alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 10.8

 

SECOND AMENDMENT TO THE
 STOCK OPTION PLAN
 OF
 PROPETRO HOLDING CORP.

 

THIS SECOND AMENDMENT TO THE STOCK OPTION PLAN OF PROPETRO HOLDING CORP. (this “Amendment”), dated as of December 2, 2016, is made and adopted by ProPetro Holding Corp., a Texas corporation (the “Company”), subject to the approval of the stockholders of the Company. Capitalized terms used but not otherwise defined herein shall have the respective meanings ascribed to them in the Option Plan (as defined below).

 

RECITALS

 

WHEREAS, the Company maintains the Stock Option Plan of ProPetro Holding Corp., adopted as of March 4, 2013, and amended as of June 14, 2013 (the “Option Plan”);

 

WHEREAS, the Company desires to further amend the Option Plan as set forth herein;

 

and

 

WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 7.3 of the Option Plan, the Option Plan may be amended at any time and from time to time by the Board or the Committee; provided that approval by the Company’s stockholders is required for any amendment to the Option Plan that increases the number of shares which may be issued under the Option Plan (other than certain adjustments under the Option Plan).

 

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that, subject to the approval of the stockholders of the Company, the Option Plan shall be amended as follows:

 

1.                               Section 2.1 of the Option Plan is hereby amended and restated in its entirety as follows:

 

“Section 2.1                 Shares Subject to Plan. The shares of stock subject to Options shall be shares of Common Stock. Subject to Section 7.1, the aggregate number of such shares which may be issued upon exercise of Options shall not exceed 546,189,514 shares of Common Stock.”

 

2.                               This Amendment shall be effective as of the date of its approval by the stockholders of the Company.

 

3.                               Upon approval by the stockholders of the Company, this Amendment shall be incorporated in and form a part of the Option Plan.

 

4.                               Except as set forth herein, the Option Plan shall remain in full force and effect following the date of this Amendment.

 

[Signature page follows]

 











 

The foregoing Amendment is executed as December 2, 2016.

 

	
 
    	
By:
    	
/s/ Dale Redman
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
Name: Dale Redman
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
Title: Chief Executive Officer
    


 

SECOND AMENDMENT TO STOCK OPTION PLAN
Order entered January 2 9 , 2019

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05
- 19
- 00020
- CV BRENDA KAPPOS, Appellant

V. DOUGLAS F. BAXTER, Appellee On Appeal from the 14th Judici al District Court

Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DC
- 18
- 11757



### O RDER Before the Court is appellant’s January 25, 2019 request for additional time to file the clerk’s and reporter’s records. Also before the Court is the letter from the Dallas C ounty District Clerk explaining that the clerk’s record has been prepared but appellant refuses to pay for it. Rather, appellant requests that the clerk’s record contain only the docket sheet, the original petition, order appealed, notice of appeal, and r equest for the clerk’s record. Barring an agreement between the parties, the clerk’s record must include, as pertinent here, (1) all pleadings on which the trial was held, (2) the court’s judgment or other order that is being appealed, (3) any request for findings of fact and conclusions of law, any post

- judgment motion, and the court’s order on the motion, (4) the notice of appeal, (5) any requests for the clerk’s record and reporter’s record, (6) a certified bill of costs including the cost of prepari ngthe clerk’s record, showing credits for payments made, and (7) any filing that a party designates

to have included in the record. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 34.5(a)(1), (5), (6), (7), (9), (10), (11), (13). Accordingly, we GRANT appellant’s motion as follows . We ORDER Dallas County District Clerk Felicia Pitre to file a clerk’s record that complies with rule 34.5 by February 12, 2019

. We further ORDER a ppellant to file , by February 26, 2019 , written verification that she has requested preparation of the re porter’s record. We caution appellant that if she fails to comply, the Court may order the appeal be submitted without the reporter’s record. See T EX
. R.
A PP
. P. 37.3(c).
We DIRECT the Clerk of this Court to send a copy of this order to Ms. Pitre and all parties.
/s/ BILL WHITEHILL JUSTICE
## In the

Court of Appeals

Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth

No. 02

- 23

- 00233

- CR

J OSEPH D INGLER

, Appellant

V

.

