alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2006143EN.01003701.xml

| 17.6.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 143/37 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.6.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 143/37

---

Action brought on 14 April 2006 — Irène Bianchi v European Training Foundation

(Case F-38/06)

(2006/C 143/71)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Irène Bianchi (Turin, Italy) (represented by: M.-A. Lucas, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Training Foundation

Defendant:

Forms of order sought

| — | annul the decision of the Director of the Foundation not to renew the applicant's contract of employment as a temporary agent, which was notified to her by memorandum of 24 October 2005; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of the Director of the Foundation not to renew the applicant's contract of employment as a temporary agent, which was notified to her by memorandum of 24 October 2005;

| — | order the Foundation to compensate for the pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage suffered by the applicant, together with statutory interest; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Foundation to compensate for the pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage suffered by the applicant, together with statutory interest;

| — | order the defendant to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant, who was engaged by the Foundation in 2000 under a contract of employment as a temporary agent concluded initially for a period of three years and subsequently renewed until 15 April 2006, contests the decision not to renew her contract of employment beyond that date.

The applicant puts forward four pleas in law in support of her action for annulment. The first plea alleges infringement of the general principle of the rights of the defence and of Article 26 of the Staff Regulations, in that the negative evaluations which the Head of the Finance Unit sent to the Director of the Foundation were not sent to the applicant or placed in her personal file.

The second plea alleges infringement of the obligation to state reasons arising from the decision of the Director of the Foundation of 26 February 1997 pertaining to the renewal of contracts and of the second paragraph of Article 25 of the Staff Regulations, in that the applicant was not informed sufficiently of the reasons for the contested decision.

The third plea alleges a number of procedural infringements established by the aforementioned decision of 26 February 1997.

The fourth plea alleges manifest errors of assessment which the Director of the Foundation made as to the necessity for the applicant's expertise with respect, in particular, to administrative assistant posts resulting from the reform, the manner in which the applicant performed her duties and the interest of the service.

In support of her action for compensation, the applicant claims that the illegalities of the contested decision constitute wrongful acts which have caused her and are still likely to cause her serious pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage.

---
#### Freddie M. FLYNT v. John Kenneth GRAVES et al.

No. 6369.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Fourth Circuit.

Oct. 9, 1974.

Floyd F. Greene, New Orleans, for plaintiff-appellant.

Jones, Walker, Waechter, Poitevent, Carrere & Denegre, Patrick W. Browne, Jr., New Orleans, for defendants-appellees.

Before STOULIG, BOUTALL and SCHOTT, JJ.

SCHOTT, Judge.

Plaintiff appeals from a dismissal of his suit for damages resulting from an automobile accident which occurred on the night of July 27, 1968, at Airline Highway and Live Oak Street in New Orleans.

The evidence on liability consisted only of the testimony of plaintiff and a letter from the Traffic Court of the City of New Orleans. We have not considered a police report which is attached to the record as a result of a proffer by plaintiff. Defendants’ objection to the introduction in evidence of this report was properly maintained by the trial judge. Veal v. Hutchinson, 284 So.2d 60 (La.App. 4th Cir. 1973), writ denied, La., 286 So.2d 662.

Plaintiff testified that he had been proceeding east on the Airline Highway and came to a stop at Live Oak Street preparatory to making a U turn through the neutral ground. After waiting for traffic proceeding west on the highway he proceeded with his turn and as he “was *384getting into the turn” he was hit by ‘some unknown object.” At no time did he see what hit his automobile, and after the impact he was rendered unconscious. By his own admission, .the impact took place before plaintiff completed his turning movement.

The letter from the Traffic Court is dated January 21, 1971, and says only that “Mr. Ernest B. Sloan pleaded guilty on August 8, 1968,” to driving while intoxicated and no operator’s license. The letter does not even identify this guilty plea with the accident involved in this lawsuit.

