alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>
                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.15


                             FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE
                          MANAGEMENT SERVICES AGREEMENT


        THIS FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE MANAGEMENT SERVICES AGREEMENT dated August
12, 2002 is entered into and effective this 1st day of March, 2003 by and
between Luminex Corporation, a Delaware corporation (the "Company") and Thomas
W. Erickson ("Erickson").

        WHEREAS, the Company and Erickson desire to continue the management
services delivered pursuant to the Management Services Agreement dated August
12, 2002 (the "Agreement").

        NOW, THEREFORE, the parties execute this First Amendment to the
Agreement:

        1.      The substantive terms, covenants and agreements shall continue
                for a Term from the effective date hereof through August 31,
                2003.

        2.      Cash compensation shall continue at the same rate for Erickson's
                services hereunder.

        3.      An additional option grant of 85,000 shares of the Company's
                common stock shall be granted pursuant to the terms and
                conditions of the Option Agreement to be executed simultaneously
                herewith, in the form attached hereto as Exhibit A (the "Option
                Agreement"). Notwithstanding the foregoing, the exercise price
                per share shall be equal to the closing sale price on the date
                of grant and vesting shall occur in one sixth increments on the
                last day of each month of March through August, 2003, all as set
                forth in the Option Agreement.

        All other terms of the Agreement shall continue and all capitalized
terms not otherwise defined will have such meaning as set forth in the
Agreement.

        IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this First Amendment is executed by the parties as
of the effective date set forth above.


                                  LUMINEX CORPORATION


                                  By:      /s/ Harriss T. Currie
                                       ---------------------------------------

                                  Title:   Acting Chief Financial Officer
                                        --------------------------------------


                                    /s/ Thomas W. Erickson
                                  --------------------------------------------
                                  Thomas W. Erickson
Editorial Note on Part 570
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part appear at 88 FR 45066, July 14, 2023.

§ 570.265 What FDA will do with a GRAS notice. ( a ) ( 1 ) We will conduct an initial evaluation of your submission to determine whether to file it as a GRAS notice for evaluation of your view that the notified substance is GRAS under the conditions of its intended use.
( 2 ) If we file your submission as a GRAS notice, we will send you a letter that informs you of the date of filing.
( 3 ) If we do not file your submission as a GRAS notice, we will send you a letter that informs you of that fact and provide our reasons for not filing the submission as a GRAS notice.
( 4 ) We will consider any timely amendment that you submit to a filed GRAS notice, to update your GRAS notice or in response to a question from us, before we respond to you by letter in accordance with paragraph (b)(1) of this section, if we deem that doing so is feasible within the timeframes established in paragraph (b) of this section. If we deem that considering your amendment is not feasible within the timeframes established in paragraph (b) of this section or if we have granted your request to cease to evaluate your notice, we will inform you that we are not considering your amendment.
( b ) ( 1 ) Within 180 days of filing, we will respond to you by letter based on our evaluation of your notice. We may extend the 180 day timeframe by 90 days on an as needed basis.
( 2 ) If we extend the timeframe, we will inform you in writing of the extension as soon as practicable but no later than within 180 days of filing.
( 3 ) If you ask us to cease to evaluate your GRAS notice in accordance with § 570.260(b), we will send you a letter informing you of our decision regarding your request.
( c ) If circumstances warrant, we will send you a subsequent letter about the notice.
REVISION A • 09/01/2008REVISION A • 09/01/2008REVISION A • 09/01/2008REVISION A • 09/01/2008REVISION A • 09/01/2008REVISION A • 09/01/2008REVISION A • 09/01/2008REVISION A • 09/01/2008REVISION A • 09/01/2008REVISION A • 09/01/2008REVISION A • 09/01/2008REVISION A • 09/01/2008REVISION A • 09/01/2008REVISION A • 09/01/2008REVISION A • 09/01/2008REVISION A • 09/01/2008REVISION A • 09/01/2008REVISION A • 09/01/2008REVISION A • 09/01/2008REVISION A • 09/01/2008REVISION A • 09/01/2008REVISION A • 09/01/2008REVISION A • 09/01/2008REVISION A • 09/01/2008REVISION A • 09/01/2008REVISION A • 09/01/2008
2/15/201 1 16:2 7 FA X 20249351(1 2 FA A - DM S 001/00 1



### AM D SDPPL TOO ^ IN a

Federa l Aviatio nAdministratio n 60 0 Independenc e Ave . S-W . Wilbu r Wrigh t Buildinf, , Suit e 2W100

