alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
QuickLinks
 -- Click here to rapidly navigate through this document

Exhibit 10.2  


 
 

FORM OF    
    
    AMENDMENT TO EXISTING
  CONTINGENT STOCK PURCHASE AGREEMENT—OFFICER    
    


        As of the date or each of the dates set forth below, SEALED AIR CORPORATION (the "Corporation") and
                         (the "Employee")
entered into a Contingent Stock Purchase Agreement (the "Agreement") providing for the sale to the Employee of the number of shares indicated of the $0.10 par value Common Stock of the Corporation for
a purchase price of $1.00 per share under the Contingent Stock Plan of Sealed Air Corporation: 



	Date of Agreement
 
	 	Number of Shares

	 	 	 
	 	 	 
	 	 	 
	 	 	 






        The
Employee and the Corporation agree that each such Agreement is amended effective                         , as follows:




	1.
	The
last sentence of Section 5 of the Agreement is amended to read in its entirety as follows: 






Upon
the expiration of the Repurchase Option, an Employee may surrender to the Corporation the certificates or certificates representing such shares in exchange for a new certificate or certificates,
free of the above legend, subject to the provisions of Section 15 below. 




	2.
	The
following sentences are added at the end of Section 15 of the Agreement: 






The
Corporation may cause any tax withholding obligation or other charges described in the preceding sentence to be satisfied by the Corporation withholding from the shares of Common Stock issued
pursuant to the last sentence of Section 5 of this Agreement a number of shares (rounded up to the nearest whole share) with an aggregate fair market value on the date that such withholding
obligation arises equal to the aggregate amount of such taxes and other charges. Regardless of any other provision of the Plan, the Corporation may refuse to issue or to deliver to the Employee
certificates or a book entry statement representing shares issued pursuant to this Agreement until the Employee to whom the shares were issued complies with any withholding obligation. 






        Except
as amended above, each Agreement shall remain in full force and effect in accordance with its terms. 



	 
	 	 

	SEALED AIR CORPORATION	 	 
	 	 	
 Employee





	By:	 	 	 	 
	 	 	
	 	 
	

Name:	
 	

 	
 	

 
	 	 	
	 	 
	

Title:	
 	

 	
 	

 
	 	 	
	 	 













QuickLinks


FORM OF AMENDMENT TO EXISTING CONTINGENT STOCK PURCHASE AGREEMENT—OFFICER
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### APPEAL 

### O F 

### F LORIDA 

### S ECOND 

### D ISTRICT

LORENZO WILES, Appellant, v. STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee. No. 2D23-1953 November 15, 2023 Appeal pursuant to Fla. R. App. P. 9.141(b)(2) from the Circuit Court for Hillsborough County; Mark D. Kiser, Judge. PER CURIAM. Affirmed. SILBERMAN, VILLANTI, and LUCAS, JJ., Concur. Opinion subject to revision prior to official publication.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT 

No. 09-1206

EDWARD E. STROUPE, JR., 

 Plaintiff - Appellant, 

 v. 

MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, 

 Defendant - Appellee. 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western 

District of Virginia, at Abingdon. James P. Jones, Chief 

District Judge. (1:07-cv-00090-jpj-pms) 

Submitted: November 24, 2009 Decided: December 28, 2009 

Before MOTZ, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. 

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

Edward E. Stroupe, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Shawn C. Carver, 

Robert W. Kosman, Assistant Regional Counsel, Taryn F. Jasner, 

SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 
2 

PER CURIAM: 

Edward E. Stroupe, Jr., appeals the district court’s 

order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and 

affirming the final decision of the Commissioner of Social 

Security that Stroupe was not entitled to supplemental security 

income. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible 

error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the 

district court. See Stroupe v. Astrue, No. 1:07-cv-00090-jpjpms (W.D. Va. Feb. 9, 2009). We dispense with oral argument 

because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented 

in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the 

decisional process. 

AFFIRMED
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 23-0211

CITY OF MISSOULA, 

Plaintiff and Appellee, 

v. 

SCOTT ANTHONY CHARLIE,

Defendant and Appellant.