T HE S TATE OF T EXAS §

§

§

§

§ On A ppeal from the 432nd District Court

of Tarrant County ( 1749454 )

October 26, 2023

Memorandum Opinion by Justice Kerr

(nfp)

JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that the

appeal should be dismissed. It is ord e red that the appeal is dismissed for want of

jurisdiction

.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

By _ /s/ Elizabeth Kerr

__________________ Justice Elizabeth Kerr
This Funding Forecast is deliberative and pre-decisional. It is subject to change. See Funding Opportunities | AmeriCorps for 

announced funding opportunities.

Funding Opportunities Anticipated FY 2024

Assistance 

Listing 

No.

Notice Name

Anticipated 

Notice 

Publication

Anticipated 

Application 

Deadline

Anticipated 

Announcement 

Date

Contact Information

94.002

94.017 FY 24 RSVP and SDP 

Quarter 3 Grants only August 2023 October 2023 N/A AmeriCorpsSeniors2@cns.gov

94.013 AmeriCorps VISTA 

Cycle 1

September 

2023 November 2023 February 2024 vista@americorps.gov

94.006 FY 24 Public Health AmeriCorps

Continuations only August 2023 January 2024 July 2024 publichealth@americorps.gov

94.006 FY 24 AmeriCorps State and National 

Grants August 2023 January 2024 April 2024 202-606-7508

AmeriCorpsGrants@cns.gov

94.013 AmeriCorps VISTA 

Cycle 2 September 2023 February 2024 May 2024 vista@americorps.gov

94.011

94.016

FY 24 SCP and FGP 

Replacement Sponsor Grants November 2023 February 2024 April 2024 FGPSCPReplacement@cns.gov 

94.013 AmeriCorps VISTA 

Cycle 3 September 2023 March 2024 July 2024 vista@americorps.gov
This Funding Forecast is deliberative and pre-decisional. It is subject to change. See Funding Opportunities | AmeriCorps for 

announced funding opportunities.

94.011

94.016

94.017

FY 24 FGP, SCP and

SDP Quarter 4 only January 2023 March 2024 N/A AmeriCorpsSeniors2@cns.gov

94.006 FY 24 AmeriCorps State & National 

Native Nations August 2023 April 2024 May 2024 202-606-7508

AmeriCorpsGrants@cns.gov

94.014

94.012 Days of Service (9/11 and MLK) -

Continuations Only March 2024 May 2024 June 2024 DaysofService@cns.gov

94.021 FY 22 Volunteer Generation Fund –

Continuations only March 2024 May 2024 June2024 202-606-7508

AmeriCorpsGrants@cns.gov

94.026

FY 2023 National Service and Civic 

Engagement Research - Continuations 

only

April 2024 June 2024 July 2024 evaluation@cns.gov

FGP = Foster Grandparent Program; SCP = Senior Companion Program; SDP = Senior Demonstration Program; 9/11 =AmeriCorps 

September 11th National Day of Service and Remembrance Grants; MLK =AmeriCorps Martin Luther King Jr. Day of Service Grants
# Comments on: 2020-1387: Bracco Diagnostics Inc. v. Maia Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
#### The State of Kansas v. L. M. Spencer.

Inbobmation, *to be Verified.*An information charging a defendant with a criminal offense must be verified by the oath of the prosecuting attorney, complainant, or some other person.

*Appeal from Barber District Court.*

The opinion states the case.

*120
      *JR. A. Cameron,*county attorney; and *Sample & Long,*for appellant.

*Thomas George,*for appellee.