U Wasliinjjto nD C 2059 1 Attn : Hearin g Docke t

Clerk , AGC-43 0 Df^-eniber2 , 2U1 1 ^^ ^ fZ D n- i j^TM— \ O" ! ^_ ^ 

## u "f T rsj ) .- O V . ?•" -

V- " •. ' p: ' ••-r ' fV:-£;- ^ rn^^CJpp . •3II:r^^ v '-^:^~ \ —1= ! ' •C O

T o Wlio mf

t Ma y Com-t^rn . £A^ - -^Oli " I ZQ\ Iwuul dlik e t o Ti^qve

M ahearin g o ncas enumbe r 2U10VVP700126 . HiankyOiJ , Chrii i Derala s Presiden t Weslesc o

1480 2 YORB ACOURT . CHINO . C A9171 0 • (909)393-488 0 • FAX(909)393-674 7 WESTESC01@CS.CO M
p.1 

OAR Box 1142 

Prepped by Ollie Stewart 

Document Number: 

22) IV-F-20 

Docket Number: 

A-87-11 

Printed 4/23/2008 10:21:21 AM Sheet 22 of 30 
P.2 

/K-8 Vll 

PUBLIC HEARING 

NPRM Proposing 

Onboard Refueling Emission Standards 

Ann Arbor, Michigan, July 22,1993 

AGENDA 

Opening Statement - Richard Wilson 

Testimony 

American Automobile Manufacturers Association (Richard Klimisch) 

General Motors (Sam Leonard) 

Ford Motor Co. (Kelly Brown) 

Chrysler (Gordon Allardyce) 

Association of Intemational Automobile Manufacturers (Greg Dana) 

LUNCH BREAK 

American Petroleum Institute (Bill O'Keefe) 

Toyota (Ed Brune) 

Natural Resources Defense Council (Deborah Sheiman) 

Society of Independent Gasoline Marketers of America and 

the National Association of Convenience Stores and 

the Petroleum Marketers Association of America 

(Jeffrey Leiter) 

Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (Adrian Lund) 

Recreation Vehicle Industry Association (Edward F. Conway, Jr.) 

Heat Technology, Inc. (Fred Heller) 

G:\RDSD.IO\JMR\OnboanlAgd
Editorial Note on Part 864
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 864 appear at 73 FR 35341, June 23, 2008.

§ 864.2240 Cell and tissue culture supplies and equipment. ( a ) *Identification.* Cell and tissue culture supplies and equipment are devices that are used to examine, propagate, nourish, or grow cells and tissue cultures. These include such articles as slide culture chambers, perfusion and roller apparatus, cell culture suspension systems, and tissue culture flasks, disks, tubes, and roller bottles.
( b ) *Classification.* Class I (general controls). These devices are exempt from the premarket notification procedures in subpart E of part 807 of this chapter subject to the limitations in § 864.9. If the devices are not labeled or otherwise represented as sterile, they are exempt from the current good manufacturing practice requirements of the quality system regulation in part 820 of this chapter, with the exception of § 820.180, with respect to general requirements concerning records, and § 820.198, with respect to complaint files.
[45 FR 60584, Sept. 12, 1980, as amended at 54 FR 25044, June 12, 1989; 66 FR 38789, July 25, 2001]
#### City of Belleville, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Frank Leonard, Defendant-Appellant.

Gen. No. 67-132M. (Abstract of Decision.)

Fifth District.

February 28, 1969.

Sam S. Pessin, of Belleville, for appellant; Kenneth J. Juen, of Belleville, for appellee.

Opinion by

JUSTICE MORAN.

Not to be published in full..
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.2


CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

The Board of Directors
INTERLINQ Software Corporation:

We consent to the incorporation by reference herein of our report dated July 
30, 1998, except for notes 1(q), 3 and 5, which are as of March 8, 1999,
with respect to the balance sheets of Interlinq Software Corporation as of 
June 30, 1998 and 1997, and the related statements of operations, 
shareholders' equity and cash flows for each of the years in the three-year 
period ended June 30, 1998, and the related schedule, which report appears in 
the June 30, 1998 annual report on Form 10-K/A of INTERLINQ Software 
Corporation and to the reference to our firm under the heading "Experts" in 
the Proxy Statement/Prospectus.

/S/KPMG LLP

Seattle, Washington
April 23, 1999
Editorial Note on Part 862
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 862 appear at 73 FR 35341, June 23, 2008.

§ 862.2250 Gas liquid chromatography system for clinical use. ( a ) *Identification.* A gas liquid chromatography system for clinical use is a device intended to separate one or more drugs or compounds from a mixture. Each of the constituents in a vaporized mixture of compounds is separated according to its vapor pressure. The device may include accessories such as columns, gases, column supports, and liquid coating.
( b ) *Classification.* Class I (general controls). The device is exempt from the premarket notification procedures in subpart E of part 807 of this chapter subject to § 862.9.
[52 FR 16122, May 1, 1987, as amended at 65 FR 2309, Jan. 14, 2000]
1The Honorable Charles A. Shaw, United States District Judge for the Eastern

District of Missouri.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 98-2857

___________

Despina Ghement, *

*

Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the 

* Eastern District of Missouri.