ORDER

Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, 

and good cause appearing,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension 

of time to and including March 6, 2024, within which to prepare, file, 

and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

January 30 2024

01/30/2024

Case Number: DA 23-0211
\Exhibit 23CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRMWe hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement on Form S-3 (No.333-124094), the Registration Statements on Form S-8 (Nos. 33-26442, 33-6141, 33-26443, 33-34362,33-62648, 333-117382, 333-42231 and 333-52175), and Post-Effective Amendment No. 4 on Form S-8to the Registration Statement on Form S-4 (No. 333-86061)of Phelps Dodge Corporation and Amendment No. 2 to the RegistrationStatement on Form S-4 (No. 333-139252) of Freeport-McMoRan Copper& Gold Inc. of our reportdated February 23, 2007 relating to the consolidated financial statements, financial statementschedule, management’s assessment of the effectiveness of internal control over financial reportingand the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting, which appears in this Form10-K./s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLPPricewaterhouseCoopers LLPPhoenix, Arizona
Exhibit (32)



SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATION



In connection with the Annual Report of Owens Corning (the Company) on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2004 (the Report), I,
Michael H. Thaman, 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 to the best of 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) | Information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
|--- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                       
|-----------------------
|                       
|/s/ Michael H. Thaman  
|                       
|Chief Financial Officer



March 8, 2005
```

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2852 Introduced in House (IH)]

114th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2852

    To provide for the eligibility for burial in Arlington National 
 Cemetery of certain members of reserve components of the Armed Forces.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             June 23, 2015

 Mr. Graves of Louisiana (for himself, Mr. Boustany, Mr. Abraham, Mr. 
  Richmond, and Mr. Palazzo) introduced the following bill; which was 
referred to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, and in addition to the 
Committee on Armed Services, for a period to be subsequently determined 
 by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as 
        fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
    To provide for the eligibility for burial in Arlington National 
 Cemetery of certain members of reserve components of the Armed Forces.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``FLORICH Act'' or ``Founding Legacies 
of Reserve Integral Combat-training Heroes Act of 2015''.

SEC. 2. ELIGIBILITY FOR BURIAL IN ARLINGTON NATIONAL CEMETERY OF 
              CERTAIN MEMBERS OF RESERVE COMPONENTS.

    (a) Eligibility for Burial.--A member of a reserve component of the 
Armed Forces described in subsection (b) is eligible for burial in 
Arlington National Cemetery, Arlington, Virginia.
    (b) Eligible Member of a Reserve Component.--A member of a reserve 
component of the Armed Forces described in this subsection is a member 
of a reserve component who dies while serving on inactive-duty training 
during a mission during which a member of the Armed Forces serving on 
active duty also dies.
    (c) Savings Provision.--This section may not be construed to make 
ineligible for burial in Arlington National Cemetery a person who is 
eligible to be buried in that cemetery under another provision of law.
    (d) Regulations.--This section shall be carried out under 
regulations prescribed by the Secretary of the Army.
    (e) Definitions.--For purposes of this section, the term 
``inactive-duty training'' has the meaning given such term under 
section 101(d)(7) of title 10, United States Code.
                                 <all>
```
<PAGE>

                                                                   EXHIBIT 11.1


                      FUSION MEDICAL TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
                     (A COMPANY IN THE DEVELOPMENT STAGE)


                       COMPUTATION OF NET LOSS PER SHARE
                               (IN THOUSANDS)


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                      Three Months Ended    Three Months Ended   Six Months Ended
                                           June 30,               June 30,           June 30,
                                             1997                   1996               1997
                                          (unaudited)           (unaudited)         (unaudited)
                                      -------------------   ------------------   ----------------
<S>                                   <C>                   <C>                  <C>
Weighted average common
  shares outstanding................         7,063                  1,520               7,044

Common equivalent shares
  pursuant to Staff Accounting
  Bulletin No. 83...................           -                      423                 -
                                           -------                 ------             -------

Shares used in computing per
  share amounts (1).................         7,063                  1,943               7,044
                                           -------                 ------             -------
                                           -------                 ------             -------

Net loss............................       $(2,484)                $ (793)            $(4,574)
                                           -------                 ------             -------
                                           -------                 ------             -------

Net loss per share..................       $ (0.35)                $(0.41)            $ (0.65)
                                           -------                 ------             -------
                                           -------                 ------             -------
</TABLE>

(1) PRIMARY AND DILUTIVE EARNINGS PER SHARE ARE THE SAME FOR ALL PERIODS
    PRESENTED.

THE ACCOMPANYING NOTES ARE AN INTEGRAL PART OF THESE CONDENSED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS.
#### WEBB v. STATE.

No. 24110.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Oct. 20, 1948.

Rehearing Granted Nov. 17, 1948.

John M. Barron, of Bryan, for appellant.

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

BEAUCHAMP, Judge.

Appellant was assessed a fine of $50 upon his conviction on a charge of driving on a highway while intoxicated.

The brief filed in the case discusses but one question. It is contended that conviction is had on the -testimony of an officer who quoted appellant as saying that he was the driver of the wrecked car. It is contended, under the circumstances, that appellant was under arrest at the time and that this evidence was inadmissible. A bill of exception is found in the record on this subject. We are unable to appraise the bill, however, because the statement of-facts in the case is in question and answer form and cannot be considered by this Court under the law. So. frequently have we held that a statement of facts in question and answer form cannot be considered that we do not deem it necessary to again cite the article of the statute relied on.