Plaintiff failed to carry the burden of proof. Aside from the fact that there is no evidence to connect the defendants with the accident, plaintiffs own testimony shows that he was negligent in leaving a stopped position from the neutral ground when it was unsafe to do so and in failing to see what he should have seen, namely, the object which hit him while he was still in the process of making a U turn on the highway.

Accordingly, the judgment appealed from is affirmed at plaintiff’s costs.

Affirmed.
{"@context": "http://schema.org", "@type": "BreadcrumbList", "itemListElement": [{"@type": "ListItem", "position": 1, "item": {"@id": "http:\/\/www.youtube.com\/@WhiteHouse", "name": "The White House"}}]}







































































































© 2024 Google LLC
January 7, 2011 1 of 1 

# Indicator data collected concurrently with virus monitoring under the Third Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Regulation

Indicator: Aerobic Endospores

Background Under the Unregulated Contaminant Monitori ng Regulation (UCMR), EPA collects national occurrence information on targeted contaminants in drinking water. The Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) requires EPA identify no more than 30 unregulated drinking water contaminants to be monitored by public water systems. This data set supports Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) regulatory determination proce ss. The data set helps indicate how many people are potentially exposed to these contaminants and provides an estimate of the levels of exposure. In the third UCMR (UCMR 3), EPA proposes m onitoring of 28 chemical and two microbial

contaminants. The microbial contaminants are en terovirus and norovirus. Concurrent with virus monitoring, EPA proposes to collect data on five pathogen indicators for a better understanding of pathogen indicator and viral co-occu rrence. These indicat ors are enterococci , E.coli and total coliforms, bacteriophages and aerobic endospores.

Monitoring for aerobic endospores Aerobic endospores are highly resi stant structures. These spores are used for evaluating water treatment processes. EPA is consideri ng using Standard Method 9218 (SM 9218) or a modification the method with additional qual ity controls. SM 9218 involves pasteurizing (killing) vegetative bacterial cells in the sample , concentrating the endospores on filters and then germinating the spores.
#### Mrs. Viola VANDERDOES, (Deceased) v. OCHSNER CLINIC, Paul T. DeCamp, M.D., John Doe, M.D., Jane Doe, M.D., and any undisclosed insurance company.

No. 66852.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

March 14, 1980.

In re Robert S. Vanderdoes applying for writ of certiorari, or writ of review to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit. Parish of Orleans. No. 10455.

Denied.
HomeAuto DraftRemarks & Releases...俄罗斯的虚假信息无法掩盖它对全球粮食危机应负的责任

# 									俄罗斯的虚假信息无法掩盖它对全球粮食危机应负的责任							

2022年6月24日

> 
这些供给遭到的扰乱及其正在世界各地造成的困苦,其责任完完全全地在于俄罗斯政府,正如它应对发动这场无理战争的决定承担全部责任一样
**安东尼·布林肯国务卿**2022年5月18日

**在全世界散布有关全球粮食安全的谎言**

俄罗斯总统普京对乌克兰发动的非法、无端的战争已给乌克兰及其邻国和全球人民造成了灾难性的影响。克里姆林宫在乌克兰发动的战争带来了死亡和毁灭,杀害了数以千计的平民,导致数百万人流离失所,此外还导致数百万人成为难民,并大规模地摧毁了民用基础设施。俄罗斯入侵的灾难性影响已扰乱了乌克兰的经济,从而加剧了全球粮食不安全的状况。乌克兰长期以来一直是“欧洲的粮仓”,为全球数百万人口提供粮食。它是非洲和中东地区数十个国家的首要谷物供应国。如今,在俄罗斯于2月24日全面发动侵略后,乌克兰已经从粮仓变成了排队领粮之地,而俄罗斯政府却使用虚假信息就这场危机的成因误导全世界。