The opinion of the court was delivered by

Horton, C. J.:

The information against the defendant was drawn under §183 of the crimes act. The defendant filed his motion to quash, upon the following grounds:

> “Because the offense pretended to be charged is not clearly set forth in plain and concise language without repetition; because the information does not state facts sufficient to constitute an offense against the laws of the state of Kansas; because the information is not properly and duly verified; and because the court has no jurisdiction to hear and determine said case.”

It does not appear from the record that the information was verified by the oath of the prosecuting attorney, the complainant, or any other person. (Criminal Procedure, §§67, 67a. All presumptions are in favor of the ruling of the court below; and as there is not attached or annexed to the information any verification, we may assume that the court quashed the same for that reason, if for no other. The following appears in the record :

> “ State oe Kansas, Barber County, *ss.*— R. A. Cameron, being duly sworn, deposes and says: That he is the county attorney of Barber county, Kansas; that he has read the above and foregoing information; and that the facts and statements therein set forth are as he is informed and verily believes,

> R. A. Cameron.

> “Subscribed and sworn to before me, this 8th day of May, 1889. Prank Holmes, *Clerh of the District Court.*

> [Seal.] By S. L. Allen, Deputy.”

This, however, is not attached to the information, nor does it purport to be a part thereof. Following the information are the motion to quash, and the bill of exceptions. Then comes upon a separate paper the alleged verification; but *121even this is defective in form, because it is not stated therein that the facts and statements of the information are true according to the information and belief of the prosecuting attorney. The word “true” is omitted.

As the record bornes to us, we cannot infer that this alleged verification is a part or portion of the information, and therefore, as the information was never verified, the order and judgment of the district court must be affirmed.

All the Justices concurring.
§ 302-7.10 What are the reasons that would justify the additional storage beyond the initial 60 days CONUS and 90 days OCONUS limits? Reasons for justifying temporary storage beyond the initial limit include, but are not limited to: ( a ) An intervening temporary duty or long-term training assignment;
( b ) Non-availability of suitable housing;
( c ) Completion of residence under construction;
( d ) Serious illness of employee or illness or death of a dependent; or
( e ) Strikes, acts of God, or other circumstances beyond the control of the employee.
[FTR Amdt. 2011-01, 76 FR 18340, Apr. 1, 2011]
" 

Docket No: F AA-2009-0330 

Directorate ID: 2008-NE-43-AD 

Disposition Comments 

Originating Office Tracking No.: SP2856EN-E 

Next Step: [gJ FRAN 0SNPRM 

D These comments are in 

response to an SNPRM 

[SJ No Comments/Only Supportive Comments Received- If this box is checked, no signatures are 

required. 

Yes Has the referenced service information been revised since the NPRM was issued? If yes, 

list latest revision and attach a copy. Note that changes beyond the scope of the previously 

published NP RM will require a new notice. Contact the Directorate focal point for guidance. 

EASA recently issued a revised MCAI on February 3, 2012 to include a credit for 

inspections performed per the prior revision of the Turbomeca Service Bulletin. FR will 

be updated to include the following "Credit for Previous Action" paragraph: 

Credit for Previous Action 

An inspection performed on an installed engine before the effective date of this AD using 

Turbomeca MSB No. 319 75 4810, Issue A, dated May 14,2008, satisfies the inspection 

requirement in paragraph (e)(l)(i) of this AD. 

FR will also be revised to reference the latest EASA AD 2011-0182R1, dated February 3, 2012 

Instructions: Summarize all comments by issue (not by commenter) and provide your recommended resolution of 

each issue. All comments relating to the same issue should be dis~ussed together. Do not list all of the issues 

from one commenter together. If changes to the AD are required based on the comments received, explain why and 

describe in detail what change(s) you recommend. Reference FAA-IR-M-8040.1C Chapter9. 

ISSUE 1: Select one of the following: 

If other, explain: 

Commenter( s ): 

What change to the AD action is requested? 

Why is the change requested or how is it justified? 

Do we agree? 