In the state of the record no error is apparent. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

On Motion for Rehearing.

HAWKINS, Presiding Judge.

In connection with and as a part of his motion for rehearing, appellant presents the certificate of the trial judge that the statement of facts in this case was presented, approved, and filed in question and answer form at his instance and order; that counsel for appellant protested against the question and answer statement of facts, insisting that under the law the statement of facts in a criminal case was required to be in narrative, form, which he desired to have approved and filed in the case.

It is apparent, therefore, that the appellant is in no manner to blame for the statement of facts in this case being in question and answer form but, to the contrary, same was over his protest.

Under the express provisions of Art. 760, Sec. 1, C.C.P., as amended in 1931, Vernon’s Ann.C.C.P. art. 760, subd. 1, the statement of facts, upon appeal in a criminal case, must be drawn in narrative form. The legislature having so provided, the judicial department of our government, neither trial courts nor appellate court, have authority to disregard this statutory mandate. This court can not, therefore, consider the question and- answer statement of facts.

Appellant having been deprived of a statement of facts upon appeal which this court may consider, without fault dr negli*179gence on his part, constitutes reversible error.

The motion for rehearing is granted and the judgment is now reversed and the cause remanded.
EXHIBIT 32.1
 CERTIFICATION*
    th
 /s/ Igor Gonda
    
    /s/ Nancy E. PecotaPresident and Chief Executive Officer
    
    Vice President, Finance and Chief Financial OfficerDated: November 6, 2009
    
    Dated: November 6, 2009
 
 *
    
    This certification accompanies the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q to which it relates, is not
deemed filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission and is not to be incorporated by reference
into any filing of Aradigm Corporation under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (whether made before or after the date of the Quarterly
Report on Form 10-Q), irrespective of any general incorporation language contained in such filing.
Exhibit 10(v)

              Amendment to Employment Agreement of Alan R. Gruber              
              ---------------------------------------------------
  
          THIS AMENDMENT ("Amendment"), dated as of January 1, 1997, amends the
Employment Agreement, dated as of March 19, 1993 (the "Agreement"), between 
Orion Capital Corporation, a Delaware corporation (the "Company"), and Alan R.
Gruber ("Executive");

                               W I T N E S S E T H:


          The Agreement is amended as set forth below.

          1.  The penultimate sentence 1(b) of the Agreement is amended in its
entirety to read as follows:

                     "Until December 31, 1998, Executive shall be an employee 
                      of the Company and during that period the Company shall 
                      make available to Executive appropriate quarters and  
                      secretarial assistance at an office location of the   
                      Company reasonably satisfactory to Executive."

          2.  Paragraph 7(a) of the Agreement is renumbered to 7(a)(i) and a
new paragraph 7(a)(ii) is added to the Agreement to read, in its entirety, as
follows:

                     "In addition to the compensation to be paid to Executive 
                      pursuant to 7(a)(i) above, during the period from     
                      January 1, 1997 to December 31, 1997, the Company shall 
                      pay to Executive an 





















<PAGE>


                         amount of $100,000, payable in semi-monthly        
                         installments, as a fee for his special services as 
                         Chairman of the Investment Committee of the Company's 
                         Board of Directors."

          3.  Except as expressly amended hereby, the Agreement shall continue
in full force and effect.

               IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Amendment as
of the date hereinabove set forth.


                                                                               
                                               ORION CAPITAL CORPORATION
                                                                               
                                               By:/s/ Michael Pl Maloney 
                                               --------------------------
                                                   Michael P.Maloney
                                                   Senior Vice President

                                                                               
                                               EXECUTIVE

                                               /s/ Alan R. Gruber              
                                               -------------------------
                                                   Alan R. Gruber


                                   - 2 -
[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 182 (Thursday, September 19, 2024)]
[Notices]
[Page 76882]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-21375]


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

POSTAL SERVICE


Product Change--Priority Mail Express, Priority Mail, and USPS 
Ground Advantage[supreg] Negotiated Service Agreement

AGENCY: Postal Service<SUP>TM</SUP>.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the 
Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services 
contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail 
Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.

DATES: Date of required notice: September 19, 2024.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sean C. Robinson, 202-268-8405.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The United States Postal Service[supreg] 
hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on 
September 13, 2024, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a 
USPS Request to Add Priority Mail Express, Priority Mail & USPS Ground 
Advantage[supreg] Contract 338 to Competitive Product List. Documents 
are available at www.prc.gov, Docket Nos. MC2024-681, CP2024-690.

