alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
ex10-10.htm


    
      
         


      

      
         


        
          

        

      

      
         

Exhibit 10.10

    


    AMENDMENT
TO

     

    HELIX
ENERGY SOLUTIONS GROUP, INC.

     

    2005
LONG TERM INCENTIVE PLAN

     

    THIS AGREEMENT by Helix Energy
Solutions Group, Inc.,

    W
I T N E S S E T H:

     

    WHEREAS, the Board of
Directors of Helix Energy Solutions Group, Inc. (the “Board of Directors”)
previously adopted the Helix Energy Solutions Group, Inc. 2005 Long Term
Incentive Plan (the “Plan”);

     

    WHEREAS, the Compensation
Committee of the Board of Directors reserved the right in Section 9.1 to
amend the Plan; and

     

    WHEREAS, the Board of
Directors has determined to amend the Plan to bring the Plan into documentary
compliance with section 409A of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as
amended;

     

    NOW, THEREFORE, the
Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors agrees that effective
January 1, 2009, Article X of the Plan is amended by adding thereto
the following new Section 10.18 at the end thereof:

     

               10.18                      Compliance With Section
409A.  Awards shall be designed, granted and administered in
such a manner that they are either exempt from the application of, or comply
with, the requirements of Section 409A.  Each Award Agreement for
an Award that is intended to comply with the requirements of Section 409A shall
be construed and interpreted in accordance with such intention. If the Committee
determines that an Award, Award Agreement, payment, distribution, deferral
election, transaction, or any other action or arrangement contemplated by the
provisions of the Plan would, if undertaken or implemented, cause a Holder to
become subject to additional taxes under Section 409A, then unless the Committee
specifically provides otherwise, such Award, Award Agreement, payment,
distribution, deferral election, transaction or other action or arrangement
shall not be given effect to the extent it causes such result and the related
provisions of the Plan and/or Award Agreement will be deemed modified, or, if
necessary, suspended in order to comply with the requirements of Section 409A to
the extent determined appropriate by the Committee, in each case without the
consent of or notice to the Holder.  The exercisability of an Option
shall not be extended to the extent that such extension would subject the Holder
to additional taxes under Section 409A. 

     

    


    


    Adopted
by the Compensation Committee

    of
the  Board of Directors

    on
October 28, 2008
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Energy

###### Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

          - [Project No. 233—161]

In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (Commission or FERC) regulations, 18 CFR part 380, Commission staff has reviewed the application for amendment of license for the Pit 3, 4, and 5 Project (FERC No. 233) and has prepared an environmental assessment (EA). The project is located on the Pit River, in Shasta County, California and occupies 746 acres of lands of the United States administered by the Forest Supervisors of the Shasta-Trinity and Lassen National Forests.

The EA contains the Commission staff's analysis of the potential environmental effects of the proposed addition of new generating capacity and construction of a new powerhouse and concludes that authorizing the amendment, with appropriate environmental protective measures would not constitute a major Federal action that would significantly affect the quality of the human environment. On August 27, 2009, the Commission issued the Order Amending License which authorized the construction and operation of the Britton Powerhouse.

                    Copies of the EA are available for review in the Public Reference Room 2-A of the Commission's offices at 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. The EA may also be viewed on the Commission's Internet Web site (                    *http://www.ferc.gov*) using the “eLibrary” link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three digits in the docket number field to access the document. Additional information about the project is available from the Commission's Office of External Affairs, at (202) 502-6088, or on the Commission's Web site using the eLibrary link. For assistance with eLibrary, contact                     *FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov*                     or toll-free at (866) 208-3676; for TTY contact (202) 502-8659.                

Kimberly D. Bose,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. E9-21734 Filed 9-8-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
§ 435.903 Adherence of local agencies to State plan requirements. The agency must— ( a ) Have methods to keep itself currently informed of the adherence of local agencies to the State plan provisions and the agency's procedures for determining eligibility; and
( b ) Take corrective action to ensure their adherence.
[44 FR 17937, Mar. 23, 1979. Redesignated at 59 FR 48809, Sept. 23, 1994]
Exhibit 32.2 CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF
FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO TITLE 18,UNITED STATES CODE, SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED
PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 I, Dennis J. Curtin,  Senior Vice
President - Chief Financial  Officer of E-Z-EM,  Inc. (the Company),
 certify,  pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section
1350, that: 1.
the
Quarterly  Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarter ended February 26, 2005
(the Report) fully complies with             the requirements of Section
13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and  2.
the
information  contained in the Report fairly presents,  in all material respects,  the
financial condition and results of             operations of the Company.  Date: April 12, 2005
                
