alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>
 
                                                                    Exhibit 23.5
                                                                                

                   REPORT OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS
                   ----------------------------------------
                                        

AUDIT REPORT

To the general meeting of the shareholders of Frigoscandia Holding AB

Corporate identity number 556542-7704


We have audited the annual accounts, the consolidated accounts, the accounting
records and the administration of the board of directors and the managing
director of Frigoscandia Holding AB for the year 1998. These accounts and the
administration of the company are the responsibility of the board of directors
and the managing director. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on the
annual accounts, the consolidated accounts and the administration based on our
audit.

We conducted our audit in accordance with generally accepted auditing standards
in Sweden. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain
reasonable assurance that the annual accounts and the consolidated accounts are
free of material misstatement. An audit includes examining, on a test basis,
evidence supporting the amounts and disclosures in the accounts. An audit also
includes assessing the accounting principles used and their application by the
board of directors and the managing director, as well as evaluating the overall
presentation of information in the annual accounts and the consolidated
accounts. We examined significant decisions, actions taken and circumstances of
the company in order to be able to determine the liability, if any, to the
company of any board member or the managing director and whether they have in
any other way acted in contravention of the Companies Act, the Annual Accounts
Act or the Articles of Association. We believe that our audit provides a
reasonable basis for our opinion set out below.

The annual accounts and the consolidated accounts have been prepared in
accordance with the Annual Accounts Act, and, consequently we recommend that the
income statements and the balance sheets of the parent company and the group be
adopted, and that the profit of the parent company be dealt with in accordance
with the proposal in the administration report.

The board members and the managing director have not committed any act or been
guilty of any omission, which, in our opinion, could give rise to any liability
to the company. We therefore recommend that the members of the board of
directors and the managing director be discharged from liability for the
financial year.



Stockholm January 28, 1999
KPMG
# C_2015367EN.01001004.xml

| 5.11.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 367/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.11.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 367/10

---

RESEARCH EXECUTIVE AGENCY

Publication of the final accounts for the financial year 2014

(2015/C 367/39)

The complete version of the final accounts may be found at the following address:

http://ec.europa.eu/rea/about_us/activities/budget/index_en.htm

---
#### John Dellafiora, Respondent, v Barbara Dellafiora, Appellant, and Ross P. Solomon, Nonparty Appellant.

In an action for a divorce and ancillary relief, in which the defendant moved to vacate a stipulation of settlement entered into in open court, the defendant and her counsel, Ross P. Solomon, appeal from an order and judgment (one paper) of the Supreme Court, Orange County (Fitzer, J.H.O.), dated November 13, 1989, which granted the plaintiffs cross motion to impose costs and sanctions to the extent of awarding his counsel, the firm of Neuman, LaForge & Tamsen, the sum of $1,000, representing reasonable counsel fees generated in preparing papers and opposing a motion by the defendant to vacate the stipulation of settlement, and directing the defendant’s counsel to pay a sanction to the Lawyers’ Fund for Client Protection pursuant to 22 NYCRR 130-1.3.

Ordered that the order and judgment is affirmed, with costs.

Contrary to the appellants’ contentions, the plaintiff’s express request for the imposition of attorneys’ fees and sanctions pursuant to 22 NYCRR 130-1.1 *et seq.,*furnished them with adequate notice that such relief would be considered and rendered a formal hearing unnecessary *(see,*22 NYCRR 130-I. 1 [d]; *Matter of Minister, Elders & Deacons of Refm. Prot. Dutch Church v 198 Broadway,*76 NY2d 411, 413, n; *cf., Gerstein v I Travel,*169 AD2d 492). Contrary to the appellants’ further contentions, the Supreme Court sufficiently set forth in its decision the reasons for the imposition of attorneys’ fees and sanctions, and there is no basis in the record to modify the sum awarded to the plaintiffs counsel as reasonable attorneys’ fees, or the amount of sanctions directed to be paid to the appropriate fund to wit, the Lawyers’ Fund for Client Protection, formerly the Client’s Security Fund, pursuant to the court rules *(see,*22 NYCRR 130-1.3) by the defendant’s counsel for that counsel’s frivolous conduct. Kunzeman, J. P., Hooper, Lawrence and O’Brien, JJ., concur.
MPS GROUP, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES


                            CERTIFICATION 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 MPS Group,  Inc. (the "Company") on Form
10-K for the year  ending  December  31, 2003 as filed with the  Securities  and
Exchange  Commission  on the date hereof (the  "Report"),  I,  Timothy D. Payne,
President,  Chief  Executive  Officer  and  Director  of the  Company,  certify,
pursuant  to 18  U.S.C.  ss.  1350,  as  adopted  pursuant  to  ss.  906  of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

     (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 result of operations of
          the Company.



