alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
HomeOffice of the SpokespersonPress Releases...Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty Remains Strong Despite Russian Obstructionism

# 									Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty Remains Strong Despite Russian Obstructionism							

Press Statement

Vedant Patel, Principal Deputy Spokesperson

August 28, 2022

After weeks of intensive but productive negotiations, the Russian Federation alone decided to block consensus on a final document at the conclusion of the Tenth Review Conference of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). Russia did so in order to block language that merely acknowledged the grave radiological risk at the Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant in Ukraine, the very kind of challenge the conference is called upon to address.  For the Russian Federation to not accept such language in the face of overwhelming international consensus underscores the need for the United States and others to continue urging Russia to end its military activity near ZNPP and return control of the plant to Ukraine.

Despite Russia’s cynical obstructionism, the fact that all the other remaining States Parties were able to support the final document speaks to the Treaty’s essential role in preventing nuclear proliferation and averting the danger of nuclear war. Over the course of the conference, NPT Parties affirmed the need for action on arms control, proliferation crises, and expanded access to peaceful nuclear energy, science, and technologies, especially among states of the global south. Amid a challenging international political and security environment, the extent to which NPT States Parties found common ground in support of strengthening the nuclear nonproliferation regime is remarkable.

The United States will continue to work alongside the international community to achieve the peace and security of a world without nuclear weapons. The NPT remains and will remain the fundamental cornerstone of the nuclear nonproliferation regime and essential to advancing nuclear disarmament and the peaceful uses of nuclear energy.  We are proud to have worked constructively and in good faith with all Parties toward a consensus. Russia’s actions reflect only on Russia. It is clear that the rest of the NPT’s States Parties recognize the Treaty’s role as an essential pillar of the international rules-based order.

Tags

Bureau of European and Eurasian AffairsBureau of International Security and NonproliferationNon-Proliferation TreatyNuclear NonproliferationOffice of the SpokespersonRussia

Back to Top
Copy of the First Amendment of the Stepan Company 2000 Stock Option Plan



 Exhibit 10(g)(5) 
 FIRST AMENDMENT 
 OF THE 
 STEPAN COMPANY 2000 STOCK OPTION PLAN 
 WHEREAS, Stepan Company (the
“Company”) has established and maintains the Stepan Company 2000 Stock Option Plan (the “Plan”); and 
 WHEREAS,
the Company reserved the right to amend the Plan in Section 5.8 by action of the Board of Directors; and 
 WHEREAS, the
Company now desires to amend the Plan to comply with Section 409A of the Internal Revenue Code; 
 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED,
that effective January 1, 2005, the Plan is amended as follows: 
 1.    By adding the following introductory
phrase at the beginning of clause (ii) of the last sentence of Section 3.1 of the Plan: 
 “with respect to any Non-Qualified
Stock Option that was exercisable prior to January 1, 2005,”. 
 2.    Section 3.6 of the Plan is hereby
amended by adding after Section 3.6(e) a new Section 3.6(f) as follows: 
  

	 	“(f)	To the extent a Stock Award provides for the delivery of shares of Stock at the end of a Restricted Period and/or for the payment of any Dividend Rights credits related to such
shares, payment of such Stock Award and Dividend Rights to which the Participant is entitled, if any, following the end of the Restricted Period shall be made no later than the fifteenth day of the third month following the end of the tax year in
which the Restricted Period ends unless the Participant has elected to defer payment pursuant to the terms of any applicable plan, contract or other arrangement of the Company permitting such deferral.” 

 3.    Section 5 of the Plan is hereby amended by adding after Section 5.8 a new Section 5.9 as follows: 
 “5.9    Application of Section 409A.    Awards under the Plan are not intended to
provide for the deferral of compensation within the meaning of Section 409A of the Code and the regulations promulgated thereunder. The Plan shall be interpreted, construed and administered in a manner consistent with this intent.
Notwithstanding any other provision of the Plan, the Company does not guarantee any particular tax result for any Participant or beneficiary with respect to participation in or payments under the Plan, and each Participant or beneficiary shall be
responsible for any taxes imposed on the Participant or beneficiary with respect to such participation or payments under the Plan.” 







