alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 10.16

NINTH AMENDMENT TO

BJ SERVICES COMPANY 1997 INCENTIVE PLAN

WHEREAS, BJ Services Company (the Company) has heretofore adopted the BJ Services Company 1997 Incentive Plan (the Plan);

WHEREAS, the Plan has heretofore been amended by eight separate amendments adopted on January 28, 1999; July 22,
1999; December 9, 1999; March 22, 2001 (two amendments); October 15, 2001; July 28, 2005; December 7, 2006; and

WHEREAS, the Company desires to amend the Plan in certain additional respects;

NOW THEREFORE, the Plan
shall be amended as follows, effective as of October 13, 2008:



| | 1. | Paragraph 3(c)(ii) of Article II and paragraph 3(c)(ii) of Article III shall be amended to read as follows:
| | -- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

through tendering to the Company shares of Common Stock already owned by the person (provided that the Company may, upon confirming that the person
owns the number of share being tendered, issue a new certificate for the number of shares being acquired pursuant to the exercise of the option less the number of shares being tendered upon the exercise and return to the person (or not require
surrender of) the certificate for the shares being tendered upon exercise),
#### WORLD FAIR FREAKS AND ATTRACTIONS, INC., et al., Appellants, v. George HODGES, Police Chief, etc., et al., Appellees.

No. 41081.

Supreme Court of Florida.

July 12, 1971.

Appeal dismissed.

ROBERTS, C. J., and ERVIN, CARLTON, ADKINS and BOYD, JJ., concur.
October 16, 2015

Mr. Francisco Silva

3814 Dunford Lane, Unit G

Inglewood, CA 90305

Dear Mr. Silva:

This letter is to inform you that we are unable to process your petition for an exemption from 

Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR). It explains why we cannot process your 

request and what you should do in the next 30 days.

Why We Can Not Process Your Request

We entered your exemption request, posted to the public docket on July 24, 2015, and filed in 

Docket No. FAA−2015−3171, but we are unable to process your request any further. Your 

petition does not comply with the requirements of § 11.81 (copy enclosed). For us to consider 

the request any further, you must send us all of the following:

 The specific section or sections of 14 CFR from which you seek relief, the extent of the 

relief you seek, and the reason you seek relief.

 The reasons why granting the request would be in the public interest; that is, how it would 

benefit the public as a whole.

 The reasons why the exemption would not adversely affect safety or how the exemption 

would provide a level of safety at least equal to that provided by the rule from which you 

seek an exemption.

 Any additional information, views, or arguments available to support your request.

For more detailed information relating to submitting petitions for exemption, please visit 

http://aes.faa.gov/petition/index.html. This website helps the petitioner to meet Federal 

Aviation Administration (FAA) requirement outlines in § 11.81 and helps answer any 

questions you may have.
2

What You Should Do

If you want us to process your request any further, you must submit the requested information 

within 30 days. Please note that § 11.63(d) requires you to send your petition for exemption 

at least 120 days before the proposed effective date of the exemption. 

If We Do Not Hear From You

If we do not receive the information, we will close the docket without notifying you further. 

If you have any questions you may call the 333 Information Line (202) 267-2999.

Sincerely,

/s/

Brittany Newton

Program Analyst, Airmen and

 Airspace Rules Division

Enclosures
3
4
#### Ben OKUN and Sydney Okun, his wife, Appellants, v. STUART HOUSE CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, INC., Appellee.

No. 77-1484.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Sept. 26, 1978.

*714L. J. Cushman, Miami, for appellants.

Williams, Salomon, Kanner, Damian, Weissler & Brooks and Alan H. Lubitz, Miami, for appellee.

Before PEARSON, HENDRY and KE-HOE, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. The record on appeal in the instant case does not contain a transcript of either the trial below or the evidentiary hearing on attorneys’ fees. Because the final judgment in foreclosure appealed relates directly to these matters, we do not have before us an adequate record upon which to review the actions of the trial court. Accordingly, we must assume that the judgment appealed is correct; therefore, we affirm. See, e. g., *Williamson v. Williamson,*335 So.2d 346 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976); *Strickland v. Lewis,*328 So.2d 244 (Fla.1st DCA 1976); *Dade County Board of Public Instruction v. Foster,*307 So.2d 502 (Fla.3d DCA 1975); *Butler v. Metropolitan Dade County,*298 So.2d 552 (Fla.3d DCA 1974).

Affirmed.
FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 12/6/2021 | Document No. 603354 | PAGE Page 1 of 1 * PUBLIC *; 

__________________________________________ 

PUBLIC 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION 

OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGES 

) 

In the Matter of ) 

) 

Nvidia Corporation, )

 a corporation, ) Docket No. 9404 

) 

Softbank Group Corporation, )

 a corporation, and ) 

Arm, Ltd., 

) 

)

 a corporation, ) 

) 

Respondents. ) 

__________________________________________) 

ORDER DESIGNATING ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE 

Pursuant to authority vested in the Federal Trade Commission and delegated to the Chief 

Administrative Law Judge, 

IT IS ORDERED that D. Michael Chappell, Chief Administrative Law Judge, be, and 

hereby is, designated and appointed to take testimony and receive evidence in this proceeding 

and to perform all other duties authorized by law. 

ORDERED: 

D. Michael Chappell 

Chief Administrative Law Judge 

Date: December 6, 2021
EXHIBIT 23.1

Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

The
Board of Directors
Sauer-Danfoss Inc.:

We
consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statements No. 33-53927 and No. 333-93745 on Form S-8 of
Sauer-Danfoss Inc. of our reports dated March 10, 2008 with respect to the consolidated balance sheets of Sauer-Danfoss Inc. and subsidiaries as of December 31, 2007 and
2006, and the related consolidated statements of income, stockholders' equity and comprehensive income and cash flows for each of the years in the three-year period ended
December 31, 2007, and the related financial statement schedule, and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2007, which reports appear in the
December 31, 2007 annual report on Form 10-K of Sauer-Danfoss Inc.

As
discussed in Notes 1 and 9 to the consolidated financial statements, effective January 1, 2007, the Company adopted the provisions of FASB Interpretation No. 48, Accounting for Uncertainty in Income
Taxes. As discussed in Notes 1 and 8, the Company adopted the provisions of Statement of Financial
Accounting Standards No. 158,Employers' Accounting for Defined Benefit Pension and Other Postretirement Plans,on December 31, 2006.

As
described in Note 19 to the consolidated financial statements, the accompanying consolidated statements of income, stockholders' equity and comprehensive income, and cash flows
for the year ended December 31, 2005 have been restated.

/s/
KPMG LLP

Des
Moines, Iowa
March 10, 2008

---



QuickLinks