alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Bayshore Exploration L.L.C.
 	
            20501 Kay Freeway, Suite 216
 









	
             
 	
            Katy, Texas  77450
 









	
             
 	
            Phone (281) 646-1919
 









	
             
 	
            Fax (281) 647-9448
 





 


 


October 12, 2006


 


 


Paxton Energy, Inc.


P.O. Box 2332


Granite Bay, CA  95746


 


Attention:  Mr. Rob Freiheit


 





	
            RE:
 	
            Cooke No. 2 Well
 









	
             
 	
            Cooke Ranch Prospect
 









	
             
 	
            La Salle County, Texas
 





 


Gentlemen:


 


Bayshore Exploration L.L.C. (“Bayshore”) is the owner and holder of a certain working interest ownership in the Bayshore – Cooke No. 2 Well (API No. 42-283-31836) located at 600 feet from the East line and 2800 feet from the South line of the H. & G.N. R.R. Co. Survey, Abstract No. 308, Cooke Ranch Field, La Salle County, Texas.


 


Bayshore, as operator, is presently in the process of re-completing the Cooke No. 2 Well in the Escondido formation at 6,400 – 6,450 feet. Upon completion of a successful production test witnessed by the Railroad Commission of Texas confirming a commercial gas well, Paxton Energy, Inc. (“Paxton”) shall have the option, within fifteen (15) days of notification from Bayshore to participate in the re-completion of the subject well for a twenty-five percent (25%) working interest ownership. Said ownership shall include all oil and gas production from the well and one hundred sixty (160) acre proration unit assigned thereto. Bayshore shall deliver a seventy percent (70%) net revenue interest in the subject well.


 


In the event that Paxton elects to participate for a 25% working interest ownership in the subject well, Paxton shall pay to Bayshore 25% of the actual AFE costs in the re-completion operation, which is estimated to be $500,000.00 for 100% working interest.


 


The four-point production test on the subject well is scheduled for Wednesday, October 25, 2006. Upon completion of the production test, Bayshore shall notify Paxton of same and furnish Paxton with a formal Participation Agreement for its option in the well. Paxton shall have 15 days in which to exercise its option to participate in the well.


 


If the foregoing is your understanding of our agreement, please acknowledge your acceptance by signing in the space provided below and returning one fully executed copy of this Letter Agreement to Bayshore on or before October 25, 2006.


 











	
            Page 2
 	
            October 22, 2006
 





 


Sincerely,


 


Jamin Swantner


President


 





	
             
 	
            AGREED to and ACCEPTED on this 22nd day of October, 2006.
 





 


PAXTON ENERGY, INC.


 


By:  /s/ Robert Freiheit





	
             
 	
            Rob Freiheit, President
Materials Not Included in

Airworthiness Directive (AD) Docket

Docket Number: FAA- 2009-1221

Directorate Identifier: 2008NM097AD

767-28A0085, R1 --- 6/25/09

767-28A0085 --- 1/10/08

767-28A0083, R1 --- 4/26/07

767-28A0083 --- 5/3/06

767-28A0083 IN 02 --- 1/31/08

Name/Description of Item(s) Not Included in FDMS Docket and Maintained in the 

Supplemental AD Docket

MAY BE VIEWED AT: Federal Aviation Administration

Transport Airplane Directorate

Rules Docket

1601 Lind Ave. SW.,

Renton, WA 98057

425.227.1221

DURING THE HOURS OF: 9 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday through Friday,

except Federal holidays.

Form Date: 03/05/2008
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1448 Reported in Senate (RS)]

                                                       Calendar No. 507
111th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 1448

                          [Report No. 111-245]

 To amend the Act of August 9, 1955, to authorize the Coquille Indian 
  Tribe, the Confederated Tribes of Siletz Indians, the Confederated 
Tribes of the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw, the Klamath Tribes, and 
  the Burns Paiute Tribe to obtain 99-year lease authority for trust 
                                 land.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             July 14, 2009

Mr. Merkley (for himself and Mr. Wyden) introduced the following bill; 
  which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Indian Affairs

                             August 3, 2010

               Reported by Mr. Dorgan, without amendment

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend the Act of August 9, 1955, to authorize the Coquille Indian 
  Tribe, the Confederated Tribes of Siletz Indians, the Confederated 
Tribes of the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw, the Klamath Tribes, and 
  the Burns Paiute Tribe to obtain 99-year lease authority for trust 
                                 land.

