alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**Exhibit 10(xx)**

**SECOND AMENDMENT**

**TO**

**REGISTRATION RIGHTS AGREEMENT**

This SECOND AMENDMENT TO REGISTRATION RIGHTS AGREEMENT (this “**Amendment**”) is made and entered intothis 23rd day of June, 2010, by and among MagellanPetroleum Corporation, a Delaware corporation (the “**Company**”), Young Energy Prize S.A., a Luxembourg corporation (“**YEP**”), and ECP Fund, SICAV-FIS, a Luxembourg entity formerly known as YEP I, SICAV-FIS(**“Fund”**). This Amendment amends the Registration Rights Agreement dated as of July 9, 2009, as amended on October 14, 2009 (the “**Registration Rights Agreement**”), among the Company, YEP and Fund.Capitalized terms used but not otherwise defined in this Amendment shall have the meanings given to such terms in the Registration Rights Agreement. The Company, YEP and Fund are collectively the **“Parties”** hereunder, and each ofthem individually is a **“Party.”**

WHEREAS, the Parties desire to amend the Registration Rights Agreement asset forth herein; and 

WHEREAS, Section 7(a) of the Registration Rights Agreement provides that the Registration RightsAgreement may be amended only by a writing signed by the Company, YEP and Fund. 

NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of themutual covenants, agreements and for other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and adequacy of which is hereby acknowledged, the Parties hereby agree as follows: 

1. Amendment of Registration Rights Agreement. 

(a) The definition of “Warrant” in Section 1 of the Registration Rights Agreement shall be amended to read in its entiretyas follows: 

**“Warrant”** means the warrant to purchase shares of Common Stock issued to theInvestor on July 9, 2009, as the same was amended on March 11, 2010 and as may be amended and restated from time to time. 

2.Effect of this Amendment. Except as specifically amended as set forth herein, each term and condition of the Registration Rights Agreement shall continue in full force and effect. 

3. Counterparts; Facsimile Signatures. This Amendment may be executed or consented to in counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an originaland all of which taken together shall constitute one and the same instrument. This Amendment may be executed and delivered by facsimile or electronically and, upon such delivery, the facsimile or electronically transmitted signature will be deemedto have the same effect as if the original signature had been delivered to the other party. 

[REMAINDER OF PAGE INTENTIONALLYLEFT BLANK] 

The parties have caused this Amendment to be duly executed and delivered by their proper andduly authorized officers as of the date and year first written above. 

 
**MAGELLAN PETROLEUM CORPORATION**By: 
/s/ William H. Hastings
Name: William H. HastingsTitle: President and Chief Executive Officer**YOUNG ENERGY PRIZE S.A.**By: 
/s/ Nikolay V. Bogachev
Name: 
Nikolay V. Bogachev
Title: 
President & CEO
**ECP FUND, SICAV-FIS**By: 
/s/ Kurt Reinertz
Name: 
Kurt Reinertz
Title: 
Director
By: 
/s/ Patrick Hansen
Name: 
Patrick Hansen
Title: 
Director
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 104 (Tuesday, May 30, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 34504]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-13423]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION


Advisory Committee for Computer and Information Science and 
Engineering; Committee of Visitors; Notice of Meeting

    In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-
463, as amended), the National Science Foundation announces the 
following meeting:

    Name: Advisory Committee for Computer and Information Science 
and Engineering (1115).
    Date & Time: June 14-15, 2000, 8:30 a.m.-5 p.m. each day.
    Place: Room 1175, NSF, 4201 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, VA.
    Type of Meeting: Part open (see Agenda, below).
    Contact Person: Dr. Aubrey M. Bush, Division Director, Advanced 
Networking Infrastructure and Research, National Science Foundation, 
4201 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, VA 22230. Telephone: (703) 306-
1950.
    Purpose of Meeting: To carry out Committee of Visitors (COV) 
review, including program evaluation, GPRA assessments, and access 
to privileged materials.

Agenda

Closed: June 14

    To review the merit review processes covering funding decisions 
made during the immediately preceding three fiscal years of the 
Networking Infrastructure, Networking Research, and Special Projects 
Programs.

Open: June 15

    To assess the results of NSF program investments in the Advanced 
Networking Infrastructure and Research Division. This shall involve 
a discussion and review of results focused on NSF and grantee 
outputs and related outcomes achieved or realized during the 
preceding three fiscal years. These results may be based on NSF 
grants or other investments made in earlier years.
    Reason for Closing: During the closed session, the Committee 
will be reviewing proposal actions that will include privileged 
intellectual property and personal information that could harm 
individuals if they are disclosed. If discussions were open to the 
public, these matters that are exempt under 5 U.S.C. 552b(c), (4) 
and (6) of the Government in the Sunshine Act would be improperly 
disclosed.