/s/ Timothy D. Payne
--------------------------
Timothy D. Payne
President, Chief Executive
March 15, 2004
L1 ANSWER 1 OF 1 REGISTRY COPYRIGHT

2007 ACS on STN CN Ethanol, 2-butoxy- (CA INDEX NAME) OTHER NAMES: CN -Butoxyethanol CN 2-Butoxy-1-ethanol CN 2-Butoxyethanol CN 2-n-Butoxyethanol CN 3-Oxa-1-heptanol CN Bikanol B 1 CN Buchiseru CN Butyl Cellosolve CN Butyl Cellu-Sol CN Butyl glycol CN Butyl Glysolv CN Butyl icinol CN Butyl monoether glycol CN Butyl Oxitol CN C4E1 CN Chimec NR CN DB solvent CN Dowanol EB CN Eastman EB CN EGBE CN Ektasolve EB CN Ethylene glycol butyl ether CN Ethylene glycol mono-n-butyl ether CN Ethylene glycol monobutyl ether CN Ethylene glycol n-butyl ether CN Gafcol EB CN Glycol butyl ether CN Glycol EB CN Glycol monobutyl ether CN K Foam Lo CN Mearcell 3532 CN Minex BDH CN Monobutyl glycol ether CN n-Butyl cellosolve CN NSC 60759 CN O-Butyl ethylene glycol CN Poly-Solv EB
NI-2013.12.31-EX10.2






Exhibit 10.2


FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE
NISOURCE INC.
2010 Omnibus Incentive PLAN


BACKGROUND
		
	A.
	NiSource Inc. (the “Company”) maintains the NiSource Inc. 2010 Omnibus Incentive Plan (the “Plan”).


		
	B.
	The Company desires to amend the Plan to provide the Officer Nomination and Compensation Committee (the “Committee”) the authority to grant equity awards authorized under the Plan that contain either single-trigger or double-trigger vesting in the event of a change in control event, as the Committee deems appropriate.


		
	C.
	Section 20.1 of the Plan gives the Officer Nomination and Compensation Committee (the “ONCC”) of the Company’s Board of Directors the ability to amend the Plan.


		
	D.
	The ONCC approved amendment of the Plan at its meeting held October 21, 2013.


PLAN AMENDMENT
		
	1.
	Effective October 21, 2013, the first sentence of Section 16.1 of the Plan is deleted in its entirety and replaced with the following:


Except as otherwise provided in the Plan or any Award Agreement granted hereunder, upon a Change in Control, all outstanding Awards shall become fully exercisable and all restrictions thereon shall terminate; provided, however, that the Committee may determine and provide through an Award Agreement or other means the extent of vesting and the treatment of partially completed performance periods (if any) for any Awards outstanding upon a Change in Control.    
2.    The remainder of the Plan shall remain unchanged.
## COURT OF APPEALS SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS FORT WORTH NO. 02 - 12 - 00232 - CR

ERIC MILLER APPELLANT
V. THE STATE OF TEXAS STATE

---------- FROM THE 432ND DISTRICT COURT OF TARRANT COUNTY

---------- 

### MEMORANDUM OPINION 1

---------- Appellant Eric Miller entered an open plea of guilty to evading arrest or detention with a vehicle, and the trial court sentenced him to five year s’ confinement. Miller’s court

- appointed appellate counsel has filed a motion to withdraw and a brief in support of that mot ion. Counsel avers that in his professional opinion, the appeal is frivolous. Counsel ’ s brief and motion meet the requirements of Anders v. California by presenting a professional evaluation of

1 See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.2

the record demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds f or relief. See 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396 (1967). This court informed M iller that he may file a
pro se brief, but he did not do so. The State d id not submit a brief. Once an appellant ’ s court

- appointed attorney files a motion to withdraw on the groun d that the appeal is frivolous and fulfills the requirements of Anders , this court is obligated to undertake an independent examination of the record. See Stafford v. State , 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991); Mays v. State , 904 S.W.2d 920, 922

– 23 (Tex. App.

— Fort Worth 1995, no pet.). Only then may we grant counsel ’ s motion to withdraw. See Penson v. Ohio , 488 U.S. 75, 82

– 83, 109 S. Ct. 346, 351 (1988). We have carefully reviewed the record and counsel ’ s brief. We agree with
counsel that this a ppeal is wholly frivolous and without merit; we find nothing in the record that might arguably support the appeal. See B ledsoe v. State , 178 S.W.3d 824, 827

– 28 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005); see also Meza v. State , 206 S.W.3d 684, 685 n.6 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006). Accordingly, we grant counsel ’ s motion to withdraw and affirm the trial court’s judgment.

BILL MEIER JUSTICE PANEL: WALKER, MCCOY, and MEIER, JJ. DO NOT PUBLISH Tex. R. App

. P. 47.2(b)
DELIVERED: April 11 , 2013
----

Prior notification of a concentration

(Case COMP/M.3721 — Stora Enso/Scaldia/PdF)

(2005/C 59/04)

(Text with EEA relevance)

----

(1)OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.