 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the duly authorized officer of the Company has executed this First Amendment of the Plan on behalf of
the Company and has caused its corporate seal to be affixed this              day of
                                , 2008. 
  

									
		 		 	STEPAN COMPANY
					
		 		 		 	By	 	 
					
		 		 		 	Its	 	 
			
	ATTEST:	 		 	
					
	By	 	`	 		 		 	
					
	Its	 	 	 		 		 	

  

 - 2 -
§ 417.558 Emergency, urgently needed, and out-of-area services for which the HMO or CMP accepts responsibility. ( a ) *Source of payment.* Either CMS or the HMO or CMP may pay a provider for emergency or urgently needed services or other covered out-of-area services for which the HMO or CMP accepts responsibility.
( b ) *Limits on payment.* If the HMO or CMP pays, the payment amount may not exceed the amount that is allowable under part 412 or part 413 of this chapter.
( c ) *Exception to limit on payment.* Payment in excess of the limit imposed by paragraph (b) of this section is allowable only if the HMO or CMP demonstrates to CMS's satisfaction that it is justified on the basis of advantages gained by the HMO or CMP, as set forth in § 417.548.
[60 FR 46231, Sept. 6, 1995]
# C_2006086EN.01001901.xml

| 8.4.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 86/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 86/19

---

Action brought on 14 February 2006 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Portuguese Republic

(Case C-90/06)

(2006/C 86/35)

Language of the case: Portuguese

An action against the Portuguese Republic was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 14 February 2006 by the Commission of the European Communities, represented by António Caeiros and Amparo Alcover, acting as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | declare, principally, that, in having failed to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions needed in order to comply with Directive 2002/49/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 June 2002 relating to the assessment and management of environmental noise, the Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 14(1) of that directive; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare, principally, that, in having failed to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions needed in order to comply with Directive 2002/49/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 June 2002 relating to the assessment and management of environmental noise, the Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 14(1) of that directive;

1

| — | declare, in the alternative, that, in having omitted to inform the Commission immediately of any such provisions, the Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 14(1) of Directive 2002/49/EC; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare, in the alternative, that, in having omitted to inform the Commission immediately of any such provisions, the Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 14(1) of Directive 2002/49/EC;

| — | order the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The period prescribed for transposition of the Directive 2002/49 expired on 18 July 2004.

---

(1)  OJ L 189 of 18.7.2002, p. 12.

1

---
# C_2005308EN.01001101.xml

| 6.12.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 308/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.12.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 308/11

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.3874 — CVC/Ruhrgas Industries)

(2005/C 308/04)

(Text with EEA relevance)

On 1 September 2005, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | from the Europa competition web site (http://europa.eu.int/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This web site provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

from the Europa competition web site (http://europa.eu.int/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This web site provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32005M3874. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law. (http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/lex) |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32005M3874. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law. (http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/lex)

---
I

104TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 3549

To amend title 23, United States Code, to allow trucks weighing between

80,000 and 100,000 pounds to operate on that portion of the Maine

Turnpike which is now limited to 80,000 pounds.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MAY 29, 1996

Mr. LONGLEY (for himself, Mr. BALDACCI, and Mr. ZELIFF) introduced the

following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Transportation

and Infrastructure

A BILL

To amend title 23, United States Code, to allow trucks

weighing between 80,000 and 100,000 pounds to operate

on that portion of the Maine Turnpike which is now

limited to 80,000 pounds.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 That section 127(a) of title 23, United States Code, is

4 amended by adding at the end the following: ‘‘With respect

5 to the State of New Hampshire, State laws or regulations

6 in effect on January 1, 1987, which applied to State high7 ways other than the Interstate System shall be applicable

8 to Interstate Route 95 for the purposes of this subsection.
2

•HR 3549 IH

1 With respect to the State of Maine, State laws pertaining

2 to weight limits (other than those applicable to the Inter3 state System) that were in effect on October 1, 1995, shall

4 be applicable for the purposes of this subsection both to

5 that portion of the Maine Turnpike designated Interstate

6 Route 95 and 495 and to that portion of Interstate Route

7 95 from the southern terminus of the Maine Turnpike to

8 the New Hampshire State line.’’.

