alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

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 Cogent, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended
March 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), I, Ming Hsieh, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my 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 the Company.

This
certification has not been, and shall not be deemed, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

Dated: May 10, 2010



|                                     
|-------------------------------------
|/s/ MING HSIEH                       
|Ming Hsieh                           
|President and Chief Executive Officer
|(Principal Executive Officer)
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

WESTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

PETE SCHOONOVER,

Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 71 WAL 2017

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from 

the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 17th day of July, 2017, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is 

DENIED.
# Úradný vestník C 88I/2020

| | ISSN 1977-1037 |
| --- | --- |
| Úradný vestník
  Európskej únie | C 088I |
| | |
| Slovenské vydanie | Informácie a oznámenia | Ročník 6317. marca 2020 |

ISSN 1977-1037

Úradný vestník

Európskej únie

C 088I

Slovenské vydanie

Informácie a oznámenia

Ročník 6317. marca 2020

---

| Obsah | Strana |
| --- | --- |
| | IV   Informácie |
| | INFORMÁCIE INŠTITÚCIÍ, ORGÁNOV, ÚRADOV A AGENTÚR EURÓPSKEJ ÚNIE |
| | Rada |
| 2020/C 88 I/01 | Oznámenie určené osobe, na ktorú sa vzťahujú reštriktívne opatrenia ustanovené v rozhodnutí Rady 2013/184/SZBP a nariadení Rady (EÚ) č. 401/2013 o reštriktívnych opatreniach voči Mjanmarsku/Barme | 1 |

Obsah

Strana

IV   Informácie

INFORMÁCIE INŠTITÚCIÍ, ORGÁNOV, ÚRADOV A AGENTÚR EURÓPSKEJ ÚNIE

Rada

2020/C 88 I/01

Oznámenie určené osobe, na ktorú sa vzťahujú reštriktívne opatrenia ustanovené v rozhodnutí Rady 2013/184/SZBP a nariadení Rady (EÚ) č. 401/2013 o reštriktívnych opatreniach voči Mjanmarsku/Barme

1

---

| SK | |
| --- | --- |

SK

---

IV Informácie

INFORMÁCIE INŠTITÚCIÍ, ORGÁNOV, ÚRADOV A AGENTÚR EURÓPSKEJ ÚNIE

Rada

| 17.3.2020 | SK | Úradný vestník Európskej únie | CI 88/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.3.2020

SK

Úradný vestník Európskej únie

CI 88/1

---

Oznámenie určené osobe, na ktorú sa vzťahujú reštriktívne opatrenia ustanovené v rozhodnutí Rady 2013/184/SZBP a nariadení Rady (EÚ) č. 401/2013 o reštriktívnych opatreniach voči Mjanmarsku/Barme

(2020/C 88 I/01)

Tieto informácie sú určené pánovi Thanovi Oovi, osobe uvedenej v prílohe k rozhodnutiu Rady 2013/184/SZBP (1) a v prílohe IV k nariadeniu Rady (EÚ) č. 401/2013 (2) o reštriktívnych opatreniach voči Mjanmarsku/Barme.

Rada má v úmysle zachovať reštriktívne opatrenia voči uvedenej osobe s novým odôvodnením. Dotknutej osobe sa týmto oznamuje, že do 25. marca 2020 môže Rade na nasledujúcu adresu podať žiadosť o zaslanie zamýšľaného odôvodnenia uvedeného zaradenia na zoznam:

| Council of the European Union |
| --- |
| General Secretariat |
| RELEX.1.C |
| Rue de la Loi/Wetstraat 175 |
| 1048 Bruxelles/Brussel |
| BELGIQUE/BELGIË |

Council of the European Union

General Secretariat

RELEX.1.C

Rue de la Loi/Wetstraat 175

1048 Bruxelles/Brussel

BELGIQUE/BELGIË

e-mail: sanctions@consilium.europa.eu.

