alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2015007EN.01000901.xml

| 12.1.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 7/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.1.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 7/9

---

Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 6 November 2014 — Italian Republic v European Commission

(Case C-385/13 P) (1)

1

((Appeal - European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) - Campania Regional Operational Programme (ROP) 2000‐2006 - Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 - Article 32(3)(f) - Infringement procedure in respect of the Italian Republic concerning waste management in the Campania region - Decision not to make interim payments in connection with the ROP measure concerning waste management and disposal))

(2015/C 007/11)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Parties

Appellant: Italian Republic (represented by: G. Palmieri, acting as Agent, and by P. Gentili, avvocato dello Stato)

Appellant:

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: D. Recchia and A. Steiblytė, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings:

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1) | Dismisses the appeal. |
| --- | --- |

1)

Dismisses the appeal.

| 2) | Orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2)

Orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 252, 31.8.2013.

1

---
#### Voegler v. Klingensmith Company et al., Appellant.

*Judgments*— Opening—Oath *against oath*— Discretion *of court.*

The court does not abuse its discretion in refusing to open a judgment, where the testimony material to the rights of the parties, amounts to no .more than an oath against an oath.

Under such circumstance, the order refusing to open the judgment will be affirmed.

Argued April 21, 1926.

Appeal No. 110, April T., 1926, by J. L. Klingensmith, from decree of C. P. Westmoreland County, August T., 1924, No. 294, in the case of John Voegler v. B. B. Klingensmith Company, E. M. Chinnock, Mgr., J. L. Klingensmith.

Before Porter, P. J., Henderson, Trexler, Keller, Linn, Gawthrop, and Cunningham, J.J.

Affirmed.

Petition to open a judgment. Before Whitten, J.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the Superior Court.

The court dismissed the petition. J. L. Klingensmith appealed.

*Errors assigned*were the opinion land decree of the court.

*L. S. Roberts,*and with him *S. W. Bierer,*for appellant.

*H. H. Dinsmore,*for appellee.

*35April 30, 1926:

Per. Curiam,

The judgment in this case was entered by confession, under a warrant of attorney contained in a note. The appellant moved to open the judgment, alleging that his signature had been procured by misrepresentation. The plaintiff filed an answer specifically denying all the material allegations of fact contained in the petition of the appellant. Depositions were taken by the parties in support of their respective contentions. The testimony on the facts material to the rights of the parties, practically amounted to no more than oath against oath. This being the case we would not be warranted in holding, that the court below was guilty of an abuse of discretion in refusing to open the judgment.

The order is affirmed and the appeal dismissed.
Motion Granted; Appeal Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed

November 18 , 2014

.

In The



## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14

- 14

- 00564

- CV

VINCENT ZAHORIK , Appellant

V.
METROPLITAN LIFE INS URANCE COMPANY, MOHS IN NOON, AMY CATCHING, AND SUZANN E WYZINSKI

- SMITH , Appellee

On Appeal from the 333rd District Court

Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 2011

- 61851

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

This is an appeal from a judgment signed June 24, 2014 . The clerk’s record
was filed September 11, 2014

. No reporter’s record was taken . No brief was filed.

On October 21, 2014
, appellee filed a motion to dismiss for want of prosecution. See Tex. App. P. 42.3(b). Appellant filed no response. Accordingly, appellee’s motion is granted and the appeal is ordered dismissed.2 PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices McCally, Brown and Wise

.
EXHIBIT 32.2

                            SECTION 906 CERTIFICATION

<PAGE>



                                  Exhibit 32.2

                     CERTIFICATION OF DISCLOSURE PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


In connection  with the Quarterly  Report of Infinity  Capital Group,  Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending September 30, 2006 as filed with
the  Securities  and Exchange  Commission  on the date hereof (the  "Report") I,
Theodore A. Greenberg,  Chief Financial  Officer,  Chief Investment  Officer and
Secretary of the Company,  certify,  pursuant to 18 USC section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to section 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002, that to the best of
my knowledge and belief:

         (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 the
Company.

Dated: November 15, 2006


Name: Theodore A. Greenberg

/s/Theodore A. Greenberg
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Position: Chief Financial Officer, Chief Investment Officer and Secretary


This  certification  accompanies  the  Report  pursuant  to  Section  906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002 and shall not,  except to the extent required by the
Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002,  be deemed  filed by the  Company  for  purposes of
Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
No. 46510.