Æ
ARMENIA COUNTRY COMMERCIAL GUIDE

----

MARCH 1999
CHAPTER 10: APPENDIX A THOUGHT D (COUNTRY DATA, DOMESTIC ENCONOMY,TRADE, INVESTMENT STATISTICS)
COUNTRY DATA
POPULATION: 3,742,000 by the end 1988 estimates.  A large number of Armenians(500,000-700,000) have departed since 1988.  At the same time a significant number of refugeesfrom Azerbaijan have settled in Armenia.  Exact population is unknown.  FCS Yerevan uses thenumber 3,200,000 for per capita economic estimates.    
RELIGION: Dominantly Christian (Gregorian). 
GOVERNMENT SYSTEM: Presidential Republic
LANGUAGES:  Armenian is the official language of the country.  The majority of Armeniansspeak Russian as well.   
WORK WEEK:  40 hours
APPENDIX B
#### Connie Carmela CASTELLANO, Appellant, v. TRAVELERS INSURANCE COMPANY et al., Appellees.

No. 74-141.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Dec. 31, 1974.

Raymond E. LaPorte, Tampa, for appellant.

Timothy F. Prugh and Benjamin H. Hill, III, Shackleford, Farrior, Stallings & Evans, Tampa, for appellees.

PER CURIAM.

Appellant’s sole point on appeal is that she was denied a fair and impartial trial.

Under the due process clause of the Constitution of the United States and of the State of Florida each and every person is guaranteed a fair and impartial trial. In City of Niceville v. Hardy, Fla.App.1st 1964, 160 So.2d 535, the able Judge Carroll stated at page 538:

> “The ultimate goal of our court system to attain truth and justice demands unremitting vigilance and dedication on the part of both bench and bar to keep every improper influence out of all legal proceedings.”

Upon a reading of the entire trial transcript we feel that to insure that justice is achieved in this case the appellant is entitled to a new trial.

Reversed and remanded for a new trial.

McNULTY, C. J., and HOBSON and BOARDMAN, JJ., concur.
#### § 456.604 Physician team member inspecting care of beneficiaries.

No physician member of a team may inspect the care of a beneficiary for whom he is the attending physician.
ALLEGHENY VALLEY Ji{{egfieny o/a[[ey joint Sewage Jiutfwrity

P.O. Box 158 

Cheswick, Pennsylvania 15024 

Phone(412)828-7227 

Fax (412)828-7159 

JOINT SEWAGE AUTHORITY 

DAVID E. PHILLIPS- Chairman 

JOHN SGAMBATI -Vice Chairman 

RAYMOND ARCH -Member 

GARY TAYLOR- Member 

One Year - Member 

March 29, 2011 

Mr. Ronald C. Furlan 

PA Department of Environmental Protection 

Division of Planning and Permits 

Rachel Carson State Office Building 

P. 0. Box 8774 

Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17105-8774 

RE: Allegheny Valley Joint Sewage Authority 

Permit ID# PA 0026255 

Marcellus Shale 

Dear Mr. Furlan: 

MUNICIPALITIES 

Springdale Borough 

Harmar Township 

Springdale Township 

Cheswick Borough 

RICHARD C. CHIAVETIA 

Plant Manager 

TIMOTHY B. KEPHART 

Operations & Maintenance Supervisor 

SHIRLEY A. GIANFRANCESCO 

Administrative Assistant 

>!;.e 

_ o> __, r-f\'1 

::::j::O 

-<en 

::o·.;:-t 

(":1~ C>c-; ~ 

i='!-~ ::3: 

l>-0 \0 

I am in receipt of your letter dated March 18, 2011 (copy enc~~~d)~ 

requesting additional information and to voluntarily begin mo~~or~g 

for additional parameters not currently required in the NPDES Permit. 

