alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
First amendment to Plan of Compensation for Outside Directors



 Exhibit 10.19 
 First Amendment to 
 Plan of Compensation for Outside Directors 
 (Amendment adopted on November 8, 2006) 
 The Plan of Compensation for Outside Directors, as adopted on August 8, 2006 (the “Plan”) is amended as follows, effective as of November 8, 2006: 
 1. The provision of the Plan captioned “Number of shares” in the “Annual Compensation” section of the Plan is amended to read as
follows: 
  

			
	Number of shares	  	The option will be for a number of shares equal to the quotient obtained by dividing (i) 3 times the amount of cash compensation to be converted into an option by (ii) the average
closing price of Stericycle stock during the period from the prior year’s annual meeting through the last trading day before the current annual meeting.

 2. The provisions of the Plan captioned “Joining grant” and “Annual grant” in
the “Option Grants to New Director” section of the Plan are amended to read as follows: 
  

			
	Joining grant	  	 A new director will receive two stock options upon joining the Board.
  
 The first option, for joining the Board, will be for a number of shares equal to the quotient
obtained by dividing (i) 6 times the amount of the directors’ current cash compensation ($125,000) by (ii) the average closing price of Stericycle stock during the 12-month period ending on the last trading day before the
director’s election to the Board. The exercise price of the option will be the closing price on the day of the director’s election, and one-fifth of the option shares will vest on each of the first five anniversaries of the director’s
election.

		
	Annual grant	  	 The new director will also receive an option reflecting his annual compensation as a director.
  
 The option will be for a number of shares equal to a pro rata portion of the quotient obtained by
dividing (i) 3 times the amount of the directors’ current cash compensation ($125,000) by (ii) the average closing price of Stericycle stock during the 12-month period ending on the last trading


  








			
		  	 day immediately before the director’s election to the Board. The exercise price of the option will be the closing price on the day of the
director’s election, and the option will vest on the day of the next annual meeting of stockholders.
  
 The pro rata portion means a fraction, the numerator of which is the number of months until the next annual meeting of stockholders and the denominator of which is 12.
#### Loring J. Whiteside *v.*William T. Burlant, Sheriff

*Loring J, Whiteside,*pro se, the appellant (plaintiff).

*George B. Tiernan,*assistant state’s attorney, for the appellee (defendant).

Argued October 4

decided October *4,*1963

The motion by the defendant to dismiss the appeal of the plaintiff from the Superior Court in Fairfield County is denied.
### Kurland, Susan (OST) From: Sent: 

### To: Subject:

Susan: Fredrick Piccolo <fredrick.piccolo@srq-airport.com> Monday, July 23, 2012 12:59 PM Kurland, Susan (OST) RE: Message from Rick Piccolo**"'~,** 

### r"'·' "'

... 

## l / ,, ...J ·<;; •.• )**··~·** _, l -'**~**

Ifully understand the need fortransparency and impartiality and thank you fortaking the time to respond. It is greatly appreciated. All the best. Rick -----Original Message----- From: Susan.Kurland@dot.gov [mailto:Susan.Kurland@dot.gov] Sent: Monday, July 23, 2012 12:55 PM To: Fredrick Piccolo Subject: RE: Message from Rick Piccolo Rick: I received youremail ofJuly 21, regarding Sarasota's application for a grant from the Department's Small Community Air Service Development Program. As I am sure you are 

### aware, I cannot comment on the merits ofany application that is pending before the Department. I can assure you that the Department will give full and fair consideration to all proposals that have been properlyfiled. As is our normal practice, I am placing a copy ofyour email and this response in Docket-OST-2012-0069 as a contact outside the record ofthis matter. I appreciate your interest in the program. Susan -----Original Message----- From: Fredrick Piccolo [mailto:fredrick.piccolo@srg-airport.com] Sent: Saturday, July 21, 2012 4:18 PM To: Kurland, Susan (OST) Subject: Message from Rick Piccolo Susan: Hope all is well and thatyou will make itto the ACI Conference lnCalgary. Ithought Iwould take a momentto remind you ofthe serious challenge SRQ will face injust a few weeks when AirTran leaves and with that takes nearly