----
EX-10.31



 Ex. 10.31 

 
 AMENDMENT NUMBER TWO 

TO THE ASSURANT DEFERRED COMPENSATION PLAN 
  

THIS AMENDMENT to the Assurant Deferred Compensation Plan, as amended and restated effective as of January 1, 2008 (the “Plan”), is
adopted by the Assurant, Inc. Benefit Plans Committee (the “Committee”) effective as of December 3, 2013. 
  

W I T N E S S E T H: 
  

WHEREAS, Assurant, Inc. (the “Company”) currently maintains the Plan; 

 
 WHEREAS, pursuant to Article 10.2 of the Plan, the
Committee has the authority to amend the Plan, unless the amendment would significantly increase the Company’s liabilities for the Plan; 
  

WHEREAS, the Committee wishes to amend the Plan, effective as of December 3, 2013, to clarify that the Committee serves as the
Administrator of the Plan and to amend the definition of Company to grant the Committee the power to approval adoption of this Plan by any affiliate of the Sponsor; and 

 
 WHEREAS, the Committee has determined that this
amendment to the Plan will not significantly increase the liabilities of the Plan; 
  
 NOW THEREFORE, the Committee amends the Plan as follows: 
  

1. 
  

Effective as of December 3, 2013, a new Article 1.2 is added to the Plan to read in its entirety as follows: 

 
 “1.2 “Administrator”
shall mean the Benefit Plans Committee.” 
  
 2.

  
 Effective as of December 3, 2013, Article
1.11 is hereby amended in its entirety as follows: 
  

“1.11 “Company” shall mean the Sponsor and any affiliate of the Sponsor that adopts this Plan with the approval of the
Administrator, and any successor to all or substantially all of the Company’s assets or business.” 
  

* * * * * * * * * 
  

Except as amended here, the Plan will continue in full force and effect. 







 Ex. 10.31 

 
 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned
executes this Amendment on the date set forth below. 
  

					
	 	  	 ASSURANT, INC.
 BENEFIT PLANS COMMITTEE

			
	Date: December 3, 2013	  	By:	  	 /s/ Robyn Price Stonehill

		  		  	Robyn Price Stonehill
		  		  	Member, Assurant, Inc. Benefit Plans Committee
		  		  	 Senior Vice President, Compensation, Benefits and Shared Services
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Marilyn Kelly

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 _________________________________________

 Clerk

December 26, 2012

t1217

Order 

December 26, 2012

146014

WILLIAM R. JOHNS, JR. and CLINTON

INTERIORS, INC.,

Plaintiffs/

Counter-Defendants-Appellees,

v SC: 146014

COA: 299542 

Macomb CC: 2008-002796-CK

WIXOM BUILDERS SUPPLY, INC. d/b/a

BRIGHTON BUILDERS SUPPLY, INC., 

B&D DRYWALL SUPPLY, INC., MID-WEST

BUILDING PRODUCTS, INC., CAPITAL

DRYWALL SUPPLY, INC., and KEN’S

DRYWALL, INC.,

Defendants/

Counter-Plaintiffs-Appellants, 

and

WILLIAM R. JOHNS, SR.,

Defendant-Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the September 4, 2012 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Sergio Cruz, Also Known as Sergio Almonte, Appellant.

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Edward McLaughlin, J.), rendered April 13, 1988, convicting defendant of two counts of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the first degree, two counts of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the first degree, and one count of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him to concurrent indeterminate sentences of 25 years to life on the first degree counts, and *8 Vs*to 25 years on the third degree count, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant was arrested following a covert drug operation, in which he sold over 4 ounces of cocaine to an undercover police officer. The evidence at trial was uncontroverted and no challenge to the weight or sufficiency of the evidence is raised on appeal. Defendant contends, however, that Criminal Term should not have given a "two-inference” charge, in which the jury was instructed that, where the evidence raised competing inferences of equal weight and strength, the defendant was entitled to the inference of innocence. No objection was raised at trial; consequently, the claim was not preserved for appellate review (CPL 470.05 [2]). Were we to consider the claim in the interest of justice, we would conclude that it is meritless. While such instructions have been criticized as potentially confusing to the jury, reversal is not warranted where, as here, the charge as a whole conveyed the appropriate burden of proof *(United States v Khan,*821 F2d 90).

*384Defendant, *pro se,*contends that the court improperly discharged a juror prior to the taking of testimony but after she had been sworn. In a telephone conversation with the Trial Justice, the juror stated that "she had asthma and went to the hospital, went some place to get shots”. While a more thorough inquiry might have been made as to the severity of the juror’s medical condition and her expected period of incapacity *(see generally, People v Olaskowitz,*162 AD2d 322, *lv withdrawn*76 NY2d 1023), in the absence of any objection, we decline to review the contention. In any event, reversal on this ground is not warranted.