Washington University, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellee. *

___________

 Submitted: October 6, 1999

 Filed: October 12, 1999

___________

Before BEAM, LOKEN, and MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Despina Ghement appeals the district court’s1 adverse grant of summary

judgment in her employment discrimination suit against her former employer,

Washington University. After careful de novo review of the record and the parties’

submissions, we conclude the district court correctly granted summary judgment in

Washington University’s favor. Accordingly, we dismiss Washington University’s

motion to strike as moot. See Stewart v. Professional Computer Ctrs., Inc., 148 F.3d
-2-

937, 940 n.3 (8th Cir. 1998) (motion to strike dismissed as moot where challenged

documents and sections of brief were not relied on in considering merits of appeal).

As to Mrs. Ghement’s motion to strike, we find that it lacks merit because the

documents she seeks to strike were in fact before the district court, and her request to

supplement the record is denied because she has offered no reason for the record being

incomplete below. See Rivers-Frison v. Southeast Mo. Community Treatment Ctr.,

133 F.3d 616, 691 n.2 (8th Cir. 1998) (record on appeal consists only of evidence

presented to district court). We also conclude a comprehensive opinion would lack

precedential value. We thus affirm the district court’s ruling without further discussion.

See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
**Exhibit 31.1****CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER****PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**I, James T. Engen, certify that:1.I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K/A of LOUD Technologies Inc.;2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of amaterial fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, inlight of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading withrespect to the period covered by this report;3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial informationincluded in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financialcondition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, theperiods presented in this report;4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in ExchangeAct Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have: (a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or causedsuch disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under oursupervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant,including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by otherswithin those entities, particularly during the period in which this reportis being prepared;  (b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosurecontrols and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions aboutthe effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the endof the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and  (c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting that occurred during theregistrant’s most recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or isreasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal controlover financial reporting; and5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on ourmost recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to theregistrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors:     (a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design oroperation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely toadversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and reportfinancial information; and     (b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employeeswho have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.        Dated:   April 29, 2008 By:  /s/ James T. Engen    James T. Engen    *Chairman, President andChief Executive Officer*
38884.

#### FIDELITY & CASUALTY COMPANY *et al.*v. KING.

Decided July 7, 1961

Rehearing denied July 28, 1961.

*263*Smith, Field, Ring el, Martin & Carr, Charles L. Drew,*for plaintiffs in error.

*J. Sidney Lanier,*contra.

Bell, Judge.

While *Code*§ 114-106 sets forth the premise that settlements are encouraged under the Workmen’s Compensation Act, it goes on to provide that a copy of a settlement agreement shall be filed by the employer with the State Board of Workmen’s Compensation, and “no such settlement shall be binding until approved by the Board.” In the case of *Wiley v. Bituminous Cas. Co.,*76 Ga. App. 862, 863 (3) (47 SE2d 652), this court stated that a settlement agreement, not otherwise identified, filed with and approved by the State Board of Workmen’s Compensation was res judicata under this section, and is as binding on the parties as if the claim had been tried and a final award entered. But the *Wiley*case also announced (at page 870) that such a settlement may be reversed under *Code*§ 114-709 by the board upon its own motion or the application of any party at interest on the grounds of a change in condition. While it may be considered as evidence that the employee returned to work on the day recited, it does not preclude him from showing in his testimony, as he did here, that he had not been able to work since the initial date of the injury. The finding of the director that the employee had been disabled since the date of the injury was supported by competent evidence.

The board here has found that the employee has been totally disabled from the time of the injury; that he has not returned to work; and that he is still unable to work. This conflicts with the recitation on the Final Settlement Receipt form that the employee returned to work on a particular date stated. This conflict in the evidence has been settled by the board as the trior of the facts, and their findings must prevail as they are supported by competent evidence.

Under these circumstances there is no necessity for the employee to show a change in his condition Bince the finding suffi*264ciently supported by evidence is that the employee had the worst possible condition of disability continuously since his accident—namely, a complete inability to work. From this condition there was not, and there need not be found, any change in condition in order to entitle the employee to the continuance of his compensation during disability.

This finding by the board 'has the effect of rejecting the Final Settlement Receipt- filed with the board. Where, as here, the evidence authorized a finding of continuous total disability to work from the time of the injury, *Code*§ 114-709 does not apply and no 'change of condition need be shown. Indeed under the facts as found here no change of condition could have been shown by the employee.

