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

                                                                   Exhibit 10.25


                                   AMENDMENT NO. 12

                                        To The

                         Direct Broadcast Satellite Contract

                                       Between

              United States Satellite Broadcasting Company, Inc. (USSB)

                                         And

                             Lockheed Martin Corporation

                                    Acting Through

               Lockheed Martin Telecommunications (Telecommunications)





THIS AMENDMENT NO. 12 is effective 27 November 1996.


WHEREAS, USSB requires additional time to evaluate Telecommunications (formerly
known as Astro Space Commercial) proposal and, therefore, requests an extension
of the System Definition Phase before authorizing Telecommunications to begin
the Construction Phase Commencement (CPC) of this Contract; and


WHEREAS, Telecommunications is willing to grant such an extension and reschedule
the CPC in accordance with the changes made herein.


NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the promises and mutual covenants
hereinafter contained, the Parties agree to the following:


I.  In paragraph 1 of Amendment No. 11, change the date satellite construction
    shall commence and the date USSB must notify Telecommunications of its
    intent not to proceed to December 31, 1996.

<PAGE>


II. All other dates specified in the Contract's ARTICLE 3. DELIVERABLE ITEMS
    AND DELIVERY SCHEDULE and ARTICLE 4. PAYMENT, beginning with the CPC
    payment number 13, are delayed thirty (30) days from the date specified in
    Amendment 11.  Thus, payment number 14 is due on January 31, 1997; and, so
    forth, through payment number 56.


IN WITNESS THEREOF, the Parties have caused this Amendment No. 12 to be signed
by their duly authorized officer or representative.







Lockheed Martin Corporation                 United States Satellite
                                            Broadcasting Company, Inc.


By: /s/ H.T. Riley                          By:  /s/ Robert W. Hubbard
    ----------------------------------           -------------------------
    H.T. Riley, Manager                          Robert W. Hubbard
    Contracts, East Windsor Operations           Executive Vice President
    Lockheed Martin Telecommunications
##### 



EXHIBIT 10.10(a) FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE
STERLING CHEMICALS, INC.
SUPPLEMENTAL EMPLOYEE RETIREMENT PLAN WITNESSETH WHEREAS, Sterling Chemicals, inc. (the Employer) presently maintains the Sterling Chemicals,
Inc. Supplemental Employee Retirement Plan, effective as of January 1, 1989 (the Plan); and WHEREAS, the Employer, pursuant to Section 6 of the Plan, has the right to amend the Plan from
time to time subject to certain limitations: NOW, THEREFORE, the Plan is hereby amended in the following manner: Effective as of January 1, 2005, the Plan is amended to freeze benefit accruals. Benefit
accruals will cease for all Participants, by computing their Accrued Benefits as of January 1,
2005, as if they had terminated from service on such date. This amount shall be referred to as the
Frozen Benefit. Each Participant may continue to accrue Vesting Service after January 1, 2005,
in accordance with the existing provisions of the Pension Plan, in order to vest in his Frozen
Benefit and for benefit eligibility purposes. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Employer has executed this Amendment, this day of , 2005. STERLING CHEMICALS, INC.ByName:Title
| 1.   | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and |
|----------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| 2.   | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. |
|----------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Date: April 30, 2010 | By:    | /s/ John P. Murray                                                                   |
|----------------------|--------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                 | Name:  | John P. Murray                                                                       |
|                 | Title: | Chief Financial Officer(Principal Financial Officer andPrincipal Accounting Officer) |
# C_2005006EN.01004301.xml

| 8.1.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 6/43 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.1.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 6/43

---

Action brought on 22 November 2004 by Manuel Simões Dos Santos against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market

(Case T-435/04)

(2005/C 6/84)

Language of the case: French

An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 22 November 2004, by Manuel Simões Dos Santos, residing in Alicante (Spain), represented by A.C. Carreras, lawyer.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | Annul the decision of 7 July 2004 rejecting the applicant's complaint and the decisions of 15 December 2003 fixing the cumulative total of merit points awarded to the complainant and the decision of 12 December 2003 confirming that decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of 7 July 2004 rejecting the applicant's complaint and the decisions of 15 December 2003 fixing the cumulative total of merit points awarded to the complainant and the decision of 12 December 2003 confirming that decision;

| — | Order the Commission to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant in this case was promoted to Grade A5 in the 2002 promotion procedure. On that occasion, the Appointing Authority notified him of an outstanding balance of 54.19 points. Nevertheless, by letter of 15 December 2003 from the Department of Human Resources, he learnt that his points total at 30 September 2003 was only 1.5 points. It follows from that letter, which constitutes the contested decision, that that reduction in points is not the result of the conversion of the points awarded before the new system established by the Office's decision ADM-03-35, but of a complete cancellation thereof, in consequence of the application of the new rule for starting at zero after promotion, as laid down in that decision.

In support of his claims, the applicant first of all pleads breach of the principles of legality, legal certainty and non-retroactivity, in so far as there are no exceptional circumstances, in this case, which could justify the withdrawal of the balance of points already awarded to an official and to which he was entitled under the regime in force at the time.

The applicant also pleads breach of the principles of protection of legitimate expectations and of non-discrimination, and of the duty to state reasons.

