alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 10.66

 

FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE
 LAUREATE EDUCATION, INC. 2013 LONG-TERM INCENTIVE PLAN

 

This First Amendment to the Laureate Education, Inc. 2013 Long-Term Incentive Plan (this “First Amendment”), effective as of September 17, 2015, is made and entered into by Laureate Education, Inc., a Maryland corporation (the “Company”). Terms used in this Amendment with initial capital letters that are not otherwise defined herein shall have the meanings ascribed to such terms in the Laureate Education, Inc. 2013 Long-Term Incentive Plan (the “Plan”).

 

RECITALS

 

WHEREAS, Article 15 of the Plan provides that the Board of Directors of the Company (the “Board”) may amend the Plan at any time; and

 

WHEREAS, the Board desires to amend the Plan, to increase the aggregate number of shares of Common Stock issuable pursuant to Awards that may be granted under the Plan as set forth in Article 5 of the Plan; and

 

WHEREAS, the Board intends to submit this Amendment to the Company’s shareholders for approval.

 

NOW, THEREFORE, in accordance with Article 15 of the Plan, the Company hereby amends the Plan as follows:

 

1.     Section 5(a) of the Plan is hereby amended by deleting said section in its entirety and substituting in lieu thereof the following new Section 5(a):

 

5(a)         Initial Share Pool.  As of the effective date of the First Amendment, the number of shares of Common Stock issuable pursuant to Awards that may be granted under the Plan (the “Share Pool”) shall be equal to the sum of (i) 33,174,120 shares plus (ii) the number of unallocated shares of Common Stock available for issuance as of the Effective Date under Laureate’s 2007 Plan that are not then subject to outstanding Awards.

 

2.     This Amendment shall be effective on the date first set forth above. In the event shareholder approval of this Amendment is not obtained within twelve (12) months of the date the Board approved this Amendment, the additional shares added to the Plan pursuant to this Amendment shall not be available for grant as incentive stock options within the meaning of Section 422 of the Code.

 

3.     Except as expressly amended by this Amendment, the Plan shall continue in full force and effect in accordance with the provisions thereof.

 

[Remainder of Page Intentionally Left Blank Signature Page Follows]

 











 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company has caused this Amendment to be duly executed as of the date first written above.

 

LAUREATE EDUCATION, INC.

 

	
 
    	
By:
    	
/s/   Robert W. Zentz
    
	
 
    	
Name:
    	
Robert W.   Zentz
    
	
 
    	
Title:
    	
SVP,   General Counsel and Secretary
# C_2019406EN.01003102.xml

| 2.12.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 406/31 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.12.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 406/31

---

Judgment of the General Court of 19 September 2019 — NHS v EUIPO — HLC SB Distribution (CRUZADE)

(Case T-378/18) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU word mark CRUZADE - Earlier EU figurative mark SANTA CRUZ - Relative ground for refusal - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 - Enhanced distinctiveness of the earlier mark)

(2019/C 406/41)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: NHS, Inc. (Santa Cruz, California, United States) (represented by: P. Olson, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: V. Ruzek and H. O’Neill, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: HLC SB Distribution, SL (Irún, Spain)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 13 April 2018 (Case R 1217/2017-5), relating to opposition proceedings between NHS and HLC SB Distribution.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders NHS, Inc., to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders NHS, Inc., to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 276, 6.8.2018.

---
**Exhibit 11**

 

**IBIS TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION**

# **STATEMENT RE: COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE LOSS**

# ** **

|                                                            |   | **Years Ended December 31,** |        |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|--------|------------------------------|-------------|
|                                                            |   | **2002**                     | ** **  | **2003** |   | **2004** |   |
|                                                            |   | **Diluted**                  |        | **Basic** |   | **Diluted** |   | **Basic** |   | **Diluted** |   | **Basic** |   |
| Loss from:                                                      |   |                         |        |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |
| Continuing  operations                                          |   | $                            | (7,285,705  | ) | $ | (7,285,705 | ) | $ | (3,852,162 | ) | $ | (3,852,162 | ) | $ | (5,641,172 | ) | $ | (5,641,172 | ) |
| Discontinued  operations                                        |   | (6,810,474                   | )           | (6,810,474 | ) | (17,597,627 | ) | (17,597,627 | ) | (5,277,369 | ) | (5,277,369 | ) |
| Net Loss                                                        |   | $                            | (14,096,179 | ) | $ | (14,096,179 | ) | $ | (21,449,789 | ) | $ | (21,449,789 | ) | $ | (10,918,541 | ) | $ | (10,918,541 | ) |
|                                                            |   |                         |        |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |
| Weighted average  common shares outstanding-                    |   | 9,207,922                    |        | 9,207,922 |   | 9,727,513 |   | 9,727,513 |   | 10,665,842 |   | 10,665,842 |   |
|                                                            |   |                         |        |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |
| Potential common  share equivalents.                            |   | —                       |        |   |   | — |   |   |   | — |   |   |   |
| Weighted average  shares outstanding                            |   | 9,207,922                    |        |   |   | 9,727,513 |   |   |   | 10,665,842 |   |   |   |
|                                                            |   |                         |        |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |
| Earnings (loss)  per common share and common share equivalents: |   |                         |        |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |
| Continuing  operations                                          |   | $                            | (0.79       | ) | $ | (0.79 | ) | $ | (0.40 | ) | $ | (0.40 | ) | $ | (0.53 | ) | $ | (0.53 | ) |
| Discontinued operations                                         |   | (0.74                        | )           | (0.74 | ) | (1.81 | ) | (1.81 | ) | (0.49 | ) | (0.49 | ) |
| Net loss                                                        |   | $                            | (1.53       | ) | $ | (1.53 | ) | $ | (2.21 | ) | $ | (2.21 | ) | $ | (1.02 | ) | $ | (1.02 | ) |