#### Protests 999820-G, etc., of Abels, Wasserberg & Co., Inc., et al. (New York).

Opinio¡n by

Oliver, P. J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
No. 39235.

#### Protests 319023-G, etc., of A. Smith Co. et al (New York).

Opinion by

Tilson, J.

Articles in chief value of cellulose filaments similar to those involved in Abstract 37230 were held dutiable at 60 percent under paragraph 31 as claimed.
EXHIBIT 32.1

                                  CERTIFICATION
            PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
        (SUBSECTIONS (a) AND (b) OF SECTION 1350, CHAPTER 63 OF TITLE 18,
                               UNITED STATES CODE)

     Pursuant to section 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a)
and (b) of  section  1350,  chapter 63 of Title 18,  United  States  Code),  the
undersigned  officer of Interplay  Entertainment  Corp., a Delaware  corporation
(the  "Company"),  does hereby  certify with respect to the Annual Report of the
Company on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended  December  31, 2003 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "10-K Report") that:

     (1)  the 10-K 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 10-K Report fairly presents,  in all
          material respects,  the financial  condition and results of operations
          of the Company.


Date:     April 26, 2004
                                               /s/ Herve Caen
                                               -------------------------------
                                               Herve Caen
                                               Chief Executive Officer and
                                               Interim Chief Financial Officer
II 

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 2011 

To amend title 49, United States Code, to provide certain port authorities, 

and for other purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

DECEMBER 16, 2011 

Mrs. GILLIBRAND (for herself, Mr. SCHUMER, Mr. FRANKEN, Mr. MENENDEZ, Mrs. BOXER, and Mr. BROWN of Ohio) introduced the following bill; 

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Commerce, 

Science, and Transportation 

A BILL 

To amend title 49, United States Code, to provide certain 

port authorities, and for other purposes. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Clean Ports Act of 

5 2011’’. 

6 SEC. 2. APPLICABILITY TO PORT FACILITIES. 

7 Section 14501(c) of title 49, United States Code, is 

8 amended— 

9 (1) in paragraph (2)(A)— 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 2011 IS

1 (A) by striking ‘‘or’’ after ‘‘cargo,’’; and 

2 (B) by inserting before the semicolon the 

3 following: ‘‘, or the authority of a State, polit4 ical subdivision of a State, or political authority 

5 of 2 or more States, to adopt requirements for 

6 motor carriers and commercial motor vehicles 

7 providing services at port facilities that are rea8 sonably related to the reduction of environ9 mental pollution, traffic congestion, the im10 provement of highway safety, or the efficient 

11 utilization of port facilities, if adoption or en12 forcement of such requirements does not con13 flict with any other applicable Federal law or 

14 regulation’’; and 

15 (2) by adding at the end the following: 

16 ‘‘(6) CLARIFICATION.— 

17 ‘‘(A) DEFINITION OF PORT FACILITIES.— 

18 For purposes of paragraph (2)(A), the term 

19 ‘port facilities’ means all port facilities for 

20 coastwise, intercoastal, inland waterways, and 

21 Great Lakes shipping and overseas shipping, in22 cluding wharves, piers, sheds, warehouses, ter23 minals, yards, docks, control towers, container 

24 equipment, maintenance buildings, container 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•S 2011 IS

1 freight stations, and port equipment, including 

2 harbor craft, cranes, and straddle carriers. 

3 ‘‘(B) APPLICABILITY OF CLEAN AIR ACT.— 

4 Nothing in paragraph (1) may be construed to 

5 limit the rights reserved to any State or polit6 ical subdivision of a State under the Clean Air 

7 Act (42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.).’’. 

Æ 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
Before the First Division,

January 27, 1939

No. 40532.

#### Protest 944250-G of L. D. Heater Co. (Portland, Oreg.).

Opinion by

Sullivan, J.

There was no evidence that the plaintiff abandoned the instrument to the United States as provided in section 506. It-was held that it was not the intention of the statute to provide that the plaintiff could by protest attempt to prove the value of damage and obtain a refund of duty. The statute and article 807 *(a),*Customs Regulations of 1937, not-having been complied with the protest was overruled.
II 

112TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 2057 

To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to allow physician assistants, 

nurse practitioners, and clinical nurse specialists to supervise cardiac, 

intensive cardiac, and pulmonary rehabilitation programs. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

FEBRUARY 1, 2012 

Mr. SCHUMER (for himself and Mr. CRAPO) introduced the following bill; 

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to allow 

physician assistants, nurse practitioners, and clinical 

nurse specialists to supervise cardiac, intensive cardiac, 

and pulmonary rehabilitation programs. 