    /s/ Dennis J. Curtin
      
      
      Dennis J. Curtin, Senior Vice 
      President - Chief Financial Officer  -101-
# C_2005229EN.01000501.xml

| 17.9.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 229/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.9.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 229/5

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Justice (England and Wales) Chancery Division, Patents Court by order of that court of 17 February 2005 in Oakley Inc. v 1) Animal Ltd 2) H. Young Holdings plc 3) H. Young (Operations) Ltd, Intervener: Secretary of State for Industry

(Case C-267/05)

(2005/C 229/10)

Language of the case: English

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by order of the High Court of Justice (England and Wales) Chancery Division, Patents Court of 17 February 2005, received at the Court Registry on 27 June 2005, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings between Oakley Inc. and 1) Animal Ltd 2) H. Young Holdings plc 3) H. Young (Operations) Ltd, Intervener: Secretary of State for Industry, on the following question:

‘With regard to Directive 98/71/EC of the European Parliament and Council of 13 October 1998 on the legal protection of designs (1), could a national measure adopted by a Member State, after the date mentioned in Article 19, to the extent that the said measure purported to exercise the derogation mentioned in Article 11.8 nevertheless be partly valid according to Community law? Or did the opportunity which was available to a Member State to adopt the derogation conferred by Article 11.8 by a national measure permanently and wholly cease to exist after the date mentioned in Article 19?’

1

---

(1)  OJ L 289, 28.10.1998, p. 28

1

---
EXHIBIT 32.1





STATEMENT PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 BY PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER





I, Keith Brackpool, herby certify, to my knowledge, that:





1. the accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Cadiz Inc. for the period ended March 31, 2011 (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and




2. the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Cadiz Inc.





IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this Statement as of the date first written above.





Dated: May 9, 2011











/s/ Keith Brackpool


Keith Brackpool


Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
From: Meg.Garakani@holcim.com

To: Keith Barnett/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA Cc: ruksana.mirza@holcim.com Date: 02/05/2007 05:25 PM Subject: Holcim Mercury Testing

Hi Keith, Following up to our last Friday phone conversation, this is to confirm that both Holcim plants (Midlothian and Portland) will voluntarily participate in the Mercury testing program. As we discussed, the ML scrubbers are going through optimization. The optimization would be critical in achieving the study objectives of establishing a mo re accurate range for the mercury emission reduction capability across the scrubber. Therefore, this needs to be considered in the ML test schedule planning. At present, we are working with PCA in developing the test plan and the schedule. Please let me know if you have any questions. Regards, Meg
**Final Listing of Questionnaire Files for Steam Electric Rulemaking Record**

**Plant ID 01630**  **Removed from Public**  **(Non-CBI) Docket**  **1 Copyright** 

**Flag 2**  **File Name Description**  x 

### 01630\01630_Checklist.xls EPA Technical Review Checklist Workbook



### 01630\01630_Completeness_Checklist.xls EPA Completeness Review Checklist 

### 01630\01630_HardcopyLog.doc EPA log of hardcopy documents submitted x 

### 01630\01630_PartA.xls Plant submitted survey file



### 01630\Cerification Statement_01630.pdf Plant certification statement 

### 01630\Supporting Documentation\Cover Letter_Plant Id_01630.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

1Final reviewed survey responses are located in the Steam Electric Technical Questionnaire Database
. 2 Copyright documents are available from the docket.
NASA LogoNTRSNTRS - NASA Technical Reports ServerSearchmore_vertCollectionsAboutNewsHelpLogin Back to ResultsDeconvolution and analysis of wide-angle longwave radiation data from Nimbus 6 Earth radiation budget experiment for the first yearOne year of longwave radiation data from July 1975 through June 1976 from the Nimbus 6 satellite Earth radiation budget experiment is analyzed by representing the radiation field by a spherical harmonic expansion. The data are from the wide field of view instrument. Contour maps of the longwave radiation field and spherical harmonic coefficients to degree 12 and order 12 are presented for a 12 month data period.Document ID19810005082Acquisition SourceLegacy CDMSDocument TypeTechnical Publication (TP)AuthorsBess, T. D.*(NASA Langley Research Center Hampton, VA, United States)*Green, R. N.*(NASA Langley Research Center Hampton, VA, United States)*Smith, G. L.*(NASA Langley Research Center Hampton, VA, United States)*Date AcquiredSeptember 4, 2013Publication DateDecember 1, 1980Subject CategoryMeteorology And ClimatologyReport/Patent NumberNASA-TP-1746L-13873Accession Number81N13593Funding Number(s)PROJECT: RTOP 146-10-06-02Distribution LimitsPublicCopyrightWork of the US Gov. Public Use Permitted.Available DownloadsNameType19810005082.pdfSTIcloud_downloadcontent_copyvisibilityRelated RecordsThere are no records associated with this record.visibility_offNo Preview Available
 No Fear Act | Freedom of Information Act | Office of the Inspector General | Agency Financial ReportsNASA Web Privacy Policy and Important Notices | NASA Guidelines for Quality of InformationDisclaimers, Copyright, Terms of Use | Accessibility | NASA OCIO | USA.gov | NASA.govContact Us | Site MapSTI LogoNASA Official: JoAnne R. Calhoun Site Curator: STI Compliance and Distribution Services Last Modified: September 12, 2024
# C_2005217EN.01003104.xml