V súlade s článkom 12 rozhodnutia 2013/184/SZBP a článkom 4i ods. 4 nariadenia (EÚ) č. 401/2013 sa všetky doručené pripomienky zohľadnia na účely pravidelného preskúmavania zo strany Rady.

Dotknutá osoba sa tiež upozorňuje na možnosť napadnúť rozhodnutie Rady na Všeobecnom súde Európskej únie v súlade s podmienkami ustanovenými v článku 275 druhom odseku a v článku 263 štvrtom a šiestom odseku Zmluvy o fungovaní Európskej únie.

---

(1)  Rozhodnutie Rady 2013/184/SZBP z 22. apríla 2013 o reštriktívnych opatreniach voči Mjanmarsku/Barme a o zrušení rozhodnutia 2010/232/SZBP (Ú. v. EÚ L 111, 23.4.2013, s. 75).

(2)  Ú. v. EÚ L 121, 3.5.2013, s. 1.

---
Exhibit 32.2

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 quarterly report of QC Holdings, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the
date hereof (the Report), I, Douglas E. Nickerson, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 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 results of operations of the Company.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dated: November 8, 2010



/s/ Douglas E. NickersonDouglas E. NickersonChief Financial Officer
##### 



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  (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.
  AMERICAN TELECOM SERVICES, INC.By:
    
    /s/ Bruce HahnBruce HahnChief Executive OfficerBy:
    
    /s/ Edward JamesEdward JamesChief Financial Officer
 28
#### LOUISIANA NATIONAL BANK v. Willie Leon PRINE and Minnie Bernice Ott Prine.

No. 88-C-1759.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Oct. 14, 1988.

In re Prine, Willie Leon; Prine, Minnie Bernice Ott; Applying for Writ of Certiora-ri and/or Review; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, Number CA87 0358; Parish of East Baton Rouge 19th Judicial District Court Div. “G” Number 295-728.

Denied.

LEMMON, J.,

concurs. Under the circumstances of this case, defense counsel could have reasonably believed that he would not be subject to a default judgment if he did not file an answer within the extended period. It was therefore an “ill practice” to obtain the default judgment without notice to opposing counsel. Nevertheless, relator failed to show a viable defense of which he was deprived and therefore did not establish that enforcement of the judgment would be inequitable.

DIXON, C.J., concurs in the denial for reasons stated in the concurrence of LEM-MON, J.
**AD Economic Evaluation**

Docket No . FAA - 2013 - 0145 Directorate ID : 2012 - SW - 059 - AD Helicopter Model: Agusta S.p.A. Model AB412 and AB412 EP helicopters and Bell Helicopter Textron Model 412, 412CF, and 412EP Helicopters Number of Helicopters (U.S. Operators): 76 Helicopters in the US Registry . Reason : The actions of this AD are intended to prevent failure of the high gear aft crosstube and subsequent collapse of the landing gear. Costs : Parts per Helicopter $ 10,351 for the crosstube replacement Labor per Helicopter ( 1 work- hour x $ 8 5 /workhour for creating the component history

card and amending the I CA) (6 work- hour x $85/work hour for the crosstube replacement) $ 85

$510 Other (Explain) Total Cost per Helic opter $ 85 for creating the component history card and amending the I CA $ 10,861 for a crosstube replacement Total US Fleet Cost $ 6,460 for creating the component history card and amending the I CA Executive Order 12866 : Could the AD be considered a “signi ficant regulatory action?” Yes ( ) No (  ) DOT Regulatory

Policies and Procedures : Is the AD significant? Yes ( ) Explain Below No (  ) Regulatory

Flexibility

Act : Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities? Yes ( ) No (  ) Project Engineer : Jeffrey

Zimmer
EXHIBIT 23.2


                               ARTHUR ANDERSEN LLP

                    CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS


As independent public accountants, we hereby consent to the incorporation of our
report  dated March 26, 2001,  on the  financial  statements  of Main Street and
Main,  Incorporated ("the Company") as of December 25, 2000, in the Form 10-K of
the Company for the year ended  December  31,  2001.  It should be noted that we
have not audited any financial  statements of the Company subsequent to December
25,  2000,  or  performed  any audit  procedures  subsequent  to the date of our
report.