粮食不安全加剧的原因是普京无端发动的战争。其原因不像克里姆林宫所声称的,并不是美国及其他很多国家针对俄罗斯对乌克兰发动的骇人听闻的侵略而实施的制裁措施。粮食不安全的问题在这场侵略发生之前就日益严重,而普京的战争加剧了这种趋势。俄罗斯在乌克兰的农田中布下地雷,袭击黑海上的商船,并封锁乌克兰人出口本国的谷物。俄罗斯还在掠夺乌克兰的谷物以便牟利,而且根据可信报道,他们正在从乌克兰的粮仓中偷窃粮食。所有这些行径都导致全世界的粮食不安全状况恶化。

与之相反的是,美国及其合作伙伴一直在做出极大的努力以避免加剧粮食不安全。例如,美国的制裁措施明文规定要防止粮食不安全:其中包括有关农产品的例外规定,以及允许进行向俄罗斯及从俄罗斯出口和再出口粮食的交易,即使是和一个受到制裁的个人或实体。此外,美国已承诺在今年提供26亿美元人道主义粮食援助,以帮助减轻世界饥馑,并将在今后五年再追加50亿美元。

**克里姆林宫的指责游戏及其企图达到什么目的**

俄罗斯的政府官员、俄罗斯政府出资运营的媒体以及同克里姆林宫保持一致的代理虚假信息行为者试图通过归咎于制裁、“西方”和乌克兰,来转移对俄罗斯应为日益恶化的全球粮食不安全承担责任的关注。事实上,克里姆林宫及其代理人的大规模的虚假信息行径重点针对在这场危机中受影响最严重的地区——中东和非洲。这些不实言论得到RT阿拉伯语台(RT Arabic)和RT法语台(RT en Francais)等受克里姆林宫控制的国家媒体以及中华人民共和国的国家媒体的宣扬。

与俄罗斯政府过去散布的有关乌克兰的生物武器的虚假言论一样,其高级别外交官及其驻外使馆散布虚假信息,往往集中针对非洲和中东的受众。最近的一些虚假指称包括:
        - 俄罗斯外交部女发言人玛丽亚·扎哈罗娃(Maria Zakharova)声称,俄罗斯对乌克兰粮食的封锁是“ 西方和乌克兰的虚假信息 ”。
        - 俄罗斯驻联合国大使瓦西里·内本季亚(Vasiliy Nebenzya)于5月19日在联合国安理会就冲突和粮食安全发表讲话时指控欧洲“囤积”乌克兰粮食,并同基辅进行“ 用粮食换武器 ”的交换。
        - 俄罗斯驻埃及大使馆指责“ 非法的单边制裁 ”,而俄罗斯驻津巴布韦大使馆声称“ 西方干预 ”南半球。
        - 俄罗斯外长谢尔盖·拉夫罗夫(Sergei Lavrov)于5月25日在他的非洲日(Africa Day)讲话中 试图 使乌克兰不合法化,并要求非洲各国驻莫斯科大使提出撤销“非法的、反俄罗斯的”制裁,以此增强粮食安全。
        - 美国官员 表示 ,同俄罗斯的军事情报部门有关联的网站 OneWorld ,附和了拉夫罗夫的指称,指控泽连斯基总统支持以美国为首的“ 全球粮食卡特尔 ”,利用对全球粮食供给的控制,将其作为针对南半球的 新型混合武器 。
        - 拉夫罗夫外长于5月26日在接受RT阿拉伯语台采访时指控西方实行新殖民主义,并胁迫非洲和阿拉伯国家加入“反俄罗斯的”制裁,试图针对俄罗斯宣传机构所称的“ 帝国主义的西方 ”建立团结。