We have considered defendant’s remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Rosenberger, Wallach, Asch and Kassal, JJ.
II 

113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 524 

To amend the National Trails System Act to provide for the study of the 

Pike National Historic Trail. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MARCH 12, 2013 

Mr. BENNET (for himself and Mr. UDALL of Colorado) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

A BILL 

To amend the National Trails System Act to provide for 

the study of the Pike National Historic Trail. 

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 ‘‘Pike National Historic 

5 Trail Study Act of 2013’’. 

6 SEC. 2. WESTERN STATES TRAIL STUDY. 

7 Section 5(c) of the National Trails System Act (16 

8 U.S.C. 1244(c)) is amended by adding at the end the fol9 lowing: 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with BILLS

2 

•S 524 IS

1 ‘‘(46) PIKE NATIONAL HISTORIC TRAIL.—The 

2 Pike National Historic Trail, a series of routes ex3 tending approximately 3,664 miles, which follows the 

4 route taken by Lt. Zebulon Montgomery Pike during 

5 the 1806–1807 Pike expedition that began in Fort 

6 Bellefontaine, Missouri, extended through portions 

7 of the States of Kansas, Nebraska, Colorado, New 

8 Mexico, and Texas, and ended in Natchitoches, Lou9 isiana.’’. 

Æ 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
SEI-EX10.25_2013.12.31-K






EXHIBIT 10.25


FIRST AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT


WHEREAS, Seitel, Inc., a Delaware corporation (together with its successor and assigns, the "Company") and Kevin P.  Callaghan (the "Executive") have entered  in an employment agreement dated January 30, 2007 (the "Agreement"); and


WHEREAS, Executive's Base Salary on April 30, 2009 is $468,000; and


WHEREAS, effective May 1, 2009 Executive has voluntarily determined to reduce his Base Salary as in effect on April 30, 2009 by 10% through December 31, 2009, and after December 31, 2009 his Base Salary shall return to the annual amount as in effect on April 30, 2009; and


WHEREAS, the Company and Executive acknowledge that such a voluntary reduction in Executive's Base Salary by Executive is not the occurrence of a Good Reason as defined in the Agreement; and


WHEREAS, Executive and Company acknowledge and agree that this reduction is not in exchange for any other payment or benefit; and


WHEREAS, the Company and Executive acknowledge and agree that the Company shall not be required to pay the amount of this 10% reduction in Base Salary to Executive at any time in the future.


NOW, THEREFORE, for the purposes of clarity, the Executive and Company hereby agree to add the following at the end of Section 4:


"During the calendar year 2009 for all purposes under this Agreement respecting benefits payable upon termination of employment, Executive's Base Salary shall mean the amount of $468,000  as in effect on April 30,  2009 as previously approved by the Company (or if applicable any increase by the Company  above  such  amount)  and  shall  not  be  reduced  by  any  voluntary reduction in Base Salary by Executive."


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned have executed this Agreement on June 2, 2009.


SEITEL, INC.
	
			
	By:
	/s/
	Robert D. Monson

	Name:
	Robert D. Monson

	Title:
	President & CEO








EXECUTIVE:
	
		
	/s/
	Kevin P. Callaghan

	Kevin P. Callaghan
I

103D CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 4007

To amend the Water Supply Act of 1958 to provide for the funding of

capital improvements at the Washington Aqueduct, and for other purposes.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MARCH 10, 1994

Mr. MORAN (for himself and Ms. NORTON) introduced the following bill; which

was referred to the Committee on Public Works and Transportation

A BILL

To amend the Water Supply Act of 1958 to provide for

the funding of capital improvements at the Washington

Aqueduct, 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. CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS AT WASHINGTON

4 AQUEDUCT.

5 Section 301 of the Water Supply Act of 1958 (43

6 U.S.C. 390b) is amended by adding at the end the follow7 ing new subsection:

8 ‘‘(e) Notwithstanding any other provision of law—

9 ‘‘(1) the Chief of Engineers of the Army Corps

10 of Engineers may borrow from the Federal Financ-
2

•HR 4007 IH

1 ing Bank such amounts as the Chief determines are

2 necessary to finance capital improvements at the

3 Washington Aqueduct;

4 ‘‘(2) upon request of the Chief, the Board of

5 Directors of the Federal Financing Bank shall make

6 loans to the Chief for the purpose described in para7 graph (1); and

8 ‘‘(3) any amounts borrowed by the Chief under

9 this subsection shall be repaid by users of the Wash10 ington Aqueduct over such period of time, and shall

11 be subject to such other terms and conditions, as the

12 Board determines to be appropriate.’’.

Æ