sentence of Section 1.10 of the Plan,
“Compensation,” effective immediately prior to the Effective Time (as defined in the Merger
Agreement) of the Merger:




     Notwithstanding the foregoing, Compensation shall not include wages, salaries,
and fees for professional services and other amounts received (without regard to
whether or not an amount is paid in cash) for personal services actually rendered
in the course of employment with Triad Hospitals, Inc. or any of its subsidiaries.



     2. Exhibit A of the Plan is hereby deleted and replaced in its entirety in substantially the
same form as set forth in the Exhibit attached hereto, effective immediately prior to the
Effective Time.



     3. Except as otherwise provided in this Sixth Amendment, the Plan shall remain in full force
and effect.



     4. This amendment is subject to the closing of the transaction contemplated by the Merger
Agreement.

















 





     SIGNED
this 24th day of July, 2007, effective as of the times set forth herein.



	 	 	 	 	 
	 	CHS/COMMUNITY HEALTH SYSTEMS, INC.

 	 
	 	By:  	/s/
Linda Parsons
 	 
	 	 	Title:    Vice President
|   | 1. | Lexicon’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2010, and to which this Certification is attached as Exhibit 32.1 (the “Periodic Report”), fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and |
|--------|----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | 2. | The information contained in the Periodic Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Lexicon. |
|--------|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| By:    | /s/ Arthur T. Sands                   |
|--------|---------------------------------------|
|   | Arthur T. Sands, M.D., Ph.D.          |
|   | President and Chief Executive Officer |

| By:    | /s/ James F. Tessmer                   |
|--------|----------------------------------------|
|   | James F. Tessmer                       |
|   | Vice President, Finance and Accounting |
SUPREME COURT 

Of 

NEVADA 

(0) 1947A 

'NeMan-- 

Parraguirr 

2 

LANALSIKOV LOWE, 

Petitioner, 

vs. 

THE EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT 

COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA, 

IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF 

CLARK; AND CLARK COUNTY 

PUBLIC DEFENDER, 

Respondents, 

and 

THE STATE OF NEVADA, 

Real Party in Interest. 

No. 63096 

ORDER DENYING PETITIONS 

Docket Nos. 63107, 63108, and 63109 are proper person 

petitions for a writ of mandamus or, in the alternative, prohibition. 

Docket No. 63096 is a proper person petition for a writ of habeas corpus. 

Petitioner requests that the charges pending against him be dismissed 

with prejudice and that various attorneys and the district court judge be 

charged with crimes and/or suspended from the practice of law. We have 

reviewed the documents submitted in this matter, and without deciding 

upon the merits of any claims raised therein, we decline to exercise 

original jurisdiction in these matters. NRS 34.160; NRS 34.170; NRS 

34.320; NRS 34.330; NRS 34.360; NRS 34.370; NRS 34.700; NRS 34.710. 

Accordingly, we 

ORDER the petitions DENIED. 

Hardesty 

J. 
SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 

(0) 1947A 

,),1) 

cc: Lanalsikov Lowe 

Attorney General/Carson City 

Clark County District Attorney 

Clark County Public Defender 

Eighth District Court Clerk 

3
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

 ** The panel unanimously concluded that this case was suitable for

decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

RONALD WESLEY CHURCH,

 Petitioner - Appellant,

 v.

STATE OF ARIZONA and CHARLES L.

RYAN, Director, Arizona Department of

Corrections,

 Respondents - Appellees.

No. 11-17374

D.C. No. 2:08-cv-01563-DGC

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Arizona

David G. Campbell, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted January 15, 2013** 

San Francisco, California

Before: WALLACE, FARRIS, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.

Ronald Wesley Church appeals from the district court’s order denying his 28

U.S.C. § 2254 habeas corpus petition. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1291

FILED

JAN 22 2013

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2

and 2253(a). We affirm.

We conclude that there is insufficient evidence to find that Church’s counsel

performed deficiently. Even if Church’s counsel had performed deficiently in failing

to adequately inform the state trial court as to Church’s conditional competency and

judicially mandated requirement to take competency-restoring medication, however,

Church has failed to show prejudice because the state trial judge engaged in an

extended colloquy with Church to evaluate Church’s competency on the day of trial,

which questioning confirmed to the trial judge that Church was competent. Given the

trial court’s first-hand evaluation of Church on the day of trial, we conclude that there

is no reasonable probability that if Church’s counsel had presented complete

information to the trial court as to his conditional competency and asked for a

continuance on that basis that the trial court would have granted such a continuance.