    Note: Closed portions are proper under the Sunshine Act 
exemptions cited. The CMO's signature on this Notice is the required 
determination.


    Dated: May 23, 2000.
Karen J. York,
Committee Management Officer.
[FR Doc. 00-13423 Filed 5-26-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7555-01-M
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA F OURTH D ISTRICT

DYLAN MACE , Appellant,

v.

EVERGLADES COLLEGE, INC. d/b/a KEISER UNIVERSITY, PATRICK JOHNSTON , and CHANNING ALONZO THOMAS, et al., Appellee s

.

No. 4D 21

- 3270

[ July 28, 2022 ]

Appeal of a nonfinal order from the Circuit Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm Beach County ; Joseph George Marx , Judge; L.T. Case No. 50

- 2020

- CA

- 013371

- XXXX

- MB

.
Andrew A. Harris and Grace Mackey Streicher of Harris Appeals, P.A., Palm Beach Gardens, and Tom DeLattre of Wieland & DeLattre, P.A., Orlando , for appellant.

Benjamin L. Bedard and Shelli A. Healy of Roberts, Reynolds, Bedard & Tuzzio, PLLC

, West Palm Beach, for appellee Channing Alonzo Thomas

.
Lissette Gonzalez of Cole, Scott & Kissane, P.A. , Miami, for appellees Everglades College, Inc. d/b/a Keiser University and Patrick Johnston.

P ER C URIAM

.
Affirmed

.

K LINGENSMITH , C.J., G ROSS and D AMOORGIAN , JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
#### § 780.1013 Natural evergreens.

Only “natural” evergreens may comprise the principal part of the wreath. The word “natural” qualifies all of the evergreens listed in the section, including “other evergreens.” The term *natural* means that the evergreens at the time they are being used in making a wreath must be in the raw and natural state in which they have been harvested. Artificial evergreens (*Herring Magic* v. *U.S.,* 258 F. 2d 197; *Cal. Casualty Indemnity Exchange* v. *Industrial Accident Commission of Cal.* 90 P. 2d 289) or evergreens which have been processed as by drying and spraying with tinsel or by other means are not included. It is immaterial whether the natural evergreen used in making a wreath has been cultivated or is a product of the woods or forest.
EXHIBIT 23

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

We consent to the incorporation by reference in each of
Registration Statements No. 33-36976, 33-62021, 333-112890 and No. 333-07129 on Form S-8 of our reports dated March 15, 2006, relating to the financial statements and financial statement schedule of Lufkin Industries, Inc., and
managements report on the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting, appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Lufkin Industries, Inc. for the year ended December 31, 2005.



|                         
|-------------------------
|/s/ Deloitte & Touche LLP
|                         
|Houston, Texas           
|March 15, 2006
Hillsborough

No. 6567

#### Albert DiMauro *& a.*v. City of Manchester

December 28, 1973

*Emile R. Bussiere*and *Bernard V. Nardi,Jr. (Mr. Nardi*orally) for the plaintiffs.

*J. Francis Roche,*city solicitor, by brief and orally, for the defendant.

Duncan, J.

The plaintiffs duly appealed by petition to the superior court from a decision of the tax commission denying an abatement of taxes for the year 1970 assessed upon property owned by them in Manchester. Thereafter they moved to amend their appeal to include a request for abatement of taxes upon the same properties for the year 1971, alleging compliance with the statutory prerequisites to a petition for abatement and denial of the same by the tax commission. Subject to the defendant’s exception, the motion to amend was granted by *Flynn,*J. who reserved and transferred the exception to this court.

While the defendant correctly points out that RSA 76:17 under which the original appeal was taken provides for application to the superior court “by petition”, the presentation of the second appeal by motion to amend was not so radical a departure from the statutory procedure as to require denial of the motion. RSA 514:8. The defendant argues that the alleged right to an abatement for the year 1970 is a separate *703cause of action from the alleged right to an abatement of the 1971 tax. We need not quarrel with this proposition *(see Ainsworth v. Claremont,*108 N.H. 55, 226 A.2d 867 (1967)), to reach the conclusion that the two causes of action could properly be found by the trial court to be capable of joinder in a single proceeding as a matter of convenience in trial. *See*RSA 491: App. R. 100 (Supp. 1972). So far as appears, and according to the allegations of the motion, the two appeals present consistent claims, between the same parties, with respect to the same properties, triable before the same tribunal, and in all probability with the same witnesses. *See*1 Am. Jur. 2d *Actions*§§104-06, 109 (1962). Granting also, that the fair market values of the properties may have varied in the consecutive years involved, or that proportionality factors for those years may have differed, it does not follow that such differences cannot be adequately taken into account by the trier of the facts. *See*2 A. Freeman, Judgments §851 (5th ed. 1925). Considerations of convenience and expense of trial may properly take precedence over ancient common-law technicalities relating to joinder of actions. *See*Fed. R. Civ. P. 18; 3A J. Moore, Federal Practice at 1801, and para. 18.02 (2d ed. 1970). The record discloses no abuse of the trial court’s discretion.