 

1

----
### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED AUGUST 11, 2022

NO. 03

- 22

- 00190

- CV

R. J. and A. D. M. , Appellant s

v.

Texas Department of Family and Protective Services , Appellee

APPEAL FROM THE 53RD DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNT Y

BEFORE JUSTICES GOODWIN, BAKER, AND KELLY

AFFIRMED

-- OPINION BY JUSTICE GOODWIN

This is an appeal from the final decree s igned by the tr i a l court on April 6, 2022

. Having

reviewed the record and the parties’ arguments, the C ourt holds that there was no reversible error

in the trial court’s final decree

. Therefore, the C ourt affirms the trial court’s final decree

.

Because app ellan t s are indigent and u nable to pay costs, no adjudica t i on of costs is made.
# C_2018427EN.01002401.xml

| 26.11.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 427/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.11.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 427/24

---

Appeal brought on 21 September 2018 by the Council of the European Union against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 13 July 2018 in Case T-680/13: Dr. K. Chrysostomides & Co. LLC and Others v Council of the European Union and Others

(Case C-597/18 P)

(2018/C 427/32)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Council of the European Union (represented by: A. de Gregorio Merino, E. Chatziioakeimidou, I. Gurov, Agents)

Other parties to the proceedings: Dr. K. Chrysostomides & Co. LLC and Others, European Commission, European Central Bank, Euro Group, represented by the Council of the European Union, European Union, represented by the European Commission

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

| — | set aside the parts of the contested judgments in which the General Court dismisses the plea of inadmissibility raised by the Council in respect of the Euro Group; |
| --- | --- |

—

set aside the parts of the contested judgments in which the General Court dismisses the plea of inadmissibility raised by the Council in respect of the Euro Group;

| — | and order the respondents to pay the costs of the appeal. |
| --- | --- |

—

and order the respondents to pay the costs of the appeal.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The appeal of the Council seeks to set aside the parts of the contested judgment in which the General Court dismisses the plea of inadmissibility raised by the Council in respect of the Euro Group and is based on the following grounds:

| — | the General Court has erred in law in deciding that the Euro Group is a ‘body of the Union formally established by the Treaties’; |
| --- | --- |

—

the General Court has erred in law in deciding that the Euro Group is a ‘body of the Union formally established by the Treaties’;

| — | the General Court has erred in law in dismissing the plea of inadmissibility of the Council while failing to identify any ‘powers’ conferred on the Euro Group by the Treaties; |
| --- | --- |

—

the General Court has erred in law in dismissing the plea of inadmissibility of the Council while failing to identify any ‘powers’ conferred on the Euro Group by the Treaties;

| — | the General Court has erred in law in deciding that the admission of the plea of inadmissibility, submitted by the Council, would result in ‘the establishment, within the legal system of the European Union itself, of entities whose acts and conduct could not result in the European Union incurring liability’. |
| --- | --- |

—

the General Court has erred in law in deciding that the admission of the plea of inadmissibility, submitted by the Council, would result in ‘the establishment, within the legal system of the European Union itself, of entities whose acts and conduct could not result in the European Union incurring liability’.

---
#### Johns v. University of Hawai'i

17514

12/16/94

Affirmed
IV 

114TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. RES. 837 

Expressing support for designating August 22, 2016, as national ‘‘Chuck 

Brown Day’’ and honoring his contributions to music and to the District 

of Columbia. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JULY 14, 2016 

Ms. NORTON (for herself and Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Oversight and 

Government Reform 

RESOLUTION 

Expressing support for designating August 22, 2016, as national ‘‘Chuck Brown Day’’ and honoring his contributions to music and to the District of Columbia. 