这种虚假信息的目的是既要掩盖俄罗斯的罪责,又要试图说服面临风险的国家的领导人支持终止旨在制止俄罗斯在乌克兰的不公正的残酷战争的制裁措施。

**结束语:罪责到底在谁**

俄罗斯政府试图通过将日益恶化的全球粮食系统的危机归咎于他人的转嫁责任的行径应当受到谴责。很多中东和非洲国家都强烈地感受到这场危机,它们至少一半的小麦都是从乌克兰进口的。世界粮食计划署(World Food Program)表示,随着普京发动的不计后果的战争造成面包价格上涨并让大多数贫弱家庭入不敷出,在这些地区有数百万人面临着饥馑和营养不良的风险。2022年6月6日,当俄罗斯驻联合国大使内本季亚在联合国安理会的一次会议上气急败坏地离场后,欧洲理事会主席夏尔·米歇尔(Charles Michel)表示:“俄罗斯对这场粮食危机负有全部责任......尽管克里姆林宫大肆散布谎言和虚假信息。”

俄罗斯政府继续散布有关它发动的这场无理战争的灾难性后果,其中包括全球粮食不安全状况的虚假信息。俄罗斯政府应当停止将粮食武器化,并允许乌克兰安全地运送出粮食,以使中东和非洲地区的数百万饥民能够得到口粮。

Tags

DisinformationFood SecurityOffice of Global Food SecurityRussia

Back to Top
§ 417.590 Computation of the average of the per capita rates of payment. ( a ) *Computation by the HMO or CMP.* As indicated in § 417.584(b), before an HMO's or CMP's contract period begins, CMS determines a per capita rate of payment for each class of the HMO's or CMP's Medicare enrollees. In order to determine the additional benefits required under § 417.592, weighted averages of those per capita rates must be computed separately for enrollees entitled to Part A and Part B, and for enrollees entitled only to Part B. Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, the HMO or CMP must make the computations.
( b ) *Computation by CMS.* If the HMO or CMP claims to have insufficient enrollment experience to make the computations required by paragraph (a) of this section, and CMS agrees with the claim, CMS makes the computations, using the best available information, which may include the enrollment experience of other risk HMOs and CMPs.
[58 FR 38075, July 15, 1993]
NASA LogoNTRSNTRS - NASA Technical Reports ServerSearchmore_vertCollectionsAboutNewsHelpLogin Back to ResultsDevelopment of an Aeroelastic Code Based on an Euler/Navier-Stokes Aerodynamic SolverThis paper describes the development of an aeroelastic code (TURBO-AE) based on an Euler/Navier-Stokes unsteady aerodynamic analysis. A brief review of the relevant research in the area of propulsion aeroelasticity is presented. The paper briefly describes the original Euler/Navier-Stokes code (TURBO) and then details the development of the aeroelastic extensions. The aeroelastic formulation is described. The modeling of the dynamics of the blade using a modal approach is detailed, along with the grid deformation approach used to model the elastic deformation of the blade. The work-per-cycle approach used to evaluate aeroelastic stability is described. Representative results used to verify the code are presented. The paper concludes with an evaluation of the development thus far, and some plans for further development and validation of the TURBO-AE code.Document ID19970009354Acquisition SourceLegacy CDMSDocument TypeTechnical Memorandum (TM)AuthorsBakhle, Milind A.*(Toledo Univ. OH United States)*Srivastava, Rakesh*(Toledo Univ. OH United States)*Keith, Theo G., Jr.*(Toledo Univ. OH United States)*Stefko, George L.*(NASA Lewis Research Center Cleveland, OH United States)*Janus, Mark J.*(Mississippi State Univ. Mississippi State, MS United States)*Date AcquiredSeptember 6, 2013Publication DateNovember 1, 1996Subject CategoryStructural MechanicsReport/Patent NumberNAS 1.15:107362E-10523NASA-TM-107362Accession Number97N14843Funding Number(s)PROJECT: RTOP 538-06-14CONTRACT_GRANT: NAG3-1803Distribution LimitsPublicCopyrightWork of the US Gov. Public Use Permitted.Available DownloadsNameType19970009354.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