*Exception overruled.*

All concurred.
#### § 780.900 Scope and significance of interpretative bulletin.

Subpart A of this part 780 and this subpart J together constitute the official interpretative bulletin of the Department of Labor with respect to the meaning and application of section 13(b)(16) of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, as amended. This section provides exemption from the overtime pay provisions of the Act for employees engaging in specified transportation activities when fruits and vegetables are harvested. As appears more fully in subpart A of this part, interpretations in this bulletin with respect to the provisions of the Act discussed are official interpretations upon which reliance may be placed and which will guide the Secretary of Labor and the Administrator in the performance of their duties under the Act. The general exemption provided in sections 13(a)(6) and 13(b)(12) of the Act for employees employed in agriculture, are not discussed in this subpart except in their relation to section 13(b)(16). The meaning and application of these exemptions are fully considered in subparts D and E, respectively, of this part 780.
Exhibit 23

                   CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statements of
Madison Gas and Electric Company on Form S-3 (File Nos. 33-24115, 33-52491, 
33-64361, and 333-59607) of our report dated February 8, 1999, on our audits
of the consolidated financial statements of Madison Gas and Electric
Company as of December 31, 1998 and 1997, and for the years ended
December 31, 1998, 1997, and 1996, which report is included in this annual
report on Form 10-K.

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania            /s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
March 30, 1999
**Exhibit 31.1**

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TOSECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

I, Jan L. Murley, certify that:

1.     I havereviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of The Boyds Collection,Ltd.;

2.     Based onmy knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a materialfact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, inlight of the circumstances under which such statements were made, notmisleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3.     Based onmy knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial informationincluded in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financialcondition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, andfor, the periods presented in this report;

4.     Theregistrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishingand maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

a)     Designedsuch disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure control andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this report is being prepared;

b)     Evaluatedthe effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by thisreport based on such evaluation, and

c)     Disclosedin this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter thathas materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and

5.     Theregistrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our mostrecent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to theregistrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board ofdirectors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

a)     Allsignificant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely toadversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize andreport financial information; and

b)     Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management orother employees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internalcontrols over financial reporting.
| /s/ Jan  L. Murley         |   |
|----------------------------|--------|
| Jan L. Murley              |
| *Chief Executive Officer*  |   |
| Date: August 16, 2004 |   |

 

1

----
§ 552.105 Individuals performing babysitting services in their own homes. ( a ) It is clear from the legislative history that the Act's new coverage of domestic service employees is limited to those persons who perform such services in or about the private household of the employer. Accordingly, if such services are performed away from the employer's permanent, or temporary household there is no coverage under sections 6(f) and 7(l) of the Act. A typical example would be an individual who cares for the children of others in her own home. This type of operation, however, could, depending on the particular facts, qualify as a preschool or day care center and thus be covered under section 3(s)(1)(B) of the Act in which case the person providing the service would be required to comply with the applicable provisions of the Act.
( b ) An individual in a local neighborhood who takes four or five children into his or her home, which is operated as a day care home, and who does not have more than one employee or whose only employees are members of that individual's immediate family is not covered by the Fair Labor Standards Act.
[40 FR 7405, Feb. 20, 1975, as amended at 60 FR 46768, Sept. 8, 1995]
EXHIBIT 32.1

SECTION 906 CERTIFICATION

In connection with the Annual Report of Summa Industries (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended August 31, 2003 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, James R. Swartwout, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge:

(1)   The
Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities 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 the Company.

| |  | /s/JAMES R. SWARTWOUTJames R. Swartwout
Chief Executive Officer
Chief Financial Officer
Summa Industries
November 3, 2003
| |  | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Summa Industries and will be retained by Summa Industries and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

---

QuickLinks
From: Rob Bamford [mailto:rbamford@ndep.nv.gov]

Sent: Thursday, September 23, 2010 5:58 PM

To: Branscome, Marvin R.; French.Chuck@epamail.epa.gov

Cc: Patrick Anderson

Subject: Clarification on Cortez test 

Hello Marvin and Chuck,

I just spoke with Brent Downey, the permit/environmental representative out at Barrick, CortezPipeline. During their 2009 test they did not use the new retorts, they used the grieve oven to dry 

precip. They did use the new carbon controls attached to the furnace. Apparently the “holdup” on not 

using the new retorts is getting those new units added to their Title 5 permit as those are new units for 

the facility, not just the addition of controls to existing units.