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


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 2057 IS

1 SECTION 1. ALLOWING PHYSICIAN ASSISTANTS, NURSE 

2 PRACTITIONERS, AND CLINICAL NURSE SPE3 CIALISTS TO SUPERVISE CARDIAC, INTEN4 SIVE CARDIAC, AND PULMONARY REHABILI5 TATION PROGRAMS. 

6 (a) CARDIAC AND INTENSIVE CARDIAC REHABILITA7 TION PROGRAMS.—Section 1861(eee) of the Social Secu8 rity Act (42 U.S.C. 1395x(eee)) is amended— 

9 (1) in paragraph (1)— 

10 (A) by striking ‘‘physician-supervised’’; 

11 and 

12 (B) by inserting ‘‘under the supervision of 

13 a physician (as defined in subsection (r)(1)) or 

14 a physician assistant, nurse practitioner, or 

15 clinical nurse specialist (as those terms are de16 fined in subsection (aa)(5))’’ before the period 

17 at the end; 

18 (2) in paragraph (2)(B), by striking ‘‘a physi19 cian’’ and inserting ‘‘a physician (as defined in sub20 section (r)(1)) or a physician assistant, nurse practi21 tioner, or clinical nurse specialist (as those terms are 

22 defined in subsection (aa)(5))’’; and 

23 (3) in paragraph (4)(A), in the matter pre24 ceding clause (i)— 

25 (A) by striking ‘‘physician-supervised’’; 

26 and 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•S 2057 IS

1 (B) by inserting ‘‘under the supervision of 

2 a physician (as defined in subsection (r)(1)) or 

3 a physician assistant, nurse practitioner, or 

4 clinical nurse specialist (as those terms are de5 fined in subsection (aa)(5))’’ after ‘‘paragraph 

6 (3)’’. 

7 (b) PULMONARY REHABILITATION PROGRAMS.—Sec8 tion 1861(fff)(1) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 

9 1395x(fff)(1)) is amended— 

10 (1) by striking ‘‘physician-supervised’’; and 

11 (2) by inserting ‘‘under the supervision of a 

12 physician (as defined in subsection (r)(1)) or a phy13 sician assistant, nurse practitioner, or clinical nurse 

14 specialist (as those terms are defined in subsection 

15 (aa)(5))’’ before the period at the end. 

Æ 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Howard Velasquez, Appellant.

[700 NYS2d 126]

—Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Harold Silverman, J., at suppression hearing; Frank Torres, J., at jury trial and sentence), rendered June 22, 1998, convicting defendant of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the seventh degree, and sentencing him to concurrent terms of IV2 to 3 years and 1 year, respectively, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant’s motions to suppress physical evidence and statements were properly denied. While the motion court relied on several various legal theories in denying suppression of the gun, we find that the record amply supports its conclusion that the gun was recovered through a proper inventory search of the vehicle, conducted in accordance with standard police procedure following defendant’s lawful arrest and before transporting the vehicle to the precinct *(see, People v Velasquez,*246 AD2d 448). The court properly ruled that no *Miranda*warnings were required in connection with a general question, addressed to a group of individuals removed from the vehicle, regarding ownership of the gun found therein. In the circumstances, this question, which led to defendant’s statements that he owned the vehicle and the gun and that he had a Connecticut permit for the gun, was intended to clarify the situation, rather than to obtain a statement *(see, People v Weston,*234 AD2d 90, *lv denied*89 NY2d 989). Thus, the court properly denied defendant’s motion to suppress those statements.

The trial court properly denied defendant’s initial application made pursuant to *Batson v Kentucky*(476 US 79) since it was insufficient to raise an inference of a pattern of discrimination that would serve to establish a prima facie case *(see, People v Lynn,*224 AD2d 294, *lv denied*88 NY2d 881). Defendant’s remaining *Batson*contentions are unpreserved and we decline to review them in the interest of justice. Were we to review these claims, we would reject them. In this connection, although the court ruled that a pattern had emerged in a subsequent round of jury selection, such ruling did not require the same conclusion as to the prior round *(see, People v Davis,*251 AD2d 137, *lv denied*92 NY2d 895). Furthermore, defendant did not meet his burden of establishing that any of the peremptory challenges at issue on appeal were pretextual *(see, People v Rivera,*225 AD2d 392, *lv denied*88 NY2d 969).