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

SECTION 1. LEASES OF RESTRICTED LAND.

    Subsection (a) of the first section of the Act of August 9, 1955 
(25 U.S.C. 415(a)), is amended in the second sentence by inserting 
``land held in trust for the Coquille Indian Tribe, land held in trust 
for the Confederated Tribes of Siletz Indians, land held in trust for 
the Confederated Tribes of the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw Indians, 
land held in trust for the Klamath Tribes, and land held in trust for 
the Burns Paiute Tribe,'' after ``lands held in trust for the 
Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs Reservation of Oregon,''.
                                                       Calendar No. 507

111th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                                S. 1448

                          [Report No. 111-245]

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 To amend the Act of August 9, 1955, to authorize the Coquille Indian 
  Tribe, the Confederated Tribes of Siletz Indians, the Confederated 
Tribes of the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw, the Klamath Tribes, and 
  the Burns Paiute Tribe to obtain 99-year lease authority for trust 
                                 land.

_______________________________________________________________________

                             August 3, 2010

                       Reported without amendment
```
#### STATE of Utah, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Oliver Benjamin GERRISH, Defendant and Appellant.

No. 860159.

Supreme Court of Utah.

Nov. 19, 1987.

Jo Carol Nesset-Sale and Curtis C. Nes-set, Salt Lake City, for defendant and appellant.

David L. Wilkinson and Sandra L. Sjo-gren, Salt Lake City, for plaintiff and respondent.

HALL, Chief Justice:

In September 1985, defendant pleaded guilty to one count of aggravated sexual abuse of a child, a first degree felony.1 The crime is punishable by incarceration for a minimum mandatory term of three, six, or nine years.2

In October 1985, defendant was sentenced to a minimum mandatory sentence of ten years. In November 1985, this erroneous sentence was amended without hearing to specify a minimum mandatory term of six years.

In February 1986, the trial court *sua sponte*resentenced defendant, with defendant and his counsel present. Defendant’s motion to have sections 76-5-404.1(4) and 76-3-406(1) declared unconstitutional was denied. Defendant was resentenced to a minimum mandatory term of six years.

On appeal, defendant claims that the minimum mandatory sentencing scheme set forth in Utah Code Ann. §§ 76-5-404.1(4) (1987), 76-3-201(5)-(10) (Supp.1985) (amended 1986 & 1987), 76-3-406(1) (Supp.1985) (amended 1986), and 77-27-9(2) (Supp.1985) (amended 1986) is unconstitutionally vague. In *State v.*Egbert,3 we faced a similar challenge to the minimum mandatory sentencing requirements of Utah Code Ann. § 76-5-405(2) (Supp.1983) (amended 1986) and § 76-3-201(5) (Supp.1983) (amended 1984, 1986, & 1987), and there the Court held the minimum mandatory provisions constitutional. The minimum mandatory sentencing scheme challenged in this case is substantively no different than that challenged in Egbert.4 Therefore, our ruling in *Egbert*controls this appeal.

Defendant’s sentence is affirmed.

STEWART, Associate C.J., and HOWE, DURHAM and ZIMMERMAN, JJ., concur.

1

. Utah Code Ann. § 76-5-404. l(3)-(4) (Supp.1987).

2

. *Id.*at -404.1(4); *see also*Utah Code Ann. §§ 76-3-201(5)-(10) (Supp.1985) (amended 1986 & 1987), -406 (Supp.1985) (amended 1986), 77-27-9(2) (Supp.1985) (amended 1986).

3

. 748 P.2d 558 (Utah 1987).

4

. *See id.*at 559, n. 2.
Amendment to the 2010 Equity Incentive Plan



 Exhibit 4.2 

AMENDMENT TO 

COTT CORPORATION 2010 EQUITY INCENTIVE PLAN 

The Cott Corporation 2010 Equity Incentive Plan (the “Plan”) is hereby amended on this
4th day of May 2010 as follows: 

 

	1.	The first sentence of Section 4(a) of the Plan is amended and restated in its entirety to read as follows: 


“Reserved Shares. Subject to adjustment as provided in Section 13 of the Plan, the maximum number of Shares that may be