### 400,000 seats with them ora third ofour traffic. I believe we have made avery reasonable and quality application underthe SCASD program and we are hoping you and your staffwill agree. SRQ probably had the most successful implementation ofa SCASD grant back in 2005 so I promise you we will not letyou all down. I am hearing that the selections should be made shortly so Ithought Iwould touch base and ask thatyou give us the greatest consideration possible. We will be making our budget decisions with the Board atthe end ofAugust and having the possibility of mitigating this service loss by receiving the grantwould certainly make our budget less difficult and less onerous on ouremployees. 1

### Thank you for any consideration and I hope you have a nice weekend. Best Regards, Rick Sent from my iPad Fredrick

### J. Piccolo

2
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-6784
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. CLEAMON ANDERSON, a/k/a Carmel, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Rebecca Beach Smith, District Judge. (2:94-cr-00163-RBS-11) Submitted: September 16, 2008 Decided: September 22, 2008 Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Cleamon Anderson, Appellant Pro Se. Laura Pellatiro Tayman, Assistant United States Attorney, Newport News, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Cleamon Anderson appeals the district court’s order denying his motion to reduce his sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C.A. § 3582(c)(2) (West 2000 & Supp. 2008). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. United States v. Anderson , No. 2:94-cr-00163-RBS-11 (E.D. Va. Apr. 17, 2008). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 152 / Monday, August 10, 2009 / Notices 39943 

[FR Doc. E9–18963 Filed 8–7–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 5001–06–C 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 

Office of the Secretary 

[Transmittal Nos. 09–14] 

36(b)(1) Arms Sales Notification 

AGENCY: Department of Defense, Defense 

Security Cooperation Agency. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: The Department of Defense is 

publishing the unclassified text of a 

section 36(b)(1) arms sales notification. 

This is published to fulfill the 

requirements of section 155 of Public 

Law 104–164 dated 21 July 1996. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. 

B. English, DSCA/DBO/CFM, (703) 601– 

3740. 

The following is a copy of a letter to 

the Speaker of the House of 

Representatives, Transmittals 09–14 

with attached transmittal, and policy 

justification. 

Dated: July 30, 2009. 

Patricia L. Toppings, 

OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, 

Department of Defense. 

BILLING CODE 5001–06–M 


rmajette on DSK29S0YB1PROD with NOTICESEN10AU09.010</GPH>
39944 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 152 / Monday, August 10, 2009 / Notices 


rmajette on DSK29S0YB1PROD with NOTICESEN10AU09.013</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 152 / Monday, August 10, 2009 / Notices 39945 


rmajette on DSK29S0YB1PROD with NOTICESEN10AU09.014</GPH>
39946 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 152 / Monday, August 10, 2009 / Notices 

[FR Doc. E9–18966 Filed 8–7–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 5001–06–C 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 

Office of the Secretary 

[Transmittal Nos. 09–24] 

36(b)(1) Arms Sales Notification 

AGENCY: Department of Defense, Defense 

Security Cooperation Agency. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: The Department of Defense is 

publishing the unclassified text of a 

section 36(b)(1) arms sales notification. 

This is published to fulfill the 

requirements of section 155 of Public 

Law 104–164 dated 21 July 1996. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. 

B. English, DSCA/DBO/CFM, (703) 601– 

3740. 

The following is a copy of a letter to 

the Speaker of the House of 

Representatives, Transmittals 09–24 

with attached transmittal and policy 

justification. 

Dated: July 28, 2009. 

Patricia L. Toppings, 

OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, 

Department of Defense. 