§ 423.36 Disenrollment process. ( a ) *General rule.* An individual may disenroll from a PDP during the periods specified in § 423.38 by enrolling in a different PDP plan, submitting a disenrollment request to the PDP in the form and manner prescribed by CMS, or filing the appropriate disenrollment request through other mechanisms as determined by CMS.
( b ) *Responsibilities of the PDP sponsor.* The PDP sponsor must— ( 1 ) Submit a disenrollment notice to CMS within timeframes CMS specifies;
( 2 ) Provide the enrollee with a notice of disenrollment as CMS determines and approves; and
( 3 ) File and retain disenrollment requests for the period specified in CMS instructions.
( 4 ) In the case of an incomplete disenrollment request— ( i ) Document its efforts to obtain information to complete the disenrollment request;
( ii ) Notify the individual (in writing or verbally) within 10 calendar days of receipt of the disenrollment request; and
( iii ) The organization must deny the request if any additional information needed to make the disenrollment request “complete” is not received within the following timeframes: ( A ) For disenrollment requests received during the AEP by December 7, or within 21 calendar days of the request for additional information, whichever is later; and
( B ) For disenrollment requests received during all other election periods, by the end of the month in which the disenrollment request was initially received, or within 21 calendar days of the request for additional information, whichever is later.
( c ) *Retroactive disenrollment.* CMS may grant retroactive disenrollment in the following cases: ( 1 ) There never was a legally valid enrollment; or
( 2 ) A valid request for disenrollment was properly made but not processed or acted upon.
( d ) *Incomplete disenrollment.* A disenrollment request is considered to be incomplete if the required but missing information is not received by the PDP sponsor within the timeframe specified in paragraph (b)(4)(iii) of this section.
( e ) *Exception for employer group health plans.* ( 1 ) In cases when a PDP sponsor has both a Medicare contract and a contract with an employer, and in which the PDP sponsor arranges for the employer to process election forms for Part D eligible group members who wish to disenroll from the Medicare contract, the effective date of the election may be retroactive. Consistent with § 423.343(a), payment adjustments based on a retroactive effective date may be made for up to a 90-day period.
( 2 ) Upon receipt of the election from the employer, the PDP sponsor must submit the disenrollment to CMS within timeframes specified by CMS.
( f ) *Effect of failure to submit disenrollment notice to CMS promptly.* If the PDP sponsor fails to submit the correct and complete notice required in paragraph (b)(1) of this section, the PDP sponsor must reimburse CMS for any capitation payments received after the month in which payment would have ceased if the requirement had been met timely.
[70 FR 4525, Jan. 28, 2005, as amended at 89 FR 30830, Apr. 23, 2024]
<TABLE> <S> <C>


