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

                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.65

                              LAS VEGAS SANDS CORP.
                             2004 EQUITY AWARD PLAN

                         NOTICE OF GRANT OF STOCK OPTION
                         -------------------------------

         Notice is hereby given of the following option grant (the "Option") to
purchase shares of the Common Stock of Las Vegas Sands Corp. (the "Company"):

         OPTIONEE:
                                          -------------------------------------

         DATE OF GRANT:
                                          -------------------------------------

         NUMBER OF OPTION SHARES:
                                          -------------------------------------

         EXERCISE PRICE PER OPTION SHARE:
                                          -------------------------------------

         TYPE OF OPTION:                        NON-QUALIFIED STOCK OPTION
                                          -------------------------------------

         EXPIRATION DATE:
                                          -------------------------------------

         VESTING SCHEDULE: Subject to your continued employment with the Company
         or an Affiliate and except as may otherwise be provided in the
         Company's 2004 Equity Award Plan (the "Plan") or in your stock option
         agreement (the "Agreement"), the Option shall become vested and
         exercisable as to twenty-five percent (25%) of the Option Shares on
         each of the first through fourth anniversaries of the Date of Grant.

         Your Agreement will be forwarded to you separately. Please be advised
that this Notice contains a summary of some of the terms of the Plan and your
Agreement. Your Option is granted in accordance with and subject to the
provisions of the Plan and your Agreement.

         Nothing contained in this Notice, the Plan or your Agreement shall be
construed as giving you any right to be retained, in any position, as an
employee, consultant or director of the Company or its Affiliates or shall
interfere with or restrict in any way the right of the Company or its
Affiliates, which are hereby expressly reserved, to remove, terminate or
discharge you at any time for any reason whatsoever.

         All capitalized terms used in this Notice and not defined shall have
the meanings ascribed to them in the Plan.

By:__________________________
Name:
Title:
11 TH COURT OF APPEALS

EASTLAND

, TEXAS

JUDGMENT

Nacomas Eugene Sauls

, * From the 142nd District Court

of Midland County,

Trial Court No. CR55027

.

Vs. No. 11

- 2 2

- 00 146

- CR * June 9, 2022

The State of Texas

, * Per Curiam Memorand um Opinion

(P anel consists of: Bailey , C.J.,

Trotter , J. , and W illiams , J. )

This court has considered Nacomas Eugene Sauls ’s “Waiver of Appeal

, ”

which we filed as a motion to dismiss

, and concludes that the motion should be

granted. Therefore, in accordance with this court’s opinion, the appeal is

dismissed.
•.v.; t \J \

RESPONDE D O N DECEMBE R 2,200 9 5:1 1 P M
. ~ , . , o 

### Anthon yE
. Shorris , Directo ro f th e Rudi n Cente rfo rTransportatio n Polic yan d iVIanagement , Rober t F
. Wagne rSchoo i o f Publi c Service , Ne wYor k

Universit y Thos e wh o hav e writte n alread y hav e outUne dman y of th e ke y issue s withi n th e aviatio n industr y itself. I woul dad dt o th e lis t aserie s of

question s abou t

th e relationshi p of

th e aviatio n secto r

t o othe r transportatio n an dnon-transportatio n issue s an dremin dthos e settin g nationa l polic y tha t aviatio n shoul dno t

b e deal t wit hi n isolation . Fo r

example , soun daviatio n policyjtnus t b e closel y relate dt o ho w th e natio n think s abou t highj^ee d rail : th e sures t

way t o addcapacit y t o airport s i s b v removin g short-hau l flight s fro m over-crowde dairspac e an dsubstitutin g rai l service-fQiial l trip s under , say^gjo o miles . Othe r nation s hav e understoo dthi s trade-of f (se e Frankfur t

airpor t an drail) , bu t

th e siloed-fundin g of

America n transportation , an dth e powerfu l interes t group s tha t

hav e afrayedliroun dthos e fundin g streams , make s suc haconversatio n difficult i f no t impossible . Othe r

trade-offs nee dconsideration : airport s i n th e U S ar e ofte n profoundl y constraine dbecaus e lan dus e decision s i n th e adjoinnin g communitie s ar e mad e withou t

regar dt o aviatio n need s of th e futur e —addin g arunwa y i s alway s difficult , bu t verge s o n th e impossibl e whe n nearb y home s an dneighborhood s ar e affected . Ho w ca n w e integrat e lan dus e thinkin g int o aviatio n plannin g th e way w e hav e (just ) begu n t o discus s doin g i n surfac e transportation ? Othe r example s abound , bu t

th e large r

poin t i s tha t w e nee dapolic y approac hthati s broa da s wel l a s deep , engagin g mor e tha n th e obviou s interes t

group s i n th e debate .
<PAGE>   1


                                    C2, INC.