We thus conclude that the last reasoned Arizona state court decision denying Church

post-conviction relief was not contrary to, or an unreasonable application of, clearly

established United States Supreme Court precedent. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d); see also

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687, 694–96 (1984). 

AFFIRMED.
<TABLE> <S> <C>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from
first quarter 10-QSB for the fiscal year ending August 31, 1996 and is
qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0000835412
<NAME> TMS, INC.
       
<S>                             <C>                     
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS                   
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>               AUG-31-1996             
<PERIOD-END>                    NOV-30-1995             
<CASH>                              140,915                 
<SECURITIES>                              0                 
<RECEIVABLES>                     1,027,431              
<ALLOWANCES>                         65,370              
<INVENTORY>                               0              
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                  1,475,245              
<PP&E>                            2,034,552              
<DEPRECIATION>                      621,603              
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                    3,301,280              
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>               508,862              
<BONDS>                                   0              
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                     0              
<PREFERRED>                               0              
<COMMON>                            423,926              
<OTHER-SE>                        1,996,965              
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>      3,301,280              
<SALES>                           1,300,309               
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                  1,300,309               
<CGS>                               555,652               
<TOTAL-COSTS>                       555,652                 
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                    608,976                         
<LOSS-PROVISION>                     24,880               
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                    9,888               
<INCOME-PRETAX>                     153,990               
<INCOME-TAX>                              0               
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                 153,990               
<DISCONTINUED>                            0               
<EXTRAORDINARY>                           0               
<CHANGES>                                 0               
<NET-INCOME>                        153,990               
<EPS-PRIMARY>                           .02               
<EPS-DILUTED>                           .02               
        

</TABLE>
**Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 29 March 2012 —
Safilo

(Case C 529/10)**

Article 104(3), first subparagraph, of the Rules of Procedure — Direct taxation — Conclusion of proceedings pending before the court giving judgment at final instance in tax matters — Abuse of rights — Article 4(3) TEU — Freedoms guaranteed by the Treaty — Principle of non‐discrimination — State aid — Obligation to ensure the effective application of European Union law

Member States — Obligations — Duty to cooperate in good faith — Putting the law of the Union into effect — Principle of the prohibition of abuse of rights — Free movement of capital — Principle of non-discrimination — Rules on State aid — Direct taxation in the Member States (Art. 4(3) TEU; Arts 63 TFEU and 107(1) TFEU) (see paras 23, 25, 26, 28-33 and operative
part.)

**Re:**

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Reference for a preliminary ruling — Corte Suprema di Cassazione — Corporation tax — National legislation providing for a rate of tax on company dividends differing according to the situation of the company seat — Commercial transaction involving companies resident in Italy and companies resident elsewhere — Decision by the authorities to treat as applicable the tax due in the case of the companies resident outside Italy — Meaning of abuse of rights, as defined in Case C‐255/02 | Halifax and Others — | Whether applicable to unharmonised domestic taxes such as direct taxes. |

**Operative part**

The law of the Union, in particular: the principle of the prohibition of abuse of rights, Article 4(3) TEU, the freedoms guaranteed
by the FEU Treaty, the principle of non‐discrimination, the rules on State aid and the obligation to ensure the effective
application of the law of the Union, must be interpreted as not precluding the application, in a case such as that in the
main proceedings relating to direct taxation, of a provision of national law providing for proceedings pending before the
court giving judgment at final instance in tax matters to be concluded, on payment of a sum equivalent to 5% of the value
of the claim, when those proceedings arise from an application made at first instance more than 10 years before the date on
which that provision entered into force and when the tax authorities have been unsuccessful at first and second instance.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     Consolidated statements of operations found on pages F-2 to F-6 of the
     Company's Form 10-KSB for the fiscal year 1999 and is qualified in its
     entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                                          0000913034
<NAME>                                         TOWER TECH, INC.
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000
<CURRENCY>                                     U.S. Dollars