/s/ Arthur Andersen LLP

Phoenix, Arizona
March 22, 2002
#### In the Matter of the Estate of Lee H. Krasner, Deceased.

Surrogate’s Court, Westchester County,

July 6, 1955.

*Zelby ■& Burstein*and *McGobern & Connelly (Harry G. Davidson*of counsel), for petitioner.

*Crisona Brothers*and *Malcolm Wilson (James L. Purcell*of counsel), for respondent.

*Morrie Slifhin,*as special guardian.

Samuel Falle, S.

The motion under rule 106 of the Rules of Civil Practice for an order dismissing so much of the petition as requests a denial of letters of trusteeship is granted. The grounds for disqualification of a fiduciary set forth in section 94 of the Surrogate’s Court Act are exclusive. *(Matter of Foss,*282 App. Div. 509, 511.) The alleged grounds of disqualification do not fall within those enumerated in section 94 of the Surrogate’s Court Act.

Settle order.
#### Aaron L. AILSTOCK, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. BG-338.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Jan. 15, 1986.

Aaron L. Ailstock, pro se.

Jim Smith, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Appellant filed a rule 3.850 motion for post-conviction relief alleging, inter alia, ineffective assistance of counsel in that his counsel failed to inform him of the consequences of his nolo contendere plea. The court summarily denied the motion, reciting that it had “reviewed the transcript of the plea colloquy” and that such transcript was “attached and made a part of this Order.” The transcript has not been included in either the record on appeal or the lower court record. The trial court’s order is reversed, and the case is remanded for the court to either attach portions of the record conclusively showing appellant to be entitled to no relief or to hold an evidentia-ry hearing.

REVERSED and REMANDED.

THOMPSON, ZEHMER and BAR-FIELD, JJ., concur.
**Exhibit
31.1**
 
 **OFFICER’S
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO**
 **SECTION
302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**
 
 I, Allan
C. Silber, certify that:
 
 1.
    I
      have reviewed this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Acceris Communications
      Inc.;2.
    Based
      on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a
      material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the
      statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements
      were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this
      report;3.
    Based
      on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information
      included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the
      financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the
      registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this
      report;4.
    The
      registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for
      establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as
      defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant
      and have:(a)
    Designed
      such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure
      controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure
      that material information relating to the registrant, including its
      consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those
      entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being
      prepared;(b)
    Evaluated
      the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures
      and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of
      the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period
      covered by this report based on such evaluation; and(c)
    Disclosed
      in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over
      financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s fourth fiscal
      quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to
      materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial
      reporting; and5.
    The
      registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on
      our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting,
      to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of registrant’s board
      of directors (or persons performing the equivalent
    functions):(a)
    All
      significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or
      operation of internal control over financial reporting which are
      reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record,
      process, summarize and report financial information;
and(b)
    Any
      fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
      employees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control
      over financial reporting.
  ****Date: March 28,
2005
    By:
    /s/ Allan C.
  SilberAllan C. SilberChief
      Executive Officer
# U n i t e d S t a t e s C o u r t o f A pp e a l s For the Eig hth Circu it

_ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ No . 1 8 -1 1 64

_ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Co u rt n ey Bern ard Cl ark ll l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l Pl a in t i

f f - Ap p el l an t

v . Co m m i s s i o ner To m

Ro y ; Nan et t e Lars o n; Dr. DerekJ . Sch m i d t; Cen tu ri o n o f M i nn es o t a; Dr. St ep h en Craan e; Kat h y Rei d; Dav i dRei sh u s ; Kat h eri ne Po wers l l l l l l ll l l l l l l l l l l l l lDef

en d a n t s - Ap p el l ees

_
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Ap p eal fro m

Un i t edSt at es Di s t ri ctCo u rt fo r t h e Di s t ri cto f M i n nes o t a - M in n eap o l i s

_
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Sub m i t t ed : Decem

b er 2 , 2 0 1 9 Fi l ed : Decem

b er 5 , 2 0 1 9 [Un pu b l is h ed ]

_ __ _ _ __ _ __ _ _ Befo re GRUENDER, W OLLM AN, an d KOBES, Ci rcu i tJ u dg es .