Sean C. Robinson,
Attorney, Corporate and Postal Business Law.
[FR Doc. 2024-21375 Filed 9-18-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
#### MASONHEIMER v. STATE.

No. 19174.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Oct. 20, 1937.

For original opinion, see 107 S.W.(2d) 379.

Charles J. Lieck, of San Antonio, for appellant.

MORROW, Presiding Judge.

The opinion affirming the judgment of conviction was rendered June 25, 1937. The appellant's motion for rehearing was received by the clerk of this court on July 22, 1937, which was 27 days after the rendition of the original opinion. It is a well-settled rule of this court that motions for rehearing must be filed within 15 days after the date of. the original opinion or some good reason given for the failure to do so. See Smith v. State, 127 Tex.Cr.R. 273, 75 S.W.(2d) 449; Rice v. State, 130 Tex.Cr.R. 342, 93 S.W.(2d) 1149; Smith v. State, 131 Tex.Cr.R. 530, 100 S.W.(2d) 359; 4 Tex.Jur. p. *510,*§ 357. In our examination of the motion for rehearing filed by counsel for appellant, we have failed to find any reason given for the failure to file the motion within the prescribed time.

The motion for rehearing having been filed too late for consideration, it is therefore overruled.
INDEPENDENT CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANT'S CONSENT



We consent to the  incorporation by reference in the Registration  Statements of
Pease Oil and Gas Company on Form S-3 (SEC File Nos.  33-94536 with an effective
date of July 24, 1996,  and  333-19589  with an  effective  date of February 10,
1997) of our report dated  February  21, 1997 on our audits of the  consolidated
statements  of Pease Oil and Gas Company as of December  31,  1996,  and for the
years ended  December 31, 1996 and 1995,  which report is included in the Annual
Report of Pease Oil and Gas Company on Form 10-KSB.


/s/ Hein + Associates LLP

HEIN + ASSOCIATES LLP


Denver, Colorado
March 26, 1997
# C_2022440EN.01002401.xml

| 21.11.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 440/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.11.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 440/24

---

Prior notification of a concentration

(Case M.10853 – ISG / EEP / BSG)

Candidate case for simplified procedure

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2022/C 440/09)

1.

This notification concerns the following undertakings:

| — | Infraserv GmbH & Co. Gendorf KG (‘ISG’, Germany), controlled by Clariant Produkte (Deutschland) GmbH, Celanese Services Germany GmbH and Westlake Vinnolit GmbH & Co. KG, |
| --- | --- |

—

Infraserv GmbH & Co. Gendorf KG (‘ISG’, Germany), controlled by Clariant Produkte (Deutschland) GmbH, Celanese Services Germany GmbH and Westlake Vinnolit GmbH & Co. KG,

| — | E.ON Energy Projects GmbH (‘EEP’, Germany), |
| --- | --- |

—

E.ON Energy Projects GmbH (‘EEP’, Germany),

| — | Bio Steam Gendorf GmbH (‘BSG’, Germany). |
| --- | --- |

—

Bio Steam Gendorf GmbH (‘BSG’, Germany).

ISG and EEP will acquire, within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) and (4) of the Merger Regulation, joint control of BSG.

The concentration is accomplished by way of purchase of shares.

2.

| — | ISG: operation of a chemical park in southern Germany, including the provision of infrastructure and other site services, |
| --- | --- |

—

ISG: operation of a chemical park in southern Germany, including the provision of infrastructure and other site services,

| — | EEP: planning, construction and operation of decentralised electricity and heat production facilities for industrial customers. |
| --- | --- |

—

EEP: planning, construction and operation of decentralised electricity and heat production facilities for industrial customers.

3.

The business activities of BSG will be the following: planning, construction and operation of a biomass plant for the production of heat and electricity from renewable energy sources.

4.

On preliminary examination, the Commission finds that the notified transaction could fall within the scope of the Merger Regulation. However, the final decision on this point is reserved.

5.

Observations must reach the Commission not later than 10 days following the date of this publication. The following reference should always be specified:

M.10853 – ISG / EEP / BSG

Observations can be sent to the Commission by email, by fax or by post. Please use the contact details below:

Email: COMP-MERGER-REGISTRY@ec.europa.eu

Fax +32 22964301

Postal address:

| European Commission |
| --- |
| Directorate-General for Competition |
| Merger Registry |
| 1049 Bruxelles/Brussel |
| BELGIQUE/BELGIË |

European Commission

Directorate-General for Competition

Merger Registry

1049 Bruxelles/Brussel

BELGIQUE/BELGIË

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1 (‘the Merger Regulation’).

1

---