<S>                                           <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                  YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              NOV-30-1999
<PERIOD-START>                                 DEC-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                   NOV-30-1999
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                1
<CASH>                                         251,895
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  2,794,116
<ALLOWANCES>                                   1,075,000
<INVENTORY>                                    7,447,926
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               12,420,036
<PP&E>                                         18,506,712
<DEPRECIATION>                                 1,239,047
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 32,463,302
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          27,043,232
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       3,577
<OTHER-SE>                                     (2,544,719)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   32,463,302
<SALES>                                        13,975,235
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               13,975,235
<CGS>                                          16,429,004
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  23,232,516
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               6,803,512
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             (2,088,917)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (4,653,849)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (2,330,636)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (6,984,485)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (6,984,485)
<EPS-BASIC>                                    (1.95)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (1.95)



</TABLE>
#### § 312.10 Official mark for maintaining the identity and integrity of samples.

The official mark for use in sealing containers of samples submitted under any requirements in this subchapter and section 202 of the Federal Meat Inspection Act shall bear the designation “Sample Seal” accompanied by the official USDA logo as shown below. Any seal approved by the Administrator for applying such mark shall be deemed an official device for purposes of the Act. Such device shall be supplied to inspectors, compliance officers, and other designated Agency officials by the United States Department of Agriculture.

[![](https://img.federalregister.gov/EC11SE91.011/EC11SE91.011_large.png)](https://img.federalregister.gov/EC11SE91.011/EC11SE91.011_original_size.png)

[[52 FR 41958](https://www.federalregister.gov/citation/52-FR-41958), Nov. 2, 1987]
### SUBCHAPTER IV—EQUAL CREDIT OPPORTUNITY
### SUBCHAPTER II—AGENCY ACTIVITIES
#### § 2.54 Lost tags.

Each dealer or exhibitor shall be held accountable for all official tags acquired. In the event an official tag is lost from a dog or cat while in the possession of a dealer or exhibitor, the dealer or exhibitor shall make a diligent effort to locate and reapply the tag to the proper animal. If the lost tag is not located, the dealer or exhibitor shall affix another official tag to the animal in the manner prescribed in § 2.50, and record the tag number on the official records.
LAW OFFICE OF JOHN MIET'US, LLC 

6701 Di--_mociiAc)' QOULrvAiiL), Sl.11"1 -L 300 

[3ci-i-iFSDn, MD 20817-7500 

JOHN R.. MIETLIS, jR. 

(202) 747-5212 

john a mictuSlaw.com 

March 13, 2015 

BY ELECTRONIC MAIL 

Mr. Brett Kruger 

Mr. Robert Finamore 

Office of International Aviation 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE 

Washington DC 20590 

Re: Docket OST-2015-0~~  Joint Application of Aeromexico and Delta 

Dear Messrs. Kruger and Finamore: 

The Joint Applicants have completed their poll of the U.S. carriers served on 

Mai•ch 12, 2015 with the above-captioned application. There were no objections. 

The Joint Applicants would appreciate expedited Department action on its 

application. 

Respectfully submitte 

John R. Mietu , Jr. 

Counsel for Aeromexico
STAKEHOLDER ANNOUNCEMENT

USDA to Host Series of Webinars on Two New Inflation Reduction Act Programs 

to Advance Clean Energy Initiatives in Rural America

WASHINGTON, May 18, 2023 – U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Under Secretary of Rural 

Development Xochitl Torres Small today announced that USDA will host a series of webinars on two new 

Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) programs. The Powering Affordable Clean Energy (PACE) and Empowering 

Rural America (New ERA) programs are brand new initiatives that will expand clean, affordable, and reliable

energy in rural communities (including U.S. territories and Compact of Freely Associated States).

USDA’s Rural Utilities Service (RUS) is launching these two programs under the IRA by making nearly $11

billion in budget authority available in loans, grants, loan modifications, and partially forgivable loans. This will 

help electrify rural America with clean, affordable, reliable energy and enhance the quality of life in rural 

communities.