_ __ _ _ __ _ __ _ _ PER CURIAM

.M i n nes o t a i n m at e Co u rt n ey Cl ark ap peal s t h e di s t ri ct co urt ’ s 1 ad v ers e g ran t o f

s u m m ary ju d g m en t i n h i s 4 2 U.S.C. § 1 98 3 act i on . H av i n g ca refu l l y rev i ewed t h e reco rd an d t h e p art i es ’ arg u m en t s o n ap p eal , s ee M ars h v . Ph el p s Ct y . , 9 0 2 F.3 d 7 4 5, 7 5 1 (8 t h Ci r. 2 0 18 ) (d e n o vo rev i ew o f g ran t of s u m m ary ju d g m en t ), we fi n d n o b as i s fo r rev ers al

. Acco rd i ng l y , we affi rm t h e ju d g m e n t
. See 8 th Ci r. R. 4 7 B. W e al s o d en y Cl ark ’ s ap p el l at e m o ti o n s .

__ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ __ _ _ __ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _

1 Th e Ho n o rab l e Su s an Ri ch ard Nel s on , Un i t ed St at es Di s t ri ct J u dg e fo r t h e Di s t ri ct o f M i n nes o t a, ad o p t i n g t h e r e p o r t an d reco m m en d at i o ns o f t h e H o n o rab l e Hi l d y Bo wb eer, Un i tedSt at es M ag i s t rat e J ud g e fo r t h e Di s t ri cto f M i n n es o t a. -2

-
**Exhibit 32.2**








**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 MC Shipping Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-K/A for the period ending December 31, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"):







I, Dominique Sergent, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Sec. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.








January 31, 2005











/S/ DOMINIQUE SERGENTDominique SergentChief Financial Officer
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.2


                          INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements (No.
33-92824, 333-65361, 333-65359 and 333-65363) each on Form S-8 of Franklin
Financial Corporation of our report dated March 13, 1997, relating to the
consolidated statements of income, changes in stockholders' equity and cash
flows for the year ended December 31, 1996, which report appears in the Annual
Report on Form 10-KSB of Franklin Financial Corporation for the year ended
December 31, 1998.

/s/ Heathcott & Mullaly, P.C.
Brentwood, Tennessee

March  25, 1999
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

May 6, 2015

No. 04-15-00249-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF M.A.H.T., J.H.T., J.R.T.H., J.I.T.V., B.Z.T.V., Minor Children,

From the 111th Judicial District Court, Webb County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2013-CVL-002007-D2

Honorable Monica Z. Notzon, Judge Presiding

ORDER

The trial court signed a final judgment on March 16, 2015. Because appellant did not file 

any motion to extend this deadline, the notice of appeal was due to be filed on April 6, 2015. See

TEX. R. APP. P. 26.1(a). A motion for extension of time to file the notice of appeal was due on 

April 21, 2015. See TEX. R. APP. P. 26.3. A motion for extension of time is necessarily implied 

when an appellant, acting in good faith, files a notice of appeal in the trial court beyond the time 

allowed by Rule 26.1 but within the fifteen-day grace period provided by Rule 26.3 for filing a 

motion for extension of time. See Verburgt v. Dorner, 959 S.W.2d 615, 617 (Tex. 1997) 

(construing the predecessor to Rule 26). However, the appellant must offer a reasonable 

explanation for failing to file the notice of appeal in a timely manner. See id.; TEX. R. APP. P.

26.3, 10.5(b)(1)(C). In this case, appellant’s notice of appeal, filed in the trial court on April 23, 

2015, was not filed within the fifteen-day grace period. 

