alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
ex-102_06182015espp






Exhibit 10.2
FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE
HORNBECK OFFSHORE SERVICES, INC.
2005 EMPLOYEE STOCK PURCHASE PLAN
This FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE HORNBECK OFFSHORE SERVICES, INC. 2005 EMPLOYEE STOCK PURCHASE PLAN (this "Amendment") is made effective as of the 18th day of  June, 2015, by the Board of Directors (the "Board") of Hornbeck Offshore Services, Inc. (the "Company").
WHEREAS, the Company sponsors the Hornbeck Offshore Services, Inc. 2005 Employee Stock Purchase Plan (the "ESPP");
WHEREAS, pursuant to the "Amendment or Termination" section of the ESPP, the Board may at any time amend the provisions of the ESPP; 
WHEREAS, the Company desires to amend the ESPP to (i) increase the number of shares of common stock that are available for sale under the ESPP and (ii) extend the term of the ESPP to June 18, 2025; and 
WHEREAS, the stockholders of the Company have passed a resolution approving this Amendment; 
NOW, THEREFORE, the Board hereby amends the ESPP as follows:
1.Paragraph (a) under the section titled "Stock" shall be amended to increase the number of shares available for sale under the ESPP by one million five hundred thousand (1,500,000) by replacing the first sentence with the following:
"Subject to adjustment upon changes in capitalization of the Company as provided in Section 19 hereof, the maximum number of shares of the Company’s Common Stock which shall be made available for sale under the Plan shall be two million two hundred thousand (2,200,000) shares." 


2.    The section titled "Term of the Plan" shall be amended to extend the term of the ESPP by amending it to read in its entirety as follows:
"The Plan shall become effective upon the later to occur of its adoption by the Board of Directors or its approval by the stockholders of the Company. It shall continue in effect until June 18, 2025 unless sooner terminated under Section 20 hereof.
3.    Except as set forth herein and as previously amended, the ESPP shall continue in full force and effect.
*     *     *     *     *
**Exhibit 23.1**

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM ANDREPORT ON SCHEDULE**

To the Board of Directorsand Shareholders ofLone Star Technologies, Inc.Dallas, Texas

We consent to theincorporation by reference in Registration Statement Nos. 333-41130 and333-100579 of Lone Star Technologies, Inc. on Form S-3 and RegistrationStatement Nos. 333-64805, 333-38458, 333-46310, 333-46312, 333-106410, and333-119293 on Form S-8 of our reports dated February 26, 2007, relating to theconsolidated financial statements of Lone Star Technologies, Inc., andsubsidiaries (which report expresses an unqualified opinion and includes anexplanatory paragraph relating to the adoption of two new accountingprinciples) and management’s report on the effectiveness of internal controlover financial reporting, appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of LoneStar Technologies, Inc. for the year ended December 31, 2006.

Our audits of the financialstatements referred to in our aforementioned report also included the financialstatement schedule of Lone Star Technologies, Inc., listed in Item 8. Thisfinancial statement schedule is the responsibility of the Company’smanagement.  Our responsibility is to express an opinion based on ouraudits.  In our opinion, such financial statement schedule, whenconsidered in relation to the basic financial statements taken as a whole,presents fairly in all material respects, the information set forth therein.

*DELOITTE& TOUCHE LLP*

Dallas, Texas February 27, 2007

 

----
Exhibit 13.1
 Certification
Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
(Subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code)
   Dated: June 30, 2011
    /s/ Pasquale NatuzziPasquale NatuzziChief Executive OfficerDated: June 30, 2011
    /s/ Vittorio NotarpietroVittorio NotarpietroChief Financial Officer
Exhibit 10.3
 AMENDMENT NO. 5 TO NOTE PURCHASE AGREEMENT
(Series 2008-A)
 Amendment Issuer BTMU
 RECITALS
 Agreement
   SECTION 1. Certain Defined Terms
 SECTION 2. Amendment to Agreement