                            EXHIBIT 21 - SUBSIDIARIES

This exhibit sets forth the Registrant's corporate subsidiaries at December 31,
1999 and their states of incorporation. These subsidiaries do business under
their own corporate names and are included in the Consolidated Financial
Statement.

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

                                         JURISDICTION OF             C2
          NAME                           INCORPORATION            OWNERSHIP
--------------------------------     -------------------------------------------
<S>                                    <C>                       <C>
Total Logistic Control, LLC                Delaware                 66.7%
Zero Zone, Inc.                            Wisconsin                70.6%
</TABLE>





                                       36
|   | (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 16, 2007 | By:                                                                                                                                                     | /s/ John              King |
|                                    | John                King                                                                                                                                          |
|                                    | Chief                Executive Officer andChief                  Financial Officer (Principal                  Financial and Accounting                  Officer) |

----
#### Ex parte BELL.

No. 26367.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

April 1, 1953.

No attorney on appeal.

George P. Blackburn, State’s Atty., Austin, for the State.

DAVIDSON, Commissioner.

By writ of habeas corpus direct to this court, relator seeks his discharge from the state penitentiary.

In July, 1941, relator was convicted of a felony in the Criminal District Court of Brazoria County and his punishment assessed at two years in the penitentiary.

In March, 1942, relator was convicted in the Criminal District Court of Harris County of the felony offense of “attempted burglary,” with sentence imposed for a term of not less than two nor more than five years in the penitentiary, to run cumulative with the sentence of two years in Brazoria County.

It will be noted that the punishment of five years as fixed in the attempted burglary case was not authorized, because the punishment affixed to that offense, art. 1402, Vernon’s Ann.P.C. is confinement in the penitentiary for not less than two nor more than four years.

In Ex parte Castleberry, Tex.Cr.App., 216 S.W.2d 584, the rule is announced that one confined in the penitentiary under a sentence the maximum of which is not authorized by law is entitled to his discharge from such unauthorized maximum sentence. See, also, Ex parte Woods, 153 Tex.Cr.R. 420, 220 S.W.2d 889.

Giving effect here to the rule stated, relator’s sentence for attempted burglary is to be treated as a term of two years in the penitentiary.

In December, 1943, relator was convicted in Criminal District Court No. 2 of Harris County for the offense of robbery by assault, with punishment assessed at five years in the penitentiary, which was made cumulative of his conviction for attempted burglary.

Relator was also convicted in the District Court of Jackson County, but, inasmuch as that sentence of three years ran concurrent with the five-year sentence for robbery by , assault, such is not here material.

*414The penitentiary authorities consider the maximum sentence imposed by the convictions mentioned as twelve years and that, inasmuch as such maximum sentence has not been served by relator, he is therefore not now entitled to his discharge.

The punishment in the attempted burglary case being reduced, as we have heretofore pointed out, to two years, the maximum confinement authorized under all the convictions is nine years in the penitentiary.

The certificate of the penitentiary authorities now before us shows that relator has served' the nine-year sentence imposed under the convictions.

Being therefore entitled to be discharged' from further custody under the judgments heretofore mentioned, relator is accordingly ordered discharged from custody.

Opinion approved by the court.
#### Walton BROCK, Movant, v. COMMONWEALTH of Kentucky, Opposed.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

June 12, 1951.

Lewis & Weaver, London, for movant.

A. E. Funk, Atty. Gen., Wm. F. Simpson, Asst. Atty. Gen., for opposed.

PER CURIAM.

Motion for an appeal from the Laurel Circuit Court. Judgment of conviction for having in possession intoxicating liquors for sale in local option territory. $100 fine and 60 days in jail.

Appeal denied. Judgment affirmed.
#### STEEL v. STATE.

No. 24276.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Feb. 23, 1949.

Levee & Lee, by Sidney Lee, all of Tex-arkana, for appellant.

Ernest S. Goens, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

KRUEGER, Judge.

The offense is theft of a tractor. The punishment assessed is confinement in the state penitentiary for a term of two years.