BILLING CODE 5001–06–M 


rmajette on DSK29S0YB1PROD with NOTICESEN10AU09.015</GPH>
Amendment Number 1, dated January 3, 2007



 EXHIBIT 10.11.1 
 Amendment Number 1 to 
 AMENDED AND RESTATED 
 EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT 
 Klaus-Dieter R.
Beck 
 THIS AMENDMENT, is made effective as of January 3, 2007, by and between Foundation Coal Corporation, a Delaware corporation
(the “Company”) and (“Executive”). 
 WHEREAS, the Company and Executive previously entered into an Amended
and Restated Employment Agreement, dated March 13, 2006 (the “Employment Agreement”); and 
 WHEREAS, the
Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors of the Company (“Committee”) has considered the annual bonus percentage of base salary for obtaining target performance contained in the Employment Agreement; and 
 WHEREAS, the Compensation Committee requested a report from its independent compensation consultant regarding the appropriate percentage level of base
salary for obtaining target performance; and 
 WHEREAS, the Compensation Committee has reviewed the information provided by independent
compensation consultant and has determined it would be in the best interest of the Company and its Stockholders to amend the Employment Agreement to revise the percentage level of base salary for obtaining target performance. 
 NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises and mutual covenants herein and for other good and valuable consideration, the parties agree as follows:

 Section 4. Annual Bonus. The Percent of Base Salary is revised for obtaining 100% of Target Performance as shown: 

From: 
  

							
	 Company
 Performance
	  	 Percent of
Base Salary
	  	 Individual
 Performance
	  	 Percent of
Base Salary

	 100% of Target
	  	33.33%	  	Target	  	16.67%

 To: 
  

							
	 Company
 Performance
	  	 Percent of
Base Salary
	  	 Individual
Performance
	  	 Percent of
Base Salary

	 100% of Target
	  	43.5%	  	Target	  	21.5%

  

 1 








 Except as otherwise noted in this Amendment Number 1, all other terms and conditions of the Employment Agreement remain
as originally written. In the event of any inconsistency between the terms of this Amendment Number 1 and the terms of the Employment Agreement, the terms of this Amendment Number 1 shall be controlling. 
 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have duly executed this Agreement as of the day and year first above written. 
  

									
	FOUNDATION COAL CORPORATION	 		 	KLAUS-DIETER R. BECK
					
	  	 	/S/ MICHAEL R. PEELISH	 		 	  	 	/S/ KLAUS-DIETER R. BECK
	 By:
 Title:
	 	 Michael R. Peelish
 SVP Safety and Human
Resources
	 		 		 	

  

 2
QuickLinks
 -- Click here to rapidly navigate through this document

Exhibit 10.5  


 
 

MARATHON OIL CORPORATION 1990 STOCK PLAN
  (As Amended and Restated Effective January 1, 2002)
  
    First Amendment
  
    Effective
February 1, 2007    
    


        WHEREAS, effective January 1, 2002, Marathon Oil Corporation (the "Corporation") adopted an amended and restated version of the Marathon Oil Corporation
1990 Stock Plan (the "Plan"); and 


        WHEREAS,
by action taken on January 28, 2007, the Board of Directors of Marathon Oil Corporation (the "Board") does hereby amend the Plan. 



        NOW,
THEREFORE, the Board, having established the Marathon Oil Corporation 1990 Stock Plan, effective January 1, 2002, and having reserved the right to amend the Plan in
Section 14 thereof, does hereby amend the Plan, effective as of February 1, 2007, by replacing the first paragraph of Section 12 thereof with the following: 




"In
the event of any change in the outstanding common stock of MOC by reason of a stock split, stock dividend, stock combination or reclassification, recapitalization or merger, or similar event, the
Committee shall adjust appropriately the number of Shares available for or covered by Grants and Share prices related to outstanding Grants, and the Committee may make such other revisions to
outstanding Grants as it deems are equitably required." 

















QuickLinks


MARATHON OIL CORPORATION 1990 STOCK PLAN (As Amended and Restated Effective January 1, 2002) First Amendment Effective February 1, 2007
exv10w48



 





Exhibit 10.48




FIRST AMENDMENT

TO

AGREEMENT TO GRANT STOCK




          This First Amendment to Agreement to Grant Stock (“Amendment”) is entered into on May 17, 2006
by and between American Reprographics Company, a Delaware corporation (“ARC”) and Rahul K. Roy
(“Roy”).




          This Amendment is entered into with reference to the following facts:




     A. Roy is the Chief Technology Officer of ARC.



     B. The parties entered into an Agreement to Grant Stock dated as of December 7, 2004
(“Agreement”) relative to an ARC product referred to therein as the SubHub product.