---



##### 



SECTION 3. Effect of Amendment
 SECTION 4. Effectiveness
   SECTION 5. Counterparts
 SECTION 6. Governing Law
 SECTION 7. Section Headings
 [Signatures Follow]
 2




---



##### 



IN WITNESS WHEREOF
 COFINA FUNDING, LLC,
as the IssuerBy:
    /s/ James M. GrafingName:
    James M. GrafingTitle:
    Chief Financial Officer [Signatures Continue on the Following Page]
 Amendment No. 5 to Series 2008-A NPA
 S-1




---



##### 



VICTORY RECEIVABLES CORPORATION,
as the Conduit PurchaserBy:
    /s/ Frank B. BilottaName:
    Frank B. BilottaTitle:
    PresidentTHE BANK OF TOKYO-MITSUBISHI UFJ,LTD., NEW YORK
BRANCH,
as the Funding AgentBy:
    /s/ Aditya ReddyName:
    Aditya ReddyTitle:
    Managing DirectorTHE BANK OF TOKYO-MITSUBISHI UFJ,LTD., NEW YORK
BRANCH,
as a Committed PurchaserBy:
    /s/ Victor PierzchalskiName:
    Victor PierzchalskiTitle:
    Authorized Signatory Amendment No. 5 to Series 2008-A NPA
 S-2
##### 



Exhibit 32
 Certificate pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
  1.
    
    The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and2.
    
    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
 /s/ Steven M. Skow

Steven M. Skow, President and C.E.O.(Principal Executive Officer)/s/ Suzanne Long

Suzanne Long, Senior VP & C.F.O.(Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)
  25
ex101.htm










 


LOAN AGREEMENT







 








	
  

	
THIS AGREEMENT (the "Agreement") dated as of June 11, 2015 is made by and between







 


HCi VioCare, a company incorporated pursuant to the law of the State of Nevada, U. S.A. with company registration number E0214052007-4 and having an office at Kintyre House, 209 Govan Road, Glasgow, Scotland , UK G51 1HJ  (the "Borrower");


 


and


 


SOTIRIOS LEONTARITIS, of 46 Sokratous Street , Paleo Faliro, GR17563 Athens , Greece, (the "Lender")


 


NOW IT IS HEREBY AGREED as follows :


 



	
1.  

	
The Facility







 


The Lender has provide Borrower a loan facility (hereinafter referred to as the "Facility") of a total amount of One Hundred and Fifty Thousand Euros (€150,000) with an annual interest rate of five percent (5%), and the Borrower agrees to repay the Facility within five (5) years from the date of this agreement, that is to say June 11, 2020.


 



	
2.  

	
Purpose







 


The Facility is provided to Borrower by the Lender in order to provide general working capital and to allow the Borrower to effectuate its business plan.


 



	
3.  

	
Prepayment:







 


Borrower has the right to pay back the whole amount of the Facility at any time.


 



	
4.  

	
Default







 


If for any reason the Borrower fails to  repay the  Facility on the due date, Borrower shall be in default.


 



	
5.  

	
Assignation







 


Neither Party shall be entitled to assign the benefit or burden of this Agreement without the prior written consent of the other (such consent not to be unreasonably withheld or delayed) .


 



	
6.  

	
Notices







 


Any notices required to be given pursuant to this  Agreement shall be in writing and shall be hand delivered or sent by certified e-mail (return receipt requested) and by confirming letter sent by first class registered mail (or its equivalent) posted within twenty four (24) hours of the said e-mail to the address (and e-mail address) and for the attention of the relevant Party, as set out below (or otherwise notified) . Any such notice shall be deemed to have been received twenty-four (24) hours after the time of dispatch to the e­ mail in question.






  





1











  








 



	
  

	
The Borrower:












Attention: Nikolaos Kardaras







Kintyre House, 209 Govan Road, Glasgow, Scotland,


UK G51 1HJ


E-mail: legal@viocare.eu


 



	
  

	
The Lender:












Attention: Sotirios Leontaritis







46 Sokratous Street , Paleo Faliro,


GR17563 Athens , Greece


E-mail: leosot@viocare.eu


 


7. Governing Law


 


This Agreement shall be governed by, and is to be construed in accordance with, the laws of the state of Nevada, and the courts of Nevada will have exclusive jurisdiction to deal with any dispute which has arisen or may arise out of or in connection with this Agreement.