At the very threshold of this case we are confronted with the question of the sufficiency of the indictment, in this, that the state failed to allege in the indictment the value of the stolen tractor. It is essential in all cases of theft, except in theft from the person and theft of certain animals such as horses, mules, cows, etc., to allege the *858value of the corporeal personal property alleged to have been stolen so that the indictment upon its face may show that the court has jurisdiction of the offense. Furthermore, it is necessary to prove the value of the property so that the court may properly instruct the jury relative to the punishment applicable to the offense. In the instant case, the state proved the value of the tractor yet failed to allege it. This constitutes a fatal defect in the indictment. See Sheppard v. State, 1 Tex.App. 522, 28 Am.Rep. 422; Melton v. State, 20 Tex.App. 202; Collins v. State, 20 Tex.App. 197; Shaw v. State, 23 Tex.App. 493, 5 S.W. 317; and Campbell v. State, 61 Tex.Cr.R. 504, 135 S.W. 548. Ordinarily whatever is necessary to be proved must be alleged in the indictment.

There are other questions raised which we do- not deem necessary to here decide. The indictment being fatally defective, the judgment of conviction is reversed and the prosecution dismissed.

PER CURIAM.

The foregoing opinion of the Commission of Appeals has been examined by the Judges of the Court of Criminal Appeals and approved by the Court.
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.A

                           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 on Form 10-Q for the period
ending March 31, 2003, of Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company (the "Company") as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), I, John W. Somerhalder II, Chairman of the Board (Principal Executive
Officer), certify (i) that the Report fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and
(ii) that the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.




                                             /s/ John W. Somerhalder II
                                             ----------------------------------
                                             John W. Somerhalder II
                                             Chairman of the Board
                                             (Principal Executive Officer)

                                             May 14, 2003


A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company and will be retained by Tennessee Gas
Pipeline Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its
staff upon request.
EX-10.1



 






Exhibit 10.1




AMENDMENT TO

WESCO INTERNATIONAL, INC.

STOCK OPTION PLAN




     Pursuant to Section 9 of the WESCO International, Inc. Stock Option Plan (the “1994 Plan”),
the Plan is hereby amended as follows:



     1. Section 8 of the Plan is amended and restated to read in its entirety as follows:




     “8. Change in Control. Unless otherwise provided by
the Committee in the applicable Stock Option Agreement, in the event
of Change in Control, all Options outstanding on the date of such
Change in Control shall become immediately and fully exercisable.
The provisions of this Section 8 shall not be applicable to any
Options granted to a Participant if any Change in Control results
from such Participant’s beneficial ownership (within the meaning of
Rule 13d.3 under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended) of
Common Stock.”



     2. Except as expressly provided in this Amendment, the other terms and conditions of the Plan
are hereby ratified, affirmed and confirmed in all respects.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA 

MIDDLE DISTRICT 

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

 Respondent 

 v. 

JEFFREY MARK KENNOY, 

 Petitioner 

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 109 MM 2014 

ORDER 

PER CURIAM 

AND NOW, this 12th day of September, 2014, the Petition for Leave to File 

Petition for Allowance of Appeal Nunc Pro Tunc is DENIED.
1 | Building Technologies Program eere.energy.gov