| 3.9.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 217/31 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.9.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 217/31

---

Removal from the register of Case C-527/03 (1)

1

(2005/C 217/63)

(Language of the case: Dutch)

(Language of the case: Dutch)

By order of 8 June 2005 the President of the Court of Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal from the register of Case C-527/03: Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of the Netherlands.

---

(1)  OJ C 59 of 6.03.2004.

1

---
In The Matter Of: 

SERVED: September 1, 2016 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, DC 

Docket No. FAA-2016-4268 

Peter Hantz Company 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Case No. 2012S0700041 

Respondent 

ORDER FINALIZING LITIGATION SCHEDULE 

On April25, 2016, the undersigned judge issued an Initial Procedural Order, requiring, inter 

alia, the parties to meet and confer regarding a proposed litigation schedule. 

On July 11, 2016, the parties filed a proposed joint litigation schedule. 

On July 26, 2016, the undersigned judge held a prehearing conference in this matter in which 

the parties discussed the proposed schedule. 

On July 27, 2016, the undersigned judge issued an Order Adopting Litigation Schedule, 

ordering the parties to adhere to the joint litigation schedule. , 

On September 1, 2016, the undersigned judge issued a Notice of Hearing, setting the hearing 

in this case to begin on June 5, 2017. 

Pursuant to 14 C.F.R. §§ 13.205(a)(6) and 13.217(d), IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 

1. Complete witness and evidence lists shall be exchanged by the parties and submitted to 

the undersigned judge no later than April6, 2017. 

a. Any motion in limine regarding the admissibility of the evidence or witness testimony 

must be filed no later than April21, 2017. 

b. Any response to such a motion in limine must be filed no later than May 5, 2017. 

2. Any subpoena requests must be submitted to the undersigned judge no later than March 

7, 2017. 

3. Each party shall provide the undersigned judge a CD containing digital copies of 

premarked versions of all proposed exhibits no later than April 6, 2017. 
4. The parties may, during the course of the hearing, request the opportunity to submit 

posthearing briefs pursuant to 14 C.F .R. § 13.231 (c). 

Attachment: Service List 

DOUGLAS M. RAW ALD 

Administrative Law Judge 
SERVICE LIST - BY U.S. MAIL 

ORIGINAL & ONE COPY 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence A venue, S. W. 

Washington, DC 20591 

Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Wilbur Wright Building-· Suite 2W10001 

ONE COPY 

Timothy I. McCulloch, Respondent's Counsel 

HINSHAW & CULBERTSON LLP 

2375 E. Camelback Rd. 

Suite 750 

Phoenix, AZ 85016 

TEL: 602-631-4400 

FAX: 602-631-4404 

Ryan Landers, Complainant's Counsel 

Enforcement Division, Southern Team 

Federal Aviation Administration, Southern Region 

1701 Columbia A venue 

College Park, GA 30337 

TEL: 404-305-5200 

FAX: 404-305-5223 

The Honorable Douglas M. Rawald, Administrative Law Judge 

Office of Hearings, M-20 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. (Ell-310) 

Washington, DC 20590 

TEL: 202-366-5121 Staff Assistant 

FAX: 202-366-7536 

Docket No. FAA-2016-4268 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

1 Service was by U.S. Mail. For service in person or by expedited courier, use the following address: Federal 

Aviation Administration, 600 Independence Avenue, S.W., Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2Wl000, Washington, 

DC 20591; Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430.
No. 00-62.