The opinion here makes it unnecessary to consider the other issue's raised by the defendant.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Felton, C. J., and Hall, J., concur.*
#### State of Connecticut *v.*Andrew C. Kydes

*John J. Kelly,*assistant chief prosecuting attorney, for the appellee (state).

*Charles Hanken,*for the appellant (defendant).

Argued October 7

decided October 7, 1969

The motion by the state to dismiss the appeal from the Appellate Division of the Circuit Court is granted.

The appellant filed a motion for reargument which was denied.
Exhibit








GIBRALTAR INDUSTRIES, INC.


2015 EQUITY INCENTIVE PLAN
_______________________________


First Amendment
_______________________________


Effective as of May 7, 2015, Gibraltar Industries, Inc., a Delaware corporation with offices at 3556 Lake Shore Road, Buffalo, New York (the “Company”), adopted an equity based incentive compensation plan known as the Gibraltar Industries, Inc. 2015 Equity Incentive Plan (the “Plan”) for the purpose of carrying into effect its objective to provide its employees and its non-employee directors, consultants and other service providers with equity based incentives to increase their motivation to improve the profitability of the Company.  Capitalized terms used but not otherwise defined in this Amendment shall have the meaning ascribed to such terms by the Plan.
The Plan provides the Company a structure which will allow the Company to issue Options, Performance Shares, Performance Units and Rights which the Company intends to treat as performance based compensation for purposes of Internal Revenue Code Section 162(m).
The terms of Reg. §1.162-27(e)(4)(iv) (as adopted by the Secretary of the Treasury) set forth certain conditions which must be satisfied in order for, Options, Performance Shares, Performance Units and Rights to be treated as performance based compensation under Internal Revenue Code Section 162(m).
The Company desires to amend the Plan to permit Options, Performance Shares, Performance Units and Rights which may be granted under the terms of the Plan to be treated as performance based compensation. 
In connection with the foregoing, the Company hereby adopts the following as the First Amendment to the Gibraltar Industries, Inc. 2015 Equity incentive Plan effective as of May 7, 2015:
1.Section 2.03 of the Plan is hereby amended by: (a) deleting the word “or” as it appears before “(f)” within such Section; (b) adding a semi-colon after the last word “Award” in subclause (f) of such Section and adding a new subclause (g) to such Section to read as follows:
2.

“(g) a Participant will be granted, as equity based incentive compensation for any one calendar year period, Options , Rights, Performance Shares, or Performance Units which would result in the issuance to the Participant of more than Five Hundred Thousand (500,000) Shares or payment to the Participant of cash compensation having a value in excess of Five Hundred Thousand (500,000) Shares.”
3.Except as specifically provided above, the terms of the Plan shall be and remain in full force and effect following the date hereof, without any amendment or modification of the same. 











IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Gibraltar Industries, Inc. has caused this Plan to be executed as of the 5th day of May, 2017.


GIBRALTAR INDUSTRIES, INC.




By:     /s/ Jeffrey J. Watorek                                                                          
Jeffrey J. Watorek
Vice President, Secretary and Treasurer
# C_2018123EN.01002001.xml

| 9.4.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 123/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.4.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 123/20

---

Order of the General Court of 9 February 2018 — Arcofin and Others v Commission

(Case T-711/14) (1)

1

((Action for annulment - State aid - Aid implemented by Belgium in favour of the ARCO Group financial cooperatives - Guarantee scheme protecting the shares of natural persons who are individual members of those cooperatives - Decision declaring the aid incompatible with the internal market - Selective advantage - Measure liable to distort or threaten to distort competition and to affect trade between Member States - Measure intended to remedy a serious disturbance in the economy of a Member State - Legitimate expectations - Action in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly lacking any foundation in law))

(2018/C 123/27)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicants: Arcofin SCRL (Brussels, Belgium), Arcopar SCRL (Brussels), Arcoplus (Brussels) (represented by: R. Martens, A. Verlinden and C. Maczkovics, lawyers)

Applicants:

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: L. Flynn and B. Stromsky, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Application based on Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of Commission Decision 2014/686/EU of 3 July 2014 on State aid SA.33927 (13/C) (ex 11/NN) implemented by Belgium — Guarantee scheme protecting the shares of individual members of financial cooperatives (OJ 2014 L 284, p. 53).

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The action is dismissed as being in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly lacking any foundation in law. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The action is dismissed as being in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly lacking any foundation in law.

| 2. | Arcofin SCRL, Arcopar SCRL and Arcoplus shall pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Arcofin SCRL, Arcopar SCRL and Arcoplus shall pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 409, 17.11.2014.

1

---