USDA staff will hold the webinars via Zoom at the following dates and times:

• RUS update on IRA funding:

May 17, 2:30 p.m. ET

Register for May 17: https://www.zoomgov.com/webinar/register/WN_Da7n930ESYW74IPME2qrSA

• Overview of funding available through IRA: 

May 22, 24, 31 and June 1, 2:30 p.m. ET (lasts approx. 1.5 hours)

Register for May 22: https://www.zoomgov.com/webinar/register/WN_OdcOvDRORQqIiAzcyaPgWw

Register for May 24: https://www.zoomgov.com/webinar/register/WN_qQ8s02EIRKSAJDGLSOtpjw

Register for May 31: https://www.zoomgov.com/webinar/register/WN_leLcZthuRnG_0LG16xI2wQ

Register for June 1: https://www.zoomgov.com/webinar/register/WN_uGwKsmshShm5puwOT8xtMw

Additional webinars will be scheduled and announced soon.

The Biden-Harris Administration championed the Inflation Reduction Act to help provide new funding and 

unprecedented incentives to expand clean energy, transform rural power production, create jobs, and spur new 

opportunities for the people of rural America. It is the largest single investment in rural electrification since the 

Rural Electrification Act of 1936.

For more information about the Inflation Reduction Act, visit https://www.rd.usda.gov/inflation-reduction-act. 

If you would like to subscribe to USDA Rural Development updates, visit GovDelivery subscriber page.

###

USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer and lender.
**Exhibit 10.15**

 

**SECOND AMENDMENT to LEASE**

 

THIS SECOND AMENDMENT made this28 day of April, 2003, between PROPERTY RESERVE, INC., as Landlord, and DIGITALRIVER, INC., a Delaware corporation, as Tenant.

 

W I T N E S S E T H

 

WHEREAS, by the Lease Agreementdated January 18, 2000, Landlord leased to Tenant the premises locatedat Technology Park I, 9600 West 76th Street, Eden Prairie,MN, as more particularly described in the Lease, herein called the LeasedPremises; and

 

WHEREAS, Landlord and Tenanthave terminated the First Amendment effective July 31, 2003; and

 

WHEREAS, Landlord and Tenantdesire to amend the Lease as provided below.

 

NOW THEREFORE, Landlord andTenant agree as follows:

 

1.                                       CommencingAugust 1, 2003 and continuing through September 30, 2005, Tenant shall pay thefollowing monthly Base Rent for Tenant’s Existing 51,403 square foot Premises:

 
|                                        |   | **Monthly Base Rent** |       |
|---------------------------------------------|--------|-----------------------|------------|
|                                        |   |                  |       |
| August 1, 2003 – December 31, 2003     |   | $                     | 21,118.07  |   |
| January 1, 2004 – August 31, 2004      |   | $                     | 21,760.60  |   |
| September 1, 2004 – September 30, 2005 |   | $                     | 22, 403.14 |   |

 

2.                                       Tenantshall pay its pro rata share of Operating Expenses.

 

3.                                       Exceptas modified herein, all other terms and conditions of the original lease datedJanuary 18, 2000, shall remain in full force and effect.

 

Except as hereinabove amended,this Lease shall remain in full force and effect in accordance with its terms.

 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Landlordand Tenant respectively have duly signed and sealed these presents as of theday and year first above written.

 
| LANDLORD:               | TENANT:                    |
|-------------------------|----------------------------|
|                    |                       |
| PROPERTY  RESERVE, INC. | DIGITAL  RIVER, INC.       |
|                    | A DELAWARE  CORPORATION    |
|                    |                       |
| By:                     | /s/ Mark B. Gibbons        |   | By: | /s/ Carter D. Hicks |   |
|                    |                       |   |   | Carter D. Hicks |   |
| Its:                    | Mark B. Gibbons, President |   | Its: | Chief Financial Officer |   |
|                    |                       |   |   |   |   |
| By:                     | 4-28-03                    |   |   |
|                    |                       |   |   |
| Its:                    |                       |   |   |

 

----
#### William Crawford, Respondent, v. Northwestern Realty Company, Appellant, impleaded, etc.

Motion-to dismiss appeal granted, with ten dollars costs.
#### § 201.70 Restriction or limitation of competition between packers and dealers prohibited.

Each packer and dealer engaged in purchasing livestock, in person or through employed buyers, shall conduct his buying operations in competition with, and independently of, other packers and dealers similarly engaged.

[24 FR 3183, Apr. 24, 1959]