     C. The parties wish to clarify with this Amendment certain provisions of the Agreement
regarding Roy’s duties relative to the SubHub product.



          Now, Therefore, the parties agree as follows:




     1. Section 2(e) of the Agreement is amended in full to read as follows:




     (e) Roy’s rights to the shares granted hereunder shall vest in their entirety, and not
in segments or portions, and shall vest if, and only if,




     (1) During the five (5) years following the date of grant, Roy shall maintain, service
and improve the SubHub product, including the development of software patches, as needed,
and new functions as may be requested from time to time by ARC customers, vendors or
employees and approved by ARC’s Chief Operating Officer; and




     (2) Roy shall continue to be employed by ARC or any of its subsidiaries on the fifth
(5th) anniversary of the date of grant. For purposes of this Agreement, if Roy’s employment
with ARC terminates under any circumstances other than a termination by ARC without Cause or
a termination by Roy for Good Reason, as those terms are defined in and governed by the
Employment Agreement dated on January 7, 2005 between ARC and Roy, or any extension thereof
(“Employment Agreement”), then Roy shall not be deemed so employed.



     2. All capitalized terms in this Amendment are defined in the Agreement.



1









 





     3. In all other respects, the Agreement shall remain in full force and effect without
modification.



     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this First Amendment to Agreement to Grant Stock
as of the date first hereinabove set forth.



	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	AMERICAN REPROGRAPHICS COMPANY,	 	 
	a Delaware corporation	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 
	By:

	 	/s/ Mark Legg
	 	 
	 	/s/ Rahul K. Roy
	 

	 	 
	 	 	 	 
	 

	 	Mark Legg
	 	 	 	Rahul K. Roy
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 
	Title:

	 	CFO	 	 	 	 







2
----

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 30 November 2006 — Heuschen & Schrouff Oriëntal Foods v Commission

(Case T-382/04) (1)

(Customs union - Rice paper from Vietnam - Remission of import duties - Equitable relief - Article 239 of Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 - Error of the customs authority - Definition of manifest negligence - Principle of equal treatment - Principle of sound administration - Principle of proportionality)

(2006/C 331/80)

Language of the case: Dutch

Parties

Applicant: Heuschen & Schrouff Oriëntal Foods Trading BV (Landgraaf, Netherlands) (represented by: H. de Bie, lawyer)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: X. Lewis, Agent, assisted by F. Tuytschaever, lawyer)

Re:

Application for annulment of Commission Decision REM 19/2002 of 17 June 2004 finding the remission of import duties in a particular case to be unjustified

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

----

(1)OJ C 6, 8.1.2005.

----
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 18-1506

ANDREA RENE'E TOOTLE,

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

BEAUX ART INSTITUTE OF PLASTIC SURGERY; DR. NIA BANKS,

 Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. 

James K. Bredar, Chief District Judge. (1:17-cv-01684-JFM)

Submitted: September 20, 2018 Decided: October 4, 2018

Before NIEMEYER, KING, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Andrea Renée Tootle, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Andrea Renée Tootle seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying her Fed. R. 

Civ. P. 60(b) motion to reconsider the dismissal without prejudice of her civil action. We 

dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the notice of appeal was not timely 

filed.

Parties are accorded thirty days after the entry of the district court’s final judgment 

or order to note an appeal, Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A), unless the district court extends the 

appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5), or reopens the appeal period under Fed. R. 

App. P. 4(a)(6). “[T]he timely filing of a notice of appeal in a civil case is a jurisdictional 

requirement.” Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205, 214 (2007).

The district court’s order was entered on the docket on April 2, 2018. The notice 

of appeal was filed on May 3, 2018, one day late. Because Tootle failed to file a timely 

notice of appeal or obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we dismiss the 

appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are 

adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the 

decisional process.