#### CSU, L.L.C. *v.*Xerox Corp.

C. A. Fed. Cir. The Solicitor General is invited to file a brief in this case expressing the views of the United States.
Document headings vary by document type but may contain
                    the following: the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document
the number of the CFR title and the number of each part
                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly
                      related to
the agency docket number / agency internal file number
the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in
                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory
                      Actions See the
                    Document Drafting Handbook
                    for more details.
 Department of Justice Drug Enforcement Administration
 By Notice dated April 17, 2009, and published in the 
                    **Federal Register**
                     on April 29, 2009, (74 FR 19597), Penick Corporation, 33 Industrial Road, Pennsville, New Jersey 08070, made application by renewal to the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) to be registered as a bulk manufacturer of the basic classes of controlled substances listed in schedule II: Drug
ScheduleCocaine (9041)
IICodeine (9050)
IIDihydrocodeine (9120)
IIOxycodone (9143)
IIHydromorphone (9150)
IIDiphenoxylate (9170)
IIEcgonine (9180)
IIHydrocodone (9193)
IIMorphine (9300)
IIOripavine (9330)
IIThebaine (9333)
IIOxymorphone (9652)
II
 The company plans to manufacture the listed controlled substances as bulk controlled substance intermediates for distribution to its customers for further manufacture or to manufacture pharmaceutical dosage forms. No comments or objections have been received. DEA has considered the factors in 21 U.S.C. 823(a) and determined that the registration of Penick Corporation to manufacture the listed basic classes of controlled substances is consistent with the public interest at this time. DEA has investigated Penick Corporation to ensure that the company's registration is consistent with the public interest. The investigation has included inspection and testing of the company's physical security systems, verification of the company's compliance with state and local laws, and a review of the company's background and history. Therefore, pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 823, and in accordance with 21 CFR 1301.33, the above named company is granted registration as a bulk manufacturer of the basic classes of controlled substances listed. Dated: August 21, 2009. Joseph T. Rannazzisi, Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of Diversion Control, Drug Enforcement Administration.


[FR Doc. E9-21529 Filed 9-4-09; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4410-09-P
#### Igna S. MUELLER, Appellant, v. John A. MUELLER, Appellee.

No. 74-1439.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Feb. 4, 1975.

*196James L. Wall, Jr., Miami, for appellant.

Batchelor, Brodnax, Guthrie & Kindred and Timothy J. Armstrong, Miami, for ap-pellee.

Before BARKDULL, C. J., and PEARSON and HENDRY, JJ.

HENDRY, Judge.

From an order modifying the final judgment of dissolution of marriage between the parties, the petitioner-wife has appealed. She contends that the court’s increase in child support and in payment by her ex-husband of one-half of the minor child’s medical, dental, surgical and drug expenses was not adequate.

In addition, the appellant asserts that the trial court abused its discretion by determining that the parties are responsible for payment of their own attorney’s fees.

After a careful examination of the record in this case, we have concluded that the appellant has failed to show that the trial court committed reversible error.

The marriage between the parties was dissolved by a final judgment entered October 30, 1970. At the time, the minor child, Edward, was two months old. Mrs. Mueller also has two other children from a prior marriage for which her ex-husband pays a total of $25 per week as child support.

In the final judgment, the appellee was ordered to pay $25 per week as child support for Edward and $25 per week as rehabilitative alimony for one year. Also, when the judgment was entered Mrs. Mueller was not working.

At the time of the modification hearing she was employed as a hairdresser, earning a gross salary of $148 per week. On the other hand, the record also shows that the appellee earns more than he did at the time the final judgment was entered. At the time of the modification hearing, he stated his gross weekly income as $283.48 per week.

From their affidavits, it also appears that the appellee’s net worth is approximately $11,000, while his former wife’s net worth is listed at approximately $18,000.

The appellant testified before the trial judge that her weekly expenses to send Edward to pre-kindergarten school and to provide day care for the child are $31 per week. The trial court based its modification award on this testimony, increasing the support payments by Six ($6) Dollars per week.

It requires little citation of authority that matters involving child support and attorney’s fees are vested within the sound discretion of the trial court, and will not be disturbed on appeal unless it can be demonstrated that the court clearly has exceeded the limits of its discretion. Keller *197V. Keller, Fla.App.1974, 302 So.2d 795; Fesak v. Fesak, Fla.App.1974, 303 So.2d 47.

In this case, the court determined that the needs of the ex-wife and the ability to pay of the ex-husband, together with the paramount concern for the best interests of the minor child, justified a slight, though not a drastic, increase in child support.

In addition, the court determined that both parties had the financial wherewithal to pay for their respective counsel. We think the record supports the court’s conclusions.

■ Therefore, for the reasons stated, the order appealed is affirmed.

Affirmed.
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 Capital Gold Corporation (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended January 31, 2011 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Christopher Chipman, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:





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





(2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.





/s/ Christopher ChipmanChristopher ChipmanChief Financial Officer(Principal Financial Officer)March 14, 2011