---
Exhibit 23.1 Consent of Independent Accountants:

The Board of Directors and Stockholders
 Optika Inc.:

We consent to incorporation by reference in the registration statements (Nos.
333-56501 and 333-42250) on Form S-8 of Optika Inc. of our reports relating to
the consolidated balance sheets of Optika Inc. and subsidiaries as of December
31, 2000 and 1999 and the related consolidated statements of operations,
stockholders' equity and comprehensive income (loss) and cash flows for the
years then ended, and the related schedule, which reports appear in the December
31, 2000 Annual Report on Form 10-K, of Optika Inc.

                                    KPMG LLP

Denver, Colorado
March 19, 2001
WASIONSIVIN

Coat of Slam

••••••n•••• •

or. • .1,11 '

w.• -

0EFAMITMENT OF THE AIR FORCE 1112;3

• MICE OW TOM •11111111TORY

MOW= MONO

=EJECT: ISO Satellite Forecast Report for Audi 196?

The following satellite activities are forecasted for the meth

of April 196? .

PROJECT TIRE= " count!

1. WI 4 nal TIME jer_v_s.)

(Primary) Eurasian. Comonist Countries

(Someday) World Wide Napping

•

CORM RUM. (Primary) Eurasian Cammmist Camtries
*November 10, 1931.*

#### Musfeldt, Administrator, Appellant, vs. Hames, Respondent.

For the appellant: *Douglas J. Mangan,*attorney, and *James B. Croke*of counsel, both of Milwaukee.

For the respondent: *Hill, Beckwith & Harrington*of Madison.

*By the Court.*— Judgment affirmed.
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 23.2

              CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS




As independent certified public accountants, we hereby consent to the
incorporation by reference in this Form 10-K/A of our report dated March 28,
2000 included in previously filed Registration Statements on Forms S-3 (File No.
333-32148, 333-86533, 333-76845), Form S-4 (File No. 333-84047), and Form S-8
(File No. 333-76277). It should be noted that we have not audited any financial
statements of U.S. Plastic Lumber Corp. subsequent to December 31, 1998 or
performed and audit procedures subsequent to the date of our report.


/s/ Arthur Andersen LLP
---------------------------------
Arthur Andersen LLP


West Palm Beach, Florida
January 15, 2002
WWSECREF1-91 NATIONAL RECONNAISSANCE OFFICE

WASHINGTON. D.C.

THE NRO STAFF January 12, 1971

MEMORANDUM FOR COLONEL

DR. N

SUBJECT: Strategic Forces Survivability Study

On January 7, I attended a working group meeting at

the Agency to review a draft of one section of the

Strategic Forces Survivability Study. The overall

study is being performed at the request of the President

through the National Security Council. Bill Baier's

group at the Agency has prepared the section on the

U.S. capability to detect against selected Soviet

Weapons Improvements - 1970-1978. The OSD is working

on the other sections of the study which apparently

deal with our overall survivability capability. The

overall study is going to coordinate with the JSOP and,

I think, the SLOP by the Defense Program Review Committee

so that the National Security Council can review the

overall U. S. strategic and defensive posture.

There are three items of note pertaining to the

section of the study on the Capability to Detect

Improvements which I pass' along for your information.

1. Admiral Moorer, on October 21, requested

Dr. Kissinger to consider a formal updating of the SALT

Verification Study which was completed in October 1969.

Dr. Kissinger responded by memo on December 4, stating

that "we attempted to focus on the verification aspect

in the terms of reference for the survivability study

where we required a review of our ability to detect and

acquire demonstrable evidence of violations of an

agreement. I think that this study will accomplish what

you suggested." Therefore, there is not expected to be a

formal update of the verification study.

-TOPIECIET-

•%C..21A1 SIN•I •tibleanc

DOC NaliC •Sten ID DOI% OL."•Pet•

combust. Internal

CO*.

OF Win
TOP-SECRET

V1411219 'OM Mi.01141% •1111111111.14

DOB 91111CrvIr spots t• passer /MI I

Internal 

The section of the study under review

contained a subsection on systems and capabilities

expected to be available through 1978. This subsection

consisted of a COMIREX style projection of photosatellites, based largely on the October COMIREX study;

and also a section on SIGINT capabilities. I obtained

comments from Ed Zura and Bill Kennedy on the latter.

In the review at the Agency, the patent optimism

contained in the section of the overall study was

toned down at my request.

One of the other shortcomings of the

study draft was that it was not specific enough.

This creates a dil that to make the study more

specific, then the .classification is needed.

The coordinated exe summaries on the studies

for the National Security Council will be maintained

at the Top Secret level so that the action agencies

will have as much data access as possible. In an

effort to resolve this dilemma, I asked Bill Beier

to work two versions of the capab Detect

Improvements section - one at the evel and

one at the Top Secret level, each appropriate

agencies. He is attempting to do this now.

RECOMMENDATION: This memorandum is for your information

only, no action is necessary.

WNW

LD S. CO , JR.

Major, USAF
*December 9, 1930.*

#### Estate of Olson: Gulbransen, Administrator, etc., Appellant, vs. Turener, Claimant, Respondent.

For the appellant: *Henry G. Smieding*and *Fulton Thompson,*both of Racine.

For the respondent: *Wilbershide & Baumblatt*of Racine.

*By the Court.*

Judgment affirmed.
# C_2005082EN.01001302.xml

| 2.4.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 82/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.4.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 82/13

---

Action brought on 31 January 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities against the United Kingdom

(Case C-37/05)