Whereas Chuck Brown is known as the ‘‘Godfather of GoGo’’ because he was the major architect of the musical 

genre known as go-go, a unique mix of funk, soul, and 

Latin party sounds; 

Whereas Chuck Brown, who was born on August 22, 1936, 

and passed away on May 16, 2012, at the age of 75, was 

a District of Columbia resident most of his life; 

Whereas Chuck Brown, who taught himself to play guitar, 

became a virtuoso singer, songwriter, guitarist, and band 

leader; 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HRES 837 IH 

Whereas Chuck Brown’s go-go beat gave the District of Columbia a musical identity of its own and reminds the Nation that Washington, DC, has always been the hometown of talented artists such as Duke Ellington and 

Marvin Gaye; 

Whereas Chuck Brown’s musical catalogue spans 22 studio 

albums over 3 decades; 

Whereas Chuck Brown’s hit ‘‘Bustin’ Loose’’, with his group, 

the Soul Searchers was the top song on the Billboard 

Top 100 R&B Chart for four weeks in 1979; 

Whereas Chuck Brown earned a Grammy nomination in 2010 

for the song ‘‘Love’’, from his album entitled We Got 

This, and was awarded a National Endowment for the 

Arts National Heritage Fellowship in 2005; 

Whereas Chuck Brown’s go-go has been passed from generation to generation with undiminished popularity; 

Whereas Chuck Brown influenced jazz, rap, and go-go musicians such as the bands Trouble Funk, Rare Essence, 

and Experience Unlimited (also known as E.U.); 

Whereas Chuck Brown was so committed to securing statehood and equal voting rights for the residents of the District of Columbia that he played a concert on a very hot, 

humid day on the Capitol grounds in 2010; 

Whereas the District of Columbia has named a street near 

the historic, modernized Howard Theatre for Chuck 

Brown; 

Whereas the District of Columbia has named a park located 

at 2901 20th St. NE., for Chuck Brown; 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•HRES 837 IH 

Whereas Chuck Brown is admired for having risen from 

humble beginnings and overcoming time in prison to become a devoted father and family man; 

Whereas Chuck Brown was a great, multi-talented musician 

who brought joy through his music, never stopping until 

his death; and 

Whereas August 22, 2015, is Chuck Brown’s birthday: Now, 

therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That the House of Representatives supports 

2 the designation of ‘‘Chuck Brown Day’’, and honors 

3 Chuck Brown’s contributions to music and to the District 

4 of Columbia. 

Æ 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 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 CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 02-60476

Summary Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

WILLIAM HEATH MARS,

Defendant-Appellant.

--------------------

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Mississippi

USDC No. 1:01-CR-13-1-D

--------------------

March 7, 2003

Before JONES, STEWART, AND DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

William Heath Mars is appealing his conditional guilty plea

conviction for possession of methamphetamine with intent to

distribute and for possession of a firearm during and in relation

to that drug-trafficking offense.

The motion of the United States to supplement the record on

appeal with the transcript of the suppression hearing is GRANTED.
No. 02-60476

-2-

Mars argues that the district court erred in denying his

motion to suppress evidence seized from his residence because the

warrant was a general warrant which left the agents with discretion

with respect to the items to be seized. 

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the

Government, the district court did not err in denying the motion to

suppress. The affidavit referred to the list of specific items to

be seized and incorporated the detailed underlying factual

statement. Thus, it was not a “bare bones” affidavit. See United

States v. Cherna, 184 F.3d 403, 407-09 (5th Cir. 1999). 

The search warrant referred to the affidavit and also

incorporated the underlying statement of facts which set out in

detail the reasons for the search for particular items. The

incorporation of the detailed statement satisfied the particularity

requirement. See United States v. Shugart, 117 F.3d 838, 845 (5th

Cir. 1997). 

The evidence also supports the finding that Agent Palmer acted

in good faith and, thus, even assuming that the search warrant did

not satisfy the particularity requirement, the good faith exception

applies to uphold the validity of the search. Shurgart, 117 F.3d

at 844-46. Further, based on the results of the extensive

investigation made prior to the issuance of the warrant, the

district court did not err in determining that there was probable

cause for the search. See United States v. Brown, 941 F.2d 1300,

1302 (5th Cir. 1991).
No. 02-60476

-3-

Mars also argues that the district court did not properly

consider his request for a downward departure based on U.S.S.G. 

§ 5H1.4. Mars argues that the district court misunderstood its

ability to depart downward because it justified denying the motion

based on sustaining Mars’ objection regarding the scope of his

relevant conduct.

Because the district court did not base its decision on an

erroneous belief that it lacked authority to depart, the ruling on

the motion to depart is not subject to review. United States v.