It is therefore ORDERED that appellant file, within fifteen days from the date of this 

order, a response presenting a reasonable explanation for failing to file the notice of appeal in a 

timely manner and cause showing the notice of appeal was otherwise timely. If appellant fails to 

respond within the time provided, the appeal will be dismissed. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(c).

All deadlines in this matter are suspended until further order of this court.

_________________________________

Jason Pulliam, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 6th day of May, 2015.

___________________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
<PAGE>
                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.6H

                      SEVENTH AMENDMENT TO LEASE AGREEMENT
                             DATED DECEMBER 31, 2001
                    [Canopy Properties, Inc. / Altiris, Inc.]

This  SEVENTH  AMENDMENT  is  entered  into as of the  fourteenth  (14th) day of
January,  2005 between Canopy Properties,  Inc.  ("Landlord") and Altiris,  Inc.
("Tenant").

Whereas  Landlord and Tenant entered into a Lease dated December 31, 2001, first
amended 12 September  2002,  and again 31 March 2003, 20 May 2003, 31 Oct. 2003,
23 Jan 2004, and 5 May 04 for the purpose of increasing  the premises,  Landlord
and Tenant hereby agree to further amend the Lease as follows:

     1. Effective February 15, 2005, Landlord hereby leases to Tenant and Tenant
hereby  leases  from  Landlord  approximately  5,088  rentable  square  feet  of
additional space (Additional  Premises) identified as Suite 150, situated on the
first floor of the Canopy Building III,  located at 588 West 400 South,  Lindon,
Utah,  bringing the  approximate  total lease space of Tenant to 75,427 rentable
square feet.

     2.  These  Additional  Premises,  shall be leased  at the rate of  $101,760
annually,  operating expenses and adjustments as outlined in Paragraph 29 of the
Lease included.

     3. Tenant's  percentage share of total building operating cost beginning at
the effective date shall be increased from 79.82 % to 85.59 %.

     4. Tenant accepts Additional Premises in its "as is" condition.

All other terms,  conditions and provisions of said Lease,  including the ending
date of the initial term of the Lease, shall remain in full force and effect.


LANDLORD:                                      TENANT:

Canopy Properties, Inc.                        Altiris, Inc.

By: /s/ Boyd Worthington                       By: /s/ Stephen C. Erickson
    ---------------------                          ------------------------

Its: VP, Real Estate Development               Its: VP & Chief Financial Officer


Reviewed by Altiris Legal
By:              I.R.
    -------------------------

Date:        1/18/05
      -----------------------
EXHIBIT 32.02

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Annual Report of New Frontier Media, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the period ending March 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Karyn L. Miller, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to Section 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:

(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) and 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.



Karyn L. MillerChief Financial Officer

June 13, 2006

---
Resolution of Board of Directors



 Exhibit 10.5 
  
 EXCERPT FROM THE 
 MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE 
 BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF DUKE ENERGY CORPORATION 
 HELD ON MAY 12, 2005 
  
 Upon motion duly made and seconded, it was unanimously 
  
 RESOLVED, That the Directors’ Compensation and Benefits Programs be, and they hereby are, revised to allow for the increase in payment of the
Board Retainer (stock) and Nuclear Oversight Committee attendance fees as set forth below: 
  

			
	Board Retainer (stock)	 	 •      $65,000 value (equity vehicle may vary)

		
	Nuclear Oversight Committee Meeting Fee	 	 •      $3,000 for in-person meetings held in conjunction with Board meetings, including bifurcated
meetings (e.g., meeting on day 1, with second meeting on day 2, both around Board meeting)


  
 FURTHER
RESOLVED, That all of the above-stated revisions are effective retroactive to May 1, 2005, except for the stock retainer, for which an award of 540 phantom stock units will be granted on May 12, 2005, (based on the May 11, 2005, closing price),
to make up for the difference in the revised annual value and the value of the award made in February, 2005.