        

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS  SCHEDULE  CONTAINS  SUMMARY  FINANCIAL   INFORMATION  EXTRACTED  FROM  THE
FINANCIAL  STATEMENTS OF GENERAL GENETICS  CORPORATION FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDED
JUNE 30, 1996 , AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH  FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS             
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                            JUN-30-1996
<PERIOD-START>                               JUL-01-1995
<PERIOD-END>                                 JUN-30-1996
<CASH>                                                 0
<SECURITIES>                                           0 
<RECEIVABLES>                                          0
<ALLOWANCES>                                           0
<INVENTORY>                                            0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                       0 
<PP&E>                                                 0
<DEPRECIATION>                                         0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                         0
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                             23,000     
<BONDS>                                                0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                  0 
<PREFERRED>                                            0
<COMMON>                                         227,000     
<OTHER-SE>                                      (250,000)   
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                           0
<SALES>                                                0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                       0
<CGS>                                                  0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                          0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                  35,100                                      
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                       0  
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                     0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  (35,100)
<INCOME-TAX>                                           0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              (35,100) 
<DISCONTINUED>                                         0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                        0
<CHANGES>                                              0
<NET-INCOME>                                     (35,100)    
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                       (.15)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                       (.15)  

        

</TABLE>
```

[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 84 (Thursday, May 1, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 24809-24810]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-10009]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

[Delegation of Authority: 373]

Delegation by the Secretary of State to the Assistant Secretary 
for International Security and Nonproliferation of Authority With 
Respect to Authority Under Section 1204 of the Fiscal Year 2014 
National Defense Authorization Act

    By virtue of the authority vested in me as Secretary of State, 
including Section 1 of the State Department Basic Authorities Act, as 
amended (22 U.S.C. 2651a), and by the Fiscal Year 2014

[[Page 24810]]

National Defense Authorization Act, Public Law 113-66 (the NDAA), I 
hereby delegate to the Assistant Secretary of State for International 
Security and Nonproliferation, to the extent authorized by law, the 
authority under Section 1204 of the NDAA to provide concurrence on 
proposed assistance by the Department of Defense pursuant to that 
Section.
    Any act, executive order, regulation or procedure subject to, or 
affected by, this delegation shall be deemed to be such act, executive 
order, regulation or procedure as amended from time to time.
    Notwithstanding this delegation of authority, the Secretary, the 
Deputy Secretary, or the Deputy Secretary for Management and Resources 
may at any time exercise any authority or function delegated by this 
delegation of authority.
    This delegation of authority shall be published in the Federal 
Register.

     Dated: April 4, 2014.
John F. Kerry,
Secretary of State.
[FR Doc. 2014-10009 Filed 4-30-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4710-27-P
```
First Amendment to Employee Agreement between Registrant and Robert M. Edgell



 Exhibit 10.32 
 AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT 
 Between 
 Mirant Corporation 
 and 
 Robert M. Edgell 
 This AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT (“the Amendment”)
is made as of August 11, 2006, between Mirant Corporation (the “Company”), Mirant Services, LLC (“Services”) and Robert M. Edgell (“Executive”). Capitalized terms used herein and not defined
shall have the same meaning as set forth in the Employment Agreement executed by the parties on January 3, 2006 (the “Employment Agreement”). 
 For good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, and in compliance with Section 18 of the Employment Agreement, the parties hereto agree to amend the Employment
Agreement as follows: 
 The portion of Section 5(a) of the Employment Agreement that states: 
 Severance. 
 (a)
Termination Without Cause, Non-Renewal or for Good Reason. In the event of Executive’s termination of employment with the Company (1) by the Company without Cause (as defined herein), (2) by reason of the failure of the Company
to offer to renew the Agreement on terms that are based on competitive practices for companies of comparable size and standing in the same industry, or (3) by Executive for Good Reason (as defined herein), subject to the execution of a Release
substantially in the form attached as Exhibit D, Executive shall be entitled to the benefits set forth in this Section 5(a). 
 shall hereby be amended
to state as follows: 
 Severance. 
 (a) Termination Without Cause, Non-Renewal or for Good Reason. In the event of Executive’s termination of employment with the Company (1) by the Company without Cause (as defined herein), (2) by
reason of the failure of the Company to offer to renew the Agreement on terms and conditions at least equal to the terms and conditions set forth in the Agreement executed on January 3, 2006, which shall be deemed to include a Base Salary and
Target Bonus at least equal to the Executive’s Base Salary and Target Bonus at such time, or (3) by Executive for 








 
Good Reason (as defined herein), subject to the execution of a Release substantially in the form attached as Exhibit D, Executive shall be entitled to the
benefits set forth in this Section 5(a). 
 The terms of this Amendment shall have no force and effect on any other provision of the
Employment Agreement, including subsections (i) through (v) of Section 5(a). Upon execution, the terms of this Amendment shall be incorporated into the Employment Agreement and shall become binding and enforceable to the same extent
and under the same terms and conditions as all other provisions in the Employment Agreement when executed on January 3, 2006. 
 IN
WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Amendment as of the date first written above. 
  

			
	MIRANT CORPORATION
		
	By:	 	 
		 	Patricia A. Barnard
	Its: SVP, Administration
	
	MIRANT SERVICES, LLC
		
	By:	 	 
		 	Patricia A. Barnard
	Its: SVP, Administration
	
	 
	Robert M. Edgell