issued from treasury or otherwise with respect to Awards shall not in the aggregate exceed four million (4,000,000) Shares.” 
  

	2.	Section 4(b) of the Plan is amended and restated in its entirety to read as follows: 


“Incentive Stock Option Maximum. In no event shall the number of Shares issued from treasury or otherwise upon the exercise of
Incentive Stock Options exceed four million (4,000,000) Shares, subject to adjustment as provided in Section 13 of the Plan.” 
  

	3.	Section 4(d) of the Plan is amended by adding the following sentence to the end of such section: 


“In addition, neither the Board nor the Committee may, without further shareholder approval, grant to Nonemployee Directors an amount
equal to the lesser of (i) 1% of the Company’s issued and outstanding Shares; and (ii) an annual equity award of $100,000 per Nonemployee Director. Nothwithstanding Section 16(a) of the Plan, the aforementioned restriction may
not be amended without further shareholder approval.” 
  

	4.	Section 5(b) of the Plan is amended by deleting the words “extend the term of an Award” from the first sentence thereof. 


 

	5.	Section 5(d) of the Plan is amended by adding the following sentence to the end of such section: 


“Notwithstanding any other provision of this Plan, neither the Board nor the Committee may, without prior approval of the
Company’s shareholders, extend the term of Awards that benefit non-insiders.” 
  

	6.	Section 12 of the Plan is amended and restated in its entirety to read as follows: 


Nontransferability. No Award granted under this Plan (including Options) shall be transferable or assignable by a Grantee other
than by will or the laws of descent and distribution for normal estate settlement purposes, and Options and Stock Appreciation Rights shall be exercisable during a Grantee’s lifetime only by the Grantee or, in the event of the Grantee’s
legal incapacity, by his guardian or legal representative acting in a fiduciary capacity on behalf of the Grantee under state law. Any attempt to transfer or assign an Award in violation of this Plan shall render such Award null and void.

  

	7.	Except as otherwise expressly provided herein, all of the terms, conditions and provisions of the Plan shall remain the same, and the Plan, as amended hereby, shall
continue in full force and effect.
1,000 Gallon Reactor

Heat 

Distill off Thiol 

700 Kg/batch Methyl Carbitol

1400 Kg/batch Perfluoroiodide

292 Kg/batch Thiourea

338 Kg/batch 2-(2Aminoethylamino)ethanol

SZ-203 = New Chemical Substance

Production Flows 

Cleaning Flows

Intermediate I

Process Operation

Wednesday, May 05, 2010

1010 Kg/batch Thiol

Material not isolated

1720 Kg/batch Still Bottoms

To off site re-claimer for 

recovery of Iodide

330 Kg/batch Methanol

To clean reactor

330 Kg/batch MeOH

1 Kg Thiol

To off site incinerator
1,000 Gallon Reactor

Heat 

Filter off Salts 

806 Kg/batch Water

342 Kg/batch Sodium Chloroacetate

1258 Kg/batch Ethanol

475 Kg/batch N-[3-

(dimethylamino)propyl]methacrylamide

SZ-203 = New Chemical Substance

Production Flows 

Cleaning Flows

Intermediate II

Process Operation

Wednesday, May 05, 2010

1274 Kg/batch SZ-203 

Intermediate

Material not isolated

1132 Kg/batch Ethanol

Recycled for next batch 

330 Kg/batch Methanol

To clean reactor

330 Kg/batch MeOH

1 Kg Betaine 

To off site incinerator

1274 Kg/batch SZ-203 

Intermediate

Material not isolated

330 Kg/batch Water 
1,000 Gallon Reactor

Heat 

320 Kg/batch Water

656 Kg/Batch Butyl Carbitol

22 Kg/batch Sodium Bicarbonate

1274 Kg/batch Betaine Intermediate (material 

directed transferred into vessel not isolated)

1010 Kg/batch Thiol Intermediate (material 

directed transferred into vessel not isolated)

SZ-203 = New Chemical Substance

Production Flows 

Cleaning Flows

Surface Active Agent 

Process Operation

Wednesday, May 05, 2010

3282 Kg/batch SZ-203 

Packaged into Drums

330 Kg/batch Methanol

To clean reactor

330 Kg/batch MeOH

1 Kg SZ-203 

To off site incinerator
Amendment No 6 dated March 10, 2010 to Unfunded Retirement Income Guarantee Plan



 EXHIBIT 10(f)(7) 

AMENDMENT NO. 6 TO 2008 RESTATEMENT OF XEROX CORPORATION 