DISMISSED
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 Quarterly Report of Giant Industries, Inc.
("Giant") on Form 10-Q for the quarter ending June 30, 2004, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), I, Mark B. Cox, Chief Financial Officer of Giant, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

     (a) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a)
or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

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


                                 By:     /s/ MARK B. COX
                                    -----------------------------
                                 Name:   Mark B. Cox
                                 Title:  Chief Financial Officer

Date:  August 11, 2004.
p110635c.eng INITIAL REVIEW ENGINEERING REPORT PMN: 11-0635 P11-0636 Focus Ready Draft 10/6/2011 ENGINEER: El-Zoobi \ JAS PV (kg/yr):
SUBMITTER: The Dow Chemical Company

USE:

OTHER USES:

MSDS: Yes Label: No Gen Eqpt: chemical resistant gloves (preferred: butyl rubber, chlorinated polyethylene, polyethylene, ethyl vinyl alcohol laminate / acceptable: neoprene, nitrile/butadiene, polyvinyl chloride, Viton) / chemical goggles / use only with adequate ventilation. Provide general and/or local exhaust ventilation to control airborne levels below the exposure guidelines. Local exhaust ventilation may be necessary for some operations. Respirator: Atmospheric levels should be maintained below the exposure guideline. When atmospheric levels may exceed the exposure guideline, use an approved air-purifying respirator equipped with an organic vapor sorbent and a particle filter. For situations where the atmospheric levels may exceed the level for which an air-purifying respirator is effective, use a positive-pressure air-supplying respirator (air line or self-contained breathing apparatus). For emergency response or for situations where the atmospheric level is unknown, use an approved positive-pressure self-contained breathing apparatus or positive-pressure air line with auxiliary self-contained air supply. The following should be effective types of air-purifying respirators: Organic vapor cartridge with a particulate pre-filter. Health Effects: Causes eye irritation. May cause skin irritation. Animal studies have shown that skin contact with isocyanates may play a role in respiratory sensitization. May cause allergic respiratory reaction. May be harmful if inhaled. May react with water. Elevated temperatures can cause hazardous polymerization.Toxic fumes may be released in fire situations. May cause cancer. TLV/PEL:

CRSS : Chemical Name: Page 1p110635c.eng

Consumer Use: No SAT (concerns) (09/23/2011): Related Cases and Related Cases and Misc SAT Info: Ecotox Related Cases: Migration to groundwater: Negligible PBT rating: P3B1T1 PMN: P1B1T1; Hyd Pdt: P3B1T1 Health: 1-2 Dermal, Inhalation Eco: 1 No releases to Water
OCCUPATIONAL EXPOSURE RATING: 1D
NOTES & KEY ASSUMPTIONS: Generated by the 06/07/2005 version of ChemSTEER.

POLLUTION PREVENTION CONSIDERATIONS:

Page 2p110635c.eng EXPOSURE-BASED REVIEW:

Yes
INITIAL REVIEW ENGINEERING REPORT PMN: 11-0635 P11-0636

Use: Number of Sites/ Location: unknown site(s) Days/yr: Basis:

Process Description:

ENVIRONMENTAL RELEASES ESTIMATE SUMMARY IRER Note: The daily releases listed for any source below may coincide with daily releases from the other sources to the same medium.

OCCUPATIONAL EXPOSURES ESTIMATE SUMMARY Tot. # of workers exposed via assessed routes: Basis:

Inhalation:

Dermal:

Page 3p110635c.eng

Page 4
# C_2015429EN.01002301.xml

| 21.12.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 429/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.12.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 429/23

---

Judgment of the General Court of 28 October 2015 — Monster Energy v OHIM — Home Focus (MoMo Monsters)

(Case T-736/14) (1)

1

((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the Community word mark MoMo Monsters - Earlier Community word marks MONSTER and MONSTER ENERGY and earlier international figurative mark MONSTER ENERGY - Relative ground for refusal - No similarity between the goods - No likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

(2015/C 429/29)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Monster Energy Company (Corona, California, United States) (represented by: P. Brownlow, Solicitor)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: E. Zaera Cuadrado, acting as Agent)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Home Focus Development Ltd (Tortola, British Virgin Islands)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM:

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 7 August 2014 (Case R 1167/2013-2), concerning opposition proceedings between Monster Energy Company and Home Focus Development Ltd.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Monster Energy Company to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Monster Energy Company to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 448, 15.12.2014.

1

---