If YES, we agree because Make the following changes to the AD: 

IfPARTIALLY AGREE, we agree with because We disagree with because 

Make the following changes to the AD: 

If NO, we don't agree because 

ISSUE 2: Select one of the following: 

If other, explain: 

Commenter(s): 

Page 1 of3
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 the Treasury

# DATES:

Written comments should be received on or before July 24, 2000 to be assured of consideration. 

## Internal Revenue Service (IRS) 

*OMB Number:*                     1545-1099.                 

*Form Number:*                     IRS Form 8811.                 

*Type of Review:*                     Extension.                 

*Title:*                     Information Return for Real Estate Mortgage Investment Conduits (REMICs) and Issuers of Collateralized Debt Obligations.                 

*Description:*                     Form 8811 is used to collet the name, address, and phone number of a representative of a REMIC who can provide brokers with the correct income amounts that the broker's clients must report on their income tax returns. The form allows the IRS to provide the REMIC industry the information necessary to issue correct information returns to investors.                 

*Respondents:*                     Business or other for-profit.                 

*Estimated Number of Respondents/Recordkeepers:*                     1,000.                 

*Estimated Burden Hours Per Respondent/Recordkeeper:*

Recordkeeping—3 hr., 50 min.

Learning about the law or the form—35 min.

Preparing, copying, assembling, and sending the form to the IRS—41 min. 

*Frequency of Response:*                     Other (One-time for each obligation.)                 

*Estimated Total Reporting/Recordkeeping Burden:*                     5,110 hours.                 

*Clearance Officer:*                     Garrick Shear, Internal Revenue Service, Room 5244, 1111 Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20224.                 

*OMB Reviewer:*                     Alexander T. Hunt, (202) 395-7860, Office of Management and Budget, Room 10202, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503.                 

Mary A. Able, 

Departmental Reports, Management Officer. 

[FR Doc. 00-15726 Filed 6-21-00; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4830-01-U
No. 11-9293.

#### Bergin *v.*United States.

C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.
# Comments on: 18-1486: SUCIC v. WILKIE [OPINION], Precedential
#### § 301-75.202 What must we do if the interviewee exchanges the ticket they have been issued?

| If | You will inform the traveler |
| --- | --- |
| The new ticket is more expensive than the ticket you provided | That the traveler must pay the difference using personal funds and the traveler will not receive reimbursement for the extra amount. |
| The new ticket is less expensive than the ticket you provided | Provide the interviewee with a credit/refund address by attaching a copy of the GTR, or some other document containing this information, to either the ticket or the travel authorization as provided in U.S. Government Passenger Transportation Handbook (*https://www.gsa.gov/transaudits*). |

[FTR Amdt. 70, 63 FR 15980, Apr. 1, 1998; 63 FR 35538, June 30, 1998, as amended by FTR Amdt. 108, 67 FR 57968, Sept. 13, 2002; 85 FR 39850, July 2, 2020; FTR Case 2022-05, 89 FR 12253, Feb. 16, 2024]
p.1 

OAR Box 1384 

Prepped by Charmelle Mathews 

Document Number: 

5jH£f)ll-E-156 n 

Docket Number: 

A-94-52 

Printed 7/2/2008 8:42:10 AM Sheet 197 of 264 
P.2 

JUL-10-199B 21=44 V.^d/^iL 

A 94 52 

1

' -E-\5(O 

From: 

Date: 

Contact: 

Contact Report 

Robert Jemison, Pacific Environmental Services, Inc. (PES) 

June 10,1998 

Mr. Alan Jones 

Company: Athena Marble, Inc. 

Telephone Number: (704)636-7810 

Fax Number: (704)636-3184 

Contact Summary: 

Mr. Alan Jones was contacted on behalf of the U.S. EPA to update information provided in 

the 1993 EPA Reinforced Plastic Composites Screening Survey submitted by Athena Marble, Inc. 

for their facility located in Salisbury, North Carolina. In response to my questions Mr. Jones 

indicated the following: 

The facility uses polymer casting and atomized spray lay-up (gel coats only) to produce bath 

tubs, lavatories, and shower stalls. 