UNFUNDED RETIREMENT INCOME GUARANTEE PLAN 

W I T N E S S E T H: 

WHEREAS, Xerox Corporation
(the “Employer”) has established the Xerox Corporation Unfunded Retirement Income Guarantee Plan, which is presently set forth in the “2008 Restatement of Xerox Corporation Unfunded Retirement Income Guarantee Plan”, as amended
by Amendments No. 1 through 5 (the “Plan”), and 

WHEREAS, the Employer
desires to amend the Plan, 
 NOW,
THEREFORE, the Plan is hereby amended as follows: 

1.    Effective September 1, 2009, Section 9.4 shall be amended by adding a new subsection (c) thereto, to read in its entirety
as follows: 
        “(c) The Company may provide a Vesting schedule, other than the Vesting
schedule set forth in subsections (a) and (b) of this section with respect to the Localization Transition Benefit of any Employee, in writing in the relevant Localization Agreement.” 

2.    Effective September 1, 2009, Section 9.7(c) is amended to read in its entirety as follows: 

       “(c) The right to a benefit under the September 2009 Localization Agreement will be Vested in
accordance with Section 9.4(c), except that the Vested percentage will be 100% upon a Change in Control.” 
 The foregoing amendment
is effective as of the date stated herein. In all other respects, the Plan remains unchanged. 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the
Employer has caused this Amendment to be signed as of this 10th day of March, 2010. 
  

			
	 XEROX CORPORATION

		
	 By:
	 	 /s/ Thomas J. Maddison

		 	 Thomas J. Maddison

Vice President, Human Resources
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

April 24, 2007 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh Elizabeth A. Weaver 132794 Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Justices Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 132794 COA: 262280 Cass CC: 04-010191-FH NANCY BETH HINES, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the November 2, 2006 judgment of the Court of Appeals is consid ered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the question presented s hould be reviewed by this Court.

d0416 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

April 24, 2007

Clerk
United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit

No. 21-40274

Summary Calendar

United States of America, 

Plaintiff—Appellee,

versus

Roberto Castro-Rios, 

Defendant—Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 2:20-CR-1257-1

Before Wiener, Dennis, and Haynes, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Roberto CastroRios has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with 

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores, 632 F.3d 

229 (5th Cir. 2011). Castro-Rios has not filed a response. We have reviewed 

* Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this 

opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited 

circumstances set forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

October 26, 2021

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 21-40274 Document: 00516069051 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/26/2021
No. 21-40274

2

counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We 

concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous 

issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to 

withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities 

herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5th Cir. R. 42.2.

Case: 21-40274 Document: 00516069051 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/26/2021
To the members of CASAC:

Thank you for accepting this written testimony. My name is Dan Jaffe. I am a Professor at the 

University of Washington in both the Science and Technology Program (UW-Bothell) and the 

Department of Atmospheric Sciences (UW-Seattle). I am an active researcher in the field of air 

pollution. My research has been funded by NSF, NASA, NOAA, EPA, NPS and private 

companies. I have authored or co-authored more than 100 publications in peer reviewed 

journals. 

I want to bring to your attention an article recently published in Environmental Science and 

Technology:

Jaffe D. (2011) Relationship between Surface and Free Tropospheric Ozone in the Western U.S. 

Envir. Sci. Tech. 45, 432-438, DOI: 10.1021/es1028102.

This article analyzes data from rural CASTNET sites in the Western U.S. and has several key 

findings relating to the sources of ozone and the feasibility of meeting lower ozone standards at 

high elevation sites in the western U.S. The main points are:

1) Ozone increases with altitude in the western U.S. There are large scale patterns across 

the western U.S. that indicates a significant influence from the free troposphere on 

surface concentrations. At elevations above approximately 2000 meters, most sites in the 

Western U.S. will exceed an 8-hour-65 ppbv standard, assuming the form remains the 

same. 

2) At present, there is not a clear understanding of the degree to which domestic emissions 

impact these sites. It is likely that high ozone days at these sites occur due to a 

combination of domestic, foreign and natural sources. At this point it is not clear if these 

elevated sites could meet a 65 ppb standard based on domestic emission reductions. 

3) Wildfires and intrusions of free tropospheric air clearly contribute to the number of days 

with an MDA8 greater than 60 ppbv. As we move to a lower standard, EPA will need to 

provide guidance on applying the exceptional events clause to ozone. 

Again, thank you for taking testimony. I will elaborate on these issues during my oral 

presentation. 

Dr. Dan Jaffe, Professor

University of Washington

tel: 425-352-5357

email: djaffe@uw.edu
exv10w1



 








Exhibit 10.1




FIRST AMENDMENT TO

EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT




     THIS FIRST AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT (this “Amendment”), dated as of
December 20, 2006, is between Natural Gas Services Group, Inc., a Colorado corporation (the
“Company”), and Stephen C. Taylor, an individual residing in Midland, Texas (the
“Employee”).



RECITALS:




     WHEREAS, the Company and the Employee previously entered into that certain Employment
Agreement, dated as of August 24, 2005 (the “Employment Agreement”), pursuant to which the
Company employed the Employee to serve as the Company’s President and Chief Executive Officer; and



     WHEREAS, the Company and the Employee desire to amend the Employment Agreement as more
particularly described below.



     NOW, THEREFORE, for good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are
hereby acknowledged, the Company and the Employee agree to the following:



     1.      Amendment to Section 4(c) of the Employment Agreement. Section 4(c) of the
Employment Agreement is hereby deleted in its entirety and the following is substituted therefor:




	 	 	      “(c) Bonuses. In addition to base salary, the Employee shall be entitled to
receive on an annual basis during the Employment Term a cash bonus of up to 50% of
the Employee’s base salary, the amount of which will be based upon and subject to
parameters established by the Board of Directors of the Company or its Compensation
Committee. Any such bonuses shall be payable to the Employee in the manner
specified by the Board of Directors of the Company or its Compensation Committee at
the time such bonus is awarded.”





     2.      No Additional Amendments. Except as amended by this Amendment, the Employment
Agreement shall remain in full force and effect.



     3.      Binding Effect. This Amendment shall inure to the benefit of, and be binding upon,
each of the parties hereto and their respective successors and assigns.



     4.      Counterparts. This Amendment may be executed in any number of counterparts and it
is not necessary that each party to this Amendment execute each counterpart.



[Signatures on Following Page]




 









 








DATED as of December 20, 2006.




	 	 	 	 	 
	 	COMPANY:

Natural Gas Services Group, Inc.
a Colorado corporation

 	 
	 	By:  	     /s/ William F. Hughes, Jr.
 	 
	 	 	William F. Hughes, Jr. 	 
	 	 	Chairman of Compensation Committee 	 
	 



	 	 	 	 	 
	 	EMPLOYEE:

 	 
	 	By:  	     /s/ Stephen C. Taylor
 	 
	 	 	Stephen C. Taylor 	 
	 	 	 	 
	 




2