Please correct your records as the Allegheny Valley Joint Sewage 

Authority POTW does not accept wastewater from gas drilling Marcellus 

shale operations. Apparently the Authority is on a PA DEP list of 

treatment facilities that accept this type of waste. An activated 

sludge treatment facility is not designed to treat or remove total 

dissolved solids or chlorides at levels associated with drilling fluids 

found in the Marcellus shale waste. Therefore, we do not accept this 

type of waste. 

The Authority has an established domestic waste disposal program. 

We do accept waste from outside sources which includes septic tanks 

and a small amount of gas drilling waste from shallow wells. As you 

know, shallow wells do not have the high level of contamination 

associated with Marcellus drilling fluids. 

For your information, as a result of the controversial issues in the 

treatment of drilling fluids, the Authority has decided to discontinue 

the treatment of brines and shallow drilling fluids. 

The Pittsburgh PA DEP Regional Office is currently reviewing the 

Authority's renewal application for the NPDES Permit. 

Ship To: 2400 Freeport Road, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15238 
Mr. Ronald C. Furlan 

PA Department of Environmental Protection 

Page Two 

March 29, 2011 

Please remove Allegheny Valley Joint Sewage Authority from the PA DEP 

list which indicates the treatment facility as a disposal Plant for 

Marcellus drilling fluids. Written confirmation in response to this 

request is required. 

Thank you for your cooperation. 

If you should have any questions, please contact me at Ext. 17. 

Sincerely yours, 

Ri:-::s:~:: Plant Manager ~ RCC/sg 

C: Allegheny Valley Joint Sewage Authority Board 

Howard Schulberg, Solicitor 

Michael Halloran, PA DEP Pittsburgh Regional Office 

John Mowry, KLH Engineers Inc. 

File
41266.

#### CARTER v. GREENVILLE SERVICE COMPANY.

Hall, Judge.

The plaintiff sued the defendant on an account and the defendant filed an answer and counterclaim. The *652plaintiff filed, a general demurrer and motion to dismiss the defendant’s counterclaim. After a hearing the trial court dismissed the petition at the plaintiff’s request and dismissed the counterclaim, in effect sustaining the plaintiff’s general demurrer. The defendant assigns error on the judgment dismissing his counterclaim. *Held:*

The counterclaim alleged that the defendant was a dealer of the plaintiff’s products pursuant to a “Magnavox Franchise Agreement” which provided that it should be effective until terminated by either party on notice to the other. Without giving the defendant (hereinafter called dealer) notice to terminate the agreement the plaintiff (hereinafter called Magnavox) failed to deliver merchandise ordered by the dealer pursuant to the agreement which the dealer had sold to customers, and as a result the dealer was unable to fill his customers’ orders and lost profits of $1,800 that he would have earned on the sales.

Magnavox contends that the dealer’s cross action must fall because it seeks to recover only loss of profits which were not shown to be within the contemplation of the parties to the alleged agreement. The agreement itself contemplated that goods bought by the dealer would be resold. This “is a sufficient reason for foreseeing that the buyer will make a profit at least equal to the difference between the contract price and the prevailing market prices at the time and place of delivery.” 5 Corbin on Contracts 100, § 1015; Williston on Contracts 3783, § 1347. Cf. *Bush v.*Addison, 40 Ga. App. 799 (151 SE 526). A party who has been injured by a breach of contract can recover profits that would have resulted from performance, when their amount and the fact that they have been prevented by the breach of the defendant can be proved with reasonable certainty. Taylor Mfg. Co. v. Hatcher Mfg. Co., 39 F 440 (S.D. Ga. 1889); *Atlanta Gas Light Co. v. Newman,*88 Ga. App. 252, 254 (76 SE2d 536); 5 Corbin on Contracts 135, § 1022.