I would provide the following additional info for consideration. Here is the furnace material mercury 

concentration for Cortez and Round Mtn. and industry:

Cortez Furnace Material

MercuryTestData Query12

FIN Unit Type Material Concentration (ppm) Date #1

A0001 Melt Furnace 07/26/2000

A0001 Melt Furnace 03/22/2006

A0001 Melt Furnace 03/22/2006

A0001 Melt Furnace 4250 10/22/2008

A0001 Melt Furnace 4480 06/19/2007

A0001 Melt Furnace 4480 06/19/2007

A0001 Melt Furnace 8 10/14/2009

A0001 Melt Furnace 1557 12/21/2009

A0001 Melt Furnace 551 12/15/2009

Round Mtn Furnace Material

MercuryTestData Query12

FIN Unit Type Material Concentration (ppm) Date #1

A0394 Melt Furnace 17 06/25/2007

A0394 Melt Furnace 0.0813 11/10/2008

A0394 Melt Furnace 166.7 08/31/2009

Industry Furnace Material
Range of Material Concentrations 

(ppm)

Facility

Material 

Concentration 

(ppm)

Date

Florida Canyon 0.02 7/8/2008

Twin Creeks 0.03 7/28/2008

Twin Creeks 0.03 7/31/2008

Gold Quarry 0.03 9/16/2008

Twin Creeks 0.03 11/12/2009

Florida Canyon 0.05 7/10/2007

Round Mountain 0.08 11/10/2008

Gold Quarry 0.44 10/22/2007

Coeur Rochester 0.80 12/6/2007

Midas 2.90 7/17/2008

Coeur Rochester 3.90 10/2/2009

Ruby Hill 4.60 5/9/2007

Ruby Hill 4.60 5/9/2007

Midas 5.00 7/16/2008

Twin Creeks 5.12 11/11/2009

Cortez Pipeline 8.00 10/14/2009

Twin Creeks 8.20 6/9/2007

Twin Creeks 8.20 6/9/2007

Bald Mountain 10.00 8/12/2009

Gold Quarry 17.45 10/12/2006

Gold Quarry 17.45 10/12/2006

Ruby Hill 21.00 7/22/2009

Goldstrike 22.50 7/19/2007

Midas 46.80 11/14/2007

Twin Creeks 53.88 10/11/2005

Twin Creeks 89.30 6/8/2007

Twin Creeks 89.30 6/8/2007

Midas 126.00 10/7/2009

Midas 177.00 10/8/2009

Florida Canyon 233.00 6/9/2009

Hycroft/Lewis Project 334.00 9/9/2009

Goldstrike 364.40 7/21/2009

Bald Mountain 437.00 8/27/2008

Coeur Rochester 495.00 12/5/2007

Bald Mountain 520.00 10/24/2007

Furnace Material Concentration Statistics

(ppm)

 

Sample Size 35

Minimum 0.02

Maximum 520.00

Average 88.75

Median 8.20

Range of Mercury Concentrations

(ppm)

Industry Retort Material
Material Concentrate (ppm mercury) Statistics (ppm)

Retorts

Sample Size 35

Minimum 0.03

Maximum 355,333.00

Average 57,893.17

Median 22,100.00

-Rob

Rob Bamford

Supervisor, Nevada Mercury Control Program

Nevada Division of Environmental Protection

Bureau of Air Quality Planning

Phone: 775-687-9330

Cell: 775-315-3655

Fax: 775-687-6396

E-mail: rbamford@ndep.nv.gov
#### § 95.42 Codes of conduct.

The recipient shall maintain written standards of conduct governing the performance of its employees engaged in the award and administration of contracts. No employee, officer, or agent shall participate in the selection, award, or administration of a contract supported by Federal funds if a real or apparent conflict of interest would be involved. Such a conflict would arise when the employee, officer, or agent, any member of his or her immediate family, his or her partner, or an organization which employs or is about to employ any of the parties indicated herein, has a financial or other interest in the firm selected for an award. The officers, employees, and agents of the recipient shall neither solicit nor accept gratuities, favors, or anything of monetary value from contractors, or parties to subagreements. However, recipients may set standards for situations in which the financial interest is not substantial or the gift is an unsolicited item of nominal value. The standards of conduct shall provide for disciplinary actions to be applied for violations of such standards by officers, employees, or agents of the recipient.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                       2,471,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                               39,046,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                   728,000
<INVENTORY>                                 10,989,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            59,699,000
<PP&E>                                      20,316,000
<DEPRECIATION>                               6,549,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             188,908,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       46,122,000
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                      4,000
<COMMON>                                       128,000
<OTHER-SE>                                 106,807,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               188,908,000
<SALES>                                     59,331,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            59,331,000
<CGS>                                       48,390,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               48,390,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             2,741,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           1,084,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              7,121,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                 3,129,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          3,992,000
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 3,992,000
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.31
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.29


</TABLE>