Distribution Transformer MV Subcommittee

Negotiation Meeting #3

Tuesday, 08 November 2011
2 | Building Technologies Program eere.energy.gov

Agenda

• Changes to Medium-Voltage Dry Engineering Analysis

• Examples

• Next Steps
3 | Building Technologies Program eere.energy.gov

• New Design Option Combination

– M4 Al Al step-lap miter

• Adjusted Material Prices for M4 and worse

• Revised labor estimates

• Revised bus and lead losses to reflect those of a substationstyle transformer

• Plan to scale mid-BIL design lines (11 and 12) to higher and 

lower BIL classes

MV Dry-Type Changes
4 | Building Technologies Program eere.energy.gov

MV Dry-Type Examples
5 | Building Technologies Program eere.energy.gov

MV Dry-Type Examples
6 | Building Technologies Program eere.energy.gov

• Steel Price Sensitivity Tool on SharePoint

• Simplified Cost Plots on SharePoint

• Develop scaling relationship between mid-BIL lines and 

low- and high-BIL lines

Next Steps
Summary of Outside Director Compensation Arrangements




 Exhibit 10.14 
  
 TRIAD HOSPITALS, INC. 
 COMPENSATION OF NON-EMPLOYEE DIRECTORS 
  

								
	 	  	Annual Retainer

	 	Per Meeting
Attendance Fees

	  	Annual Equity
Grant1


	 Non-Employee Directors
	  	$55,0002	 	$	2,500	  	2,000 shares
restricted stock
	 Audit Committee Members
	  	$5,000
Committee Chairman	 	$	1,500	  	N/A
	 Compensation Committee Members
	  	$5,000
Committee Chairman	 	$	1,500	  	N/A
	 Quality Committee Members
	  	N/A	 	$	1,500	  	N/A
	 Ethics and Compliance Committee Members
	  	$5,000
Committee Chairman	 	$	1,500	  	N/A
	 Nominating and
 Corporate Governance Committee Members
	  	$5,000
Committee Chairman	 	$	1,500	  	N/A
	 Executive Committee
 Members
	  	N/A	 	$	1,500	  	N/A
	 Development Committee Members
	  	N/A	 	$	1,500	  	N/A

  

  

	1	On May 24, 2005, the Board of Directors granted a restricted stock award for non-employee directors in lieu of an annual stock option grant provided for under
the Company’s Outside Directors Stock and Incentive Compensation Plan (the “Compensation Plan”). The award is subject to certain restrictions until the first anniversary of the date of the award. In addition to the annual equity
grant, the Board of Directors’ practice is to grant an initial equity award to each non-employee director upon commencement of service as a member of the Board of Directors. 

  

	2	Non-employee directors have the option to elect to receive all or a portion (in 25% increments) of the annual retainer in deferred stock units pursuant to the
Compensation Plan.
Exhibit 32.1


                            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 on Form 10-K of Merrill Lynch Preferred
Capital Trust IV (the "Trust") and Merrill Lynch Preferred Funding IV, L.P.
for the period ended December 26, 2003 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Linda L. Lowry,
Regular Trustee of the Trust, 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 Trust.





                              MERRILL LYNCH PREFERRED CAPITAL TRUST IV


                              By:  /s/ LINDA L. LOWRY
                                   ---------------------------------------------
                              Name:    Linda L. Lowry *
                              Title:   Regular Trustee









Dated: March 22, 2004
_____________________

* Linda L. Lowry functions as the equivalent of the Chief Executive Officer
  and Chief  Financial  Officer of the Trust for  purposes  of Section  906
  of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3096 Engrossed in House (EH)]

113th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 3096

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
      To designate the building occupied by the Federal Bureau of 
  Investigation located at 801 Follin Lane, Vienna, Virginia, as the 
           ``Michael D. Resnick Terrorist Screening Center''.

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

SECTION 1. DESIGNATION.

    The building occupied by the Federal Bureau of Investigation 
located at 801 Follin Lane, Vienna, Virginia, shall be known and 
designated as the ``Michael D. Resnick Terrorist Screening Center'' 
during the period in which the building is occupied by the Federal 
Bureau of Investigation.

SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

    During the period in which the building referred to in section 1 is 
occupied by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, any reference in a 
law, map, regulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 
States to that building shall be deemed to be a reference to the 
``Michael D. Resnick Terrorist Screening Center''.

            Passed the House of Representatives September 27, 2013.

            Attest:

                                                                 Clerk.
113th CONGRESS

  1st Session

                               H. R. 3096

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

      To designate the building occupied by the Federal Bureau of 
  Investigation located at 801 Follin Lane, Vienna, Virginia, as the 
           ``Michael D. Resnick Terrorist Screening Center''.
```
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              MAR-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                                 APR-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                   DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                                  56 
<SECURITIES>                                             0 
<RECEIVABLES>                                          463 
<ALLOWANCES>                                           (16)
<INVENTORY>                                            503 
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     1,361 
<PP&E>                                                 758 
<DEPRECIATION>                                        (649)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                       1,925 
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                  572 
<BONDS>                                                  0 
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                    0 
<PREFERRED>                                              0 
<COMMON>                                               211 
<OTHER-SE>                                             842 
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                         1,925 
<SALES>                                              2,664 
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     2,664 
<CGS>                                                1,111 
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        1,111 
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     1,549 
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                         0 
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                     (23)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                        (20)
<INCOME-TAX>                                            (8)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                    (12)
<DISCONTINUED>                                           0 
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                          0 
<CHANGES>                                                0 
<NET-INCOME>                                           (12)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                         (.01)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                         (.01)
                                                     
                                                  

</TABLE>