 







IN WITNESS WHEREOF the Parties have caused this Agreement to be signed as follows:


 








	
HCi Viocare


a Nevada corporation


 

	  	
Sotirios Leontaritis


	  	  	  
	  	  	  
	  	  	  
	
By: Nikolaos Kardaras

	  	  





 







 











  





2
###### Editorial Note on Part 40

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 40 appear by T.D. ATF-460, 66 FR 39094-39096, July 27, 2001; T.D. ATF-464, 66 FR 43479, Aug. 20, 2001; and T.D. TTB-91, 76 FR 5479, Feb. 1, 2011.

#### § 40.501 Retention of permit and supporting documents.

The manufacturer must retain the permit, together with the copy of the application and supporting documents returned with the permit, at the same place where the records required by this subpart are kept. The permit and supporting documents must be made available for inspection by any appropriate TTB officer upon request.
ANDERSON, Circuit Judge, dissenting: I respectfully disagree with the district c ourt’s, and the majority’s, characterization of the appellants’ motion as one to modify . I agree with appellants that their motion is properly construed as one to enforce the settlement agreement. The agreement specified that the price of appellants’ warrants w ould be adjusted depending upon the price of Coram stock at a specified future date, which turned out to be June 5-- 9, 1995, and June 12-16, 1995 (the measuri ng period). Part and parcel of the settlement agreement was the duty of good faith imposed by Georgia law. Appe llants alleged, and in the posture of this case we must assume their allegations to be true, that defendants at that relevant early June time knew certain facts which meant that the price of Coram stock was grossly

inflated as of the crucial June 5-9 and June 12-16, 1995, measur ing period. Assuming appellants’ allegations to be true, as we must, defendants would have had a duty to disclose such information to the public, and the price of Coram stock would have fallen dramatically during the measuring period, rather than later in August when the information was actually disclosed. More significantly, the settlement agreement as supplemented by the Georgia law duty of good faith required disclosure of such information to the appellants; and the duty of good faith was breached by defendants when they concealed su ch information for the purpose of artificially inflating the price of the stock during the measuring period. In other words, the defendants breached the settlement agreement as written , including the duty of good faith which was part andparcel thereof. Respectfully, I disagree with the conclusion of the district court, and the majority, that appellants sought to modifythe settlement agreement, rather than to

enforce same. Having established that appellants’ effort is to enforcethe settlement agreement, I conclude that the district court had jurisdic tion. The district court expressly retained “continuing jurisdiction over ... (e) all parties he reto ... [for] the purpose of enforcing” the settlement agreement. District Court’ s May 19, 1995, Final Judgment and Order of Dismissal at 8, ¶ 12. In Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of America , 114 S.Ct. 1673, 1677 (1994), the Supreme Court held on the facts there that a district court did not have jurisdiction to enforce a settlement agreement. However, the Supreme Court expressly recognized that the district court would have had jurisdiction if it had retained jurisdiction to enforce the agreement: The situation would be quite different if the parties’ obligation to comply with the terms of the settlement agreem ent had been made part of the order of dismissal – either by separate provision (such as a provision “retaining jurisdiction over the settlement agreement) .... In that event, a breach of the agreement would be a violation of th e order, and ancillary jurisdiction to enforce the agreement w ould therefore exist.