*65We perceive no abuse of discretion in sentencing. Concur— Ellerin, P. J., Nardelli, Williams, Rubin and Andrias, JJ.
!
"# $  	 $  %&	 	 '& ( )	
 *%
# '"" *+%
# '"" %
#

,	& -   

.//011234 435 66 17892:05 ;<,( 

=>3? 435 @AB< .C04/D5 E<( @ 

=>3? FD=05 G(!E ,-%HG($ =>3? 1F.F715 )$<,-E)$! 

1F.>F5 @ EI B F0>J5 A ($+  9D5 

24K01F2C.F3>5 LG()E( M +

=0>93>J24C 241F2F7F2345 

E"" <	
	
 (		 

N!O A E<; M < AA 

$N)(P,NN$Q E<INE-! B@A@

RSTUVWXYZ[ST V\\VRZU YUUVUU]VTZ ^WS_VRZ

38?0/F2K015 +" 
  
	 ;$E+ 	 
  	  " 

	

&	 

	&	" 		
  
	 &
  
 "# 	
  &

&"	&	

.==>3./`5 G"a	 E<( 

" *	

	 
	
  "	 
	 (ME) &	"  
	 "a	



 &	"  		&	 
	 &  
	 	
  *	 b"#Q 
" b"#Q  b"#Q

 *""	 


=>3C>0115 B@ )H 

+	

 <	 Hc		
 d& E!6e +" 
  
	 ;$E+ 	 
  	  "



	

&	  	&	" 		
  
	 &
  
 "# 	
 

& &"	&	 E
 d& E!6e G"a	 E<( 

" *	

	 
	
 

"	 
	 (ME) &	"  
	 "a	 

 &	"  		&	 
	 &  
	 	


 *	 b"#Q 
" b"#Q  b"#Q  *""	 
 )

 c	 "	 

	

&	 


	 	
  
	 ;
 <	 M	

	  
	 $
	 (
	  #"

E"" 	
 &	&	 	
 *		 	"	 " *	 	 
Q ""	

	 
	
  
	
  *	" 	
 ," e 

	

 *	 	 

	&	  
	 )
	 
 
  e &  *	 b"# @ 
*	

	
 "


	  " 	& 
	"	  

	

&	  " 
	  &	&	 
	
  &	&	

 *	 b"# E " 	  	
	
 
  	&&	
 *
 
&	  -<;(

(+H) 
	""	  *
 b	  6 		 &	
  
	  
	
  

	

 
	

 

*	 	 
  	 	 E  	 	* 
 	 	
"

	  
	 *	

	 


	" "	 -$f<E!   &	 &	"  +c	 
 &		   	" 

 

		* 	

  

 c	

=78:2/.F2341 ghij klmnoipqrs lmkiljmtu5 B@ )H 

- "
# C_2015236EN.01003301.xml

| 20.7.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 236/33 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.7.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 236/33

---

Judgment of the General Court of 3 June 2015 — Pensa Pharma v OHIM — Ferring and Farmaceutisk Laboratorium Ferring (PENSA PHARMA and pensa)

(Joined Cases T-544/12 and T-546/12) (1)

1

((Community trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - Community word mark PENSA PHARMA and Community figurative mark pensa - Earlier national and Benelux word marks PENTASA - Express consent to the registration of the Community trade mark before submission of the application for a declaration of invalidity - Article 53(3) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Relative grounds for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 and Article 53(1)(a) of Regulation No 207/2009))

(2015/C 236/43)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Pensa Pharma, SA (Valencia, Spain) (represented by: M. Esteve Sanz, M. González Gordon and R. Kunze, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: P. Geroulakos and J. Crespo Carrillo, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, interveners before the General Court: Ferring BV (Hoofddorp, Netherlands); and Farmaceutisk Laboratorium Ferring A/S (Copenhagen, Denmark) (represented by: initially I. Fowler, Solicitor, A. Renck, V. von Bomhard and D. Slopek, lawyers, subsequently I. Fowler, A. Renck, V. von Bomhard and J. Fuhrmann, lawyer, and lastly I. Fowler and J. Fuhrmann)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, interveners before the General Court:

Re:

Re:

Two actions brought against the decisions of the Fifth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 1 October 2012 (Cases R 1883/2011-5 and R 1884/2011-5), relating to invalidity proceedings between Ferring BV and Farmaceutisk Laboratorium Ferring A/S, on the one hand, and Pensa Pharma SA, on the other.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the actions; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the actions;

| 2. | Orders Pensa Pharma, SA, to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Pensa Pharma, SA, to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 55, 23.2.2013.