Yanez-Huerta, 207 F.3d 746, 748 (5th Cir. 2000). 

Mars’ conviction and sentence are AFFIRMED.
[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 240 (Friday, December 15, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Page 86934]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-27589]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Antitrust Division


Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and 
Production Act of 1993--National Spectrum Consortium

    Notice is hereby given that, on October 5, 2023, pursuant to 
section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 
1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301 et seq. (``the Act''), National Spectrum 
Consortium (``NSC'') has filed written notifications simultaneously 
with the Attorney General and the Federal Trade Commission disclosing 
changes in its membership. The notifications were filed for the purpose 
of extending the Act's provisions limiting the recovery of antitrust 
plaintiffs to actual damages under specified circumstances. 
Specifically, Altio Labs LLC, Frisco, TX; Blacksky Geospatial 
Solutions, Inc., Herndon, VA; Commdex LLC, Smyrna, GA; Core4ce LLC, 
Reston, VA; Information Systems Laboratories, Inc., Poway, CA; have 
been added as parties to this venture.
    Also, Veritech LLC, Glendale, AZ, has withdrawn as a party to this 
venture.
    No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned 
activity of the group research project. Membership in this group 
research project remains open, and NSC intends to file additional 
written notifications disclosing all changes in membership.
    On September 23, 2014, NSC filed its original notification pursuant 
to section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice published a 
notice in the Federal Register pursuant to section 6(b) of the Act on 
November 4, 2014 (79 FR 65424).
    The last notification was filed with the Department on July 19, 
2023. A notice was published in the Federal Register pursuant to 
section 6(b) of the Act on October 5, 2023(88 FR 69232).

Suzanne Morris,
Deputy Director Civil Enforcement Operations, Antitrust Division.
[FR Doc. 2023-27589 Filed 12-14-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P
EXHIBIT 15.1 

 

The Board of Directors 

Education Management Corporation and Subsidiaries

 

We have reviewed the accompanying condensed consolidatedbalance sheet of Education Management Corporation and Subsidiaries as of March 31, 2004, and the related condensed consolidated statements of income for the three-month and nine-month periods ended March 31, 2004 and 2003, and the condensedconsolidated statements of cash flows for the nine-month periods ended March 31, 2004 and 2003. These financial statements are the responsibility of the Company’s management. 

 

We conducted our reviews in accordance with standards established by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants.A review of interim financial information consists principally of applying analytical procedures to financial data, and making inquiries of persons responsible for financial and accounting matters. It is substantially less in scope than an auditconducted in accordance with auditing standards generally accepted in the United States, which will be performed for the full year with the objective of expressing an opinion regarding the financial statements taken as a whole. Accordingly, we donot express such an opinion. 

 

Based on our reviews, we are notaware of any material modifications that should be made to the accompanying condensed consolidated financial statements referred to above for them to be in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States. 

 

We have previously audited, in accordance with auditing standards generallyaccepted in the United States, the consolidated balance sheet of Education Management Corporation and Subsidiaries as of June 30, 2003, and the related consolidated statements of income, shareholders’ investment, and cash flows for the yearthen ended not presented herein and in our report dated August 1, 2003, we expressed an unqualified opinion on those consolidated financial statements and included an explanatory paragraph for the adoption of Statement of Financial AccountingStandards No. 142, *Goodwill and Other Intangible Assets*. In our opinion, the information set forth in the accompanying condensed consolidated balance sheet as of June 30, 2003, is fairly stated, in all material respects, in relation to theconsolidated balance sheet from which it has been derived. 

 

/s/ Ernst &Young LLP 

 

Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 

May 5, 2004
August 5, 2002

24016

#### State v. Christiano

Vacated and Remanded
Testing and Monitoring Plan for ADM CCS#1 Page C1 of 1 

Permit Number: IL-115-6A-0002 

ATTACHMENT C: TESTING AND MONITORING PLAN 

Facility name: Archer Daniels Midland, CCS#1 Well 

 IL-115-6A-0002 

Facility contact: Mr. Mark Burau, Plant Manager, 

4666 Faries Parkway, Decatur, IL 

(217) 424-5750, mark.burau@adm.com

Well location: Decatur, Macon County, IL; 

39o

52’ 37.06469” N, 88 o 53’ 36.25685” W 

Injection phase Testing and Monitoring requirements under the Illinois Environmental Protection 

Agency’s permit (Permit No.: UIC-012-ADM) remain in effect for the duration of injection. 

Post-Injection Site Care Testing and Monitoring is captured in Attachment E of this permit.
April 30, 1997

18657

#### Lee v. City and County of Honolulu

Affirmed
#### Furukawa v. Administrative Director

18261

7/9/97

Affirmed