Id. at 1677. Accordingly, I dissent.
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

DAY ELEV

 123.08

 122.81

 122.57

 122.61

 122.59

 123.98

 123.35

 122.44

 122.07

 122.50

 124.30

 124.04

 123.39

 124.01

 124.53

 124.43

 123.27

 123.05

 123.51

 123.61

 123.10

 123.30

 122.60

 122.69

 123.27

 122.59

 123.57

 123.20

 7,829

 7,706

 7,598

 7,616

 7,607

 8,252

 7,956

 7,539

 7,373

 7,566

 8,411

 8,281

 7,974

 8,266

 8,526

 8,476

 7,918

 7,815

 8,031

 8,078

 7,838

 7,932

 7,611

 7,652

 7,918

 7,607

 8,059

 7,885

STORAGE

-404

-123

-108

+18

-9

+645

-296

-417

-166

+193

+845

-130

-307

+292

+260

-50

-558

-103

+216

+47

-240

+94

-321

+41

+266

-311

+452

-174

CHANGE

2,688

2,805

2,815

2,878

2,869

3,157

2,708

2,637

2,763

2,943

3,274

2,776

2,696

3,026

3,025

2,741

2,076

2,232

2,392

2,514

2,717

2,924

2,719

2,922

3,031

2,721

3,136

2,912

INFLOW

 2,088

 2,521

 2,528

 2,529

 2,527

 2,480

 2,504

 2,503

 2,504

 2,505

 2,504

 2,503

 2,505

 2,504

 2,504

 2,486

 2,298

 2,224

 2,224

 2,309

 2,421

 2,506

 2,507

 2,525

 2,525

 2,524

 847

 10

POWER

 743

 285

 280

 279

 286

 291

 292

 283

 282

 278

 294

 294

 293

 316

 331

 221

 0

 0

 0

 122

 358

 307

 305

 307

 303

 302

 2,015

 2,944

SPILL

 45

 45

 45

 45

 45

 45

 45

 45

 45

 45

 45

 45

 45

 45

 45

 45

 45

 45

 45

 45

 45

 45

 45

 45

 45

 45

 45

 45

HATCHERY

 1

 1

 1

 1

 1

 1

 1

 1

 1

 3

 0

 0

 1

 1

 1

 1

 1

 2

 1

 1

 1

 1

 1

 1

 1

 0

 1

 1

C.F.S.

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

U.S. BUREAU OF RECLAMATION-CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT-CALIFORNIA

FEBRUARY 2018 LAKE NATOMA DAILY OPERATIONS RUN DATE: March 1, 2018

IN LAKE

EVAP

C.F.S.

COMPUTED*

ACRE-FEET

RELEASE - C.F.S.

TOTALS -348 78,097 64,615 12,011 1,260 28

ACRE-FEET -348 154,905 128,164 23,824 2,499 56

COMMENTS:

* COMPUTED INFLOW IS THE SUM OF CHANGE IN STORAGE, RELEASES AND EVAPORATION.

SUMMARY

RELEASES (ACRE-FEET)

POWER 128,164

SPILL 23,824

FOLSOM SOUTH CANAL

HATCHERY

 714

 2,499

 8,233

FOLSOM

SOUTH 

 15

 15

 15

 15

 15

 15

 15

 15

 15

 15

 5

 0

 7

 13

 13

 13

 13

 13

 13

 13

 13

 18

 23

 23

 23

 7

 0

 0

 360

 714

(1)

(1) INCHES OF EVAPORATION TAKEN FROM FOLSOM PAN.

RELEASES (ACRE-FEET) 