1

---
Case No. 9,351.

#### MAYNADIER v. WROE.

[1 Cranch. C. C. 442.] 1

Circuit Court, District of Columbia.

July Term, 1807.

Bail in Civil Cases — Surrender—Notice to Plaintiff.

1. Upon surrender of the principal to the sheriff by the bail under the law of Virginia, notice must be given immediately to the creditor, his attorney, or agent.

2. The knowledge of the plaintiff’s attorney is not sufficient

[Action by Maynadier against Wroe, special bail of Bickenton.]

The question was, whether the surrender of bail to the sheriff, with the knowledge of the plaintiff’s attorney, without regular notice, according to the 31st section of the act of Virginia of the 12th of December, 1792, is a discharge of the bail.

THE COURT

was of opinion that the notice must come from the bail, and be given immediately to the creditor, his attorney, or agent
Before the Second Division,

October 20, 1943

No. 48895.

#### Protest 101581-K, etc., of F. Blumenthal & Co. et al. (New York).

Opinion by

Tilson, J.

The record showed that certain of the items consist of (1) hemp hats similar to those the subject of *United States*v. *Armand Schwab*(30 C. C. P. A. 72, C. A. D. 218), (2) hemp knotted straw hats similar to those involved in Abstract 46497, and (3) hats or hoods of ramie and cellophane (racello) similar to those involved in Abstract 47291. In accordance therewith the claim as to these items was sustained.
Amendment to the Wyeth 2005 Amended and Restated Stock Incentive Plan



 Exhibit 10.1 
 AMENDMENT TO 
 THE WYETH 2005 AMENDED AND RESTATED STOCK INCENTIVE PLAN 
 Effective as of September 27, 2007, the Wyeth 2005 Amended and Restated Stock Incentive Plan was amended as follows: 
 Section 7 was amended to read in its entirety as follows: 
 Section 7. Adjustment in Event of Change in Stock. Subject to Section 8, in the event of a stock split, stock dividend, cash dividend (other than a regular cash dividend), combination of shares,
merger, or other relevant change in the Company’s capitalization, the Committee shall adjust in the manner determined by the Committee in its sole discretion to be appropriate (i) the number and kind of shares available for issuance under
the Plan (including the number of shares that may be granted as Restricted Stock), (ii) the maximum number of shares for which Options may be granted to any Participant during any one fiscal year of the Company, (iii) the number, kind and
Option Price of shares subject to outstanding Options and/or (iv) the number and kind of shares subject to outstanding Restricted Stock awards; provided, however, that, except in the case of incentive stock options, the number, kind and Option
Price of shares subject to outstanding Options shall be adjusted in the manner described in Section 1.409A-1(b)(5)(v)(D) of the Treasury Regulations; provided, further, that the case of incentive stock options, to the extent
permitted by Sections 422 and 424 of the Code, in the event that the outstanding shares of Common Stock of the Company are increased or decreased or changed into or exchanged for a different number or kind of shares or other securities of the
Company or of another corporation, through reorganization, merger, consolidation, liquidation, recapitalization, reclassification, stock split-up, combination of shares or dividend, appropriate adjustment in the number and kind of shares as to which
Options may be granted and as to which Options or portions thereof then unexercised shall be exercisable, and in the Option Price thereof, shall be made to the end that the proportionate number of shares or other securities as to which Options may
be granted and the Participant’s proportionate interests under outstanding Options shall be maintained as before the occurrence of such event; provided, that any such adjustment in shares subject to outstanding Options (including any
adjustments in the Option Price) shall be made in such manner as not to constitute a modification as defined by subsection (h)(3) of Section 424 of the Code; and provided, further, that, in the event of an adjustment in the number
or kind of shares under a Restricted Stock award pursuant to this Section 7, any new shares or units issued to the Participant in respect thereof shall be subject to the same terms, conditions and restrictions as the underlying Restricted Stock
award for which the adjustment was made. 
  

 1