The trial court erred in dismissing the cross action.

The argument that the counterclaim should have been dismissed because “the designation of the party plaintiff as ‘The Greenville Service Company, a Division of the Magnavox Company of Tennessee, a Tennessee Corporation,’ does not constitute a legal entity before the court,” is without merit. *653
      *Hunnicutt v. Reed,*149 Ga. 803 (102 SE 421); *Smith v. Hartrampf,*105 Ga. App. 40, 42 (123 SE2d 417).

Argued April 7, 1965

Decided May 10, 1965.

*Roland Neeson, Elijah A. Brown,*for plaintiff in error. '

*Lipshutz, Macey, Zusmann & Sikes, Richard A. Katz, Robert ■ A. Eisner,*contra.

*Judgment reversed.*

*Bell, P. J., and Frankum, J., concur.*
EXHIBIT 32

                                CERTIFICATION OF
               CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
                       PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the Annual Report of U.S.B. Holding Co., Inc. (the "Company")
on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2003, as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof ("Report"), Thomas E. Hales, as Chief
Executive Officer of the Company, and Steven T. Sabatini, as Chief Financial
Officer of the Company, each hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. S.S. 1350,
as adopted pursuant to S.S. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best
of his knowledge that:

         (1)   The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a)
         or 15(d), as applicable, 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/Thomas E. Hales                               Date: March 11, 2004
------------------------------                   ------------------------
Thomas E. Hales
Chief Executive Officer


/s/Steven T. Sabatini                            Date: March 11, 2004
------------------------------                   ------------------------
Steven T. Sabatini
Chief Financial Officer


This certification accompanies this Report pursuant to ss. 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not be deemed filed by the Company for
purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3403 Introduced in House (IH)]

  2d Session
                                H. R. 3403

   To amend title III of the Job Training Partnership Act to provide 
 employment and training assistance for individuals who work full-time 
 at a plant, facility, or enterprise that is a part of an economically 
  depressed industry and is located in an economically depressed area.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 7, 1996

  Mr. Frank of Massachusetts introduced the following bill; which was 
  referred to the Committee on Economic and Educational Opportunities

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To amend title III of the Job Training Partnership Act to provide 
 employment and training assistance for individuals who work full-time 
 at a plant, facility, or enterprise that is a part of an economically 
  depressed industry and is located in an economically depressed area.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. PROVISION OF EMPLOYMENT AND TRAINING ASSISTANCE FOR 
              INDIVIDUALS WHO ARE EMPLOYED AT A PLANT, FACILITY, OR 
              ENTERPRISE THAT IS A PART OF AN ECONOMICALLY DEPRESSED 
              INDUSTRY AND IS LOCATED IN AN ECONOMICALLY DEPRESSED 
              AREA.

    Section 301(a)(1) of the Job Training Partnership Act (29 U.S.C. 
1651(a)(1)) is amended--
            (1) in subparagraph (C), by striking ``or'' at the end;
            (2) in subparagraph (D), by striking the period at the end 
        and inserting ``; or''; and
            (3) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
            ``(E) are employed full-time at a plant, facility, or 
        enterprise that is a part of an economically depressed industry 
        and is located in an economically depressed area, as determined 
        by the Secretary.''.
                                 <all>
```
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

859 

CA 14-00276 

PRESENT: SCUDDER, P.J., SMITH, CENTRA, FAHEY, AND PERADOTTO, JJ. 

 

BENJAMIN L. JOLLEY, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, 

V ORDER

AGOSTINHA R. LANDO, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

 

WILLIAMSON, CLUNE & STEVENS, ITHACA (JOHN H. HANRAHAN, III, OF

COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

 

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Steuben County (Joseph

W. Latham, A.J.), entered September 4, 2013 in a divorce action. The

order denied the motion of defendant for summary judgment dismissing

the complaint. 

It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is

unanimously affirmed without costs.

Entered: September 26, 2014 Frances E. Cafarell

Clerk of the Court