The facility uses atomized spray lay-up to apply both clear and pigmented (white) production 

gel coats in tie fabrication of the products listed above. The facihty does not use tooling gel coats 

in the fabrication of any product or mold. The clear gel coat used by the facility contains 47.25% 

HAP by weight as supplied (47.25% styrene and 0.00% methyl methacrylate). The pigmented 

(white) gel coat used by the facility contains 35,13% HAP by weight as supplied (35.13% styrene 

and 0.00% methyl methacrylate). No additional HAP is added to either the clear or pigmented gel 

coat during or prior to the fabrication process with the exception of small amounts of HAP that may 

(or may not) be present in initiators, promoters and/or catalysts added to the clear gel coat. 

The facility prepares the resin-filler nuxture used in its polymer castmg operations 

a polyester resin, filler, and catalyst in a batch mixer. The facility has three batch mixers on site. 

The mixers are open (not covered or closed) while the mixing process is conducted. Once the 

mixing process is completed, the mixture is poured into a mold (or molds). The majority of the 

molds used by the faciliry are open, although a few are partially closed. . . 

The polyester resm used by thejaritity for its polymer easting operations contains ________y» 

HAP by weight as supplied (_£i£-3vuWrene) and docs not contain a vapor suppressant No 

additional HAP is added to the polyester resin during or prior to the polymer casting process with 

the exception of small amounts of HAP that may (or may not) be present in initiators, promoters 

and/or catalysts added to the resin, 

INFORMATION IS ACCURATE jd QrtyL. \pflLJ 

TOTAL P.02
Exhibit 32



CERTIFICATION OF CEO AND CFO 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 on Form 10-Q of Moscow CableCom Corp. for the quarter ended June 30, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350 as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, Mikhail A. Smirnov, Chief Executive Officer, and Tate Fite, Chief Financial Officer, each hereby certifies, that, to the best of his knowledge:



(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 results of operations of Moscow CableCom Corp.



|October 24, 2006 | /s/ Mikhail A. Smirnov 
|---------------- | -----------------------
|                 | Mikhail A. Smirnov     
|                 | Chief Executive Officer
|                 |                        
|October 24, 2006 | /s/ Tate Fite          
|                 | Tate Fite              
|                 | Chief Financial Officer





This certification shall not, except to the extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed for purposes of §18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, or otherwise subject to the liability of that section and shall not be deemed to be incorporated by reference in any filing under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
1.72265625 Dn Diameter of Nozzle ( Ft. ) 2

13.78125 8* (Dn)2 1.36118889 Dd 2 Diameter of Sampling Duct (Ft) 2 10.12442145 4.185 Roof vent velocity (ft/sec) from Anemometer Data **42.37070378** Desired Velocity in the Duct (ft/sec) 5-1-13 Line 1
Argued and submitted March 13,

affirmed June 21, 1995

#### Winifred MESSENGER, *Appellant, v.*William A. ZINTER and Dorothy E. Zinter, *Respondents.*

(CV 94-0052; CA A84654)

896 P2d 1225

Timothy J. Vanagas argued the cause and filed the brief for appellant.

George W. Kelly argued the cause and filed the brief for respondents.

Before Riggs, Presiding Judge, and Landau and Leeson, Judges.

PER CURIAM

*201PER CURIAM

In this action for a constructive trust and an accounting, plaintiff contends that the trial court erred in granting defendants’ motion to dismiss the claims on the ground that they are barred by the Statute of Limitations. In the trial court, plaintiff filed no written response to the motion and did not appear at the hearing. On appeal she argues that the Statute of Limitations is inapplicable to her claims. We decline to consider the argument, because it was not raised in the trial court.

Affirmed.