TOTAL 155,201
List of Attendees via Phone/In Person

Criteria for a Recommended Standard: Occupational Exposure to Heat and Hot 

Environments: Revised Criteria

CDC/NIOSH Robert A. Taft Laboratories

4676 Columbia Parkway, 1st Floor, Auditorium

Cincinnati, OH

February 13, 2014

Name Affiliation Presenter

1. Margaret Wan EOH Consulting

2. Judith Eisenberg CDC/NIOSH

3. W. Jon Williams CDC/NIOSH

4. Tom Bernard University of South Florida

5. Kristin Musolin CDC/NIOSH

6. Todd Niemeier CDC/NIOSH

7. T. J. Lentz CDC/NIOSH

8. Shannon Berg CDC/NIOSH

9. John Muller US Navy (Department of Defense)

10. Naomi Hudson CDC/NIOSH

11. Patrick Mazza Southwest Airlines

12. Rebecca Guerin CDC/NIOSH

13. Rachel Ullah CDC/NIOSH

14. Rosemary Sokas Georgetown University

15. Brenda Jacklitsch CDC/NIOSH Presenter

16. Stephanie Pendergrass CDC/NIOSH

17. Paul Schulte CDC/NIOSH

18. Kathleen MacMahon CDC/NIOSH

19. Lauralynn McKernan CDC/NIOSH
#### § 31.83 Ball park, race track, etc.; sales throughout the premises.

The proprietor of a ball park, race track, stadium, pavilion, or other similar enclosure constituting one premises, who engages in the business of selling liquors throughout that enclosure, including sales from baskets or containers by employees on the proprietor's behalf, is required to register only once for the entire enclosure. Each concessionaire having the same privilege throughout the enclosure, whether the privilege is exercised separately or simultaneously with the proprietor or another concessionaire, is required to register only once for the entire enclosure.
#### Josephine Burrieci, as Administratrix, etc., of Joseph Burrieci, Deceased, Respondent, v. Pelham Operating Company and Another, Impleaded with Golliek & Smith, Appellant.

Judgment and order affirmed, with costs. No opinion. Present — Ingraham, P.' J., McLaughlin, Clarke, Dowling and Hotchkiss, JJ.
January 22, 2015

JUDGMENT

The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

IN RE A PURPORTED LIEN OR CLAIM AGAINST TU NGUYEN

NO. 14-14-00021-CV

________________________________

This cause, an appeal from an order denying appellant Tu Nguyen’s Motion 

for Judicial Review of Documentation or Instruments Purporting to Create a Lien 

or Claim, signed January 3, 2014, was heard on the transcript of the record. We 

have inspected the record and find no error in the trial court’s order. We AFFIRM

the trial court’s order.

We order appellant, Tu Nguyen to pay all costs incurred in this appeal. We 

further order this decision certified below for observance.
EXHIBIT
32.2





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


AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906


OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT
OF 2002








In
connection with the Annual Report of Imaging Diagnostic Systems, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2008, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report"), I,
Allan L. Schwartz, 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, to the best of my knowledge and belief:





(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 result of operations of the Company.








/s/ Allan L.
Schwartz


Allan L.
Schwartz


Executive
Vice President and


Chief
Financial Officer


September
12, 2008
#### Seymour Finn, as Administrator of the Estate of Dora Finn, Deceased, Appellant, v. Bertha Burger et al., Respondents, et al., Defendants.

Action to foreclose a mortgage on certain real property. Plaintiff moved to confirm the report of an official referee fixing the amount of a deficiency judgment. The report was modified so as to fix the deficiency at the sum of $500, and directed the entry of a judgment therefor. From the order modifying and affirming the report, and from the judgment entered pursuant thereto, the plaintiff appeals. Order and judgment unanimously affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements. No opinion. Present — Carswell, Acting P. J., Johnston, Adel, Sneed and Wenzel, JJ.
[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 67 (Thursday, April 7, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 19354]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-8257]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER11-3213-000]


XO Energy MA, LP; Supplemental Notice that Initial Market-Based 
Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204 Authorization

    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of 
XO Energy MA, LP's application for market-based rate authority, with an 
accompanying rate tariff, noting that such application includes a 
request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future 
issuances of securities and assumptions of liability.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the 
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., 
Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the 
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 
385.214). Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a 
copy of that document on the Applicant.
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with 
regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18 
CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of 
liability, is April 19, 2011.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and 
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet 
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an 
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the 
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the 
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 
14 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above-referenced proceeding are accessible in 
the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in 
the above list. They are also available for review in the Commission's 
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link 
on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail notification 
when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with 
any FERC Online service, please e-mail <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#94d2d1c6d7dbfaf8fdfaf1c7e1e4e4fbe6e0d4f2f1e6f7baf3fbe2"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="d5939087969abbb9bcbbb086a0a5a5baa7a195b3b0a7b6fbb2baa3">[email protected]</span></a> or 
call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

    Dated: March 30, 2011.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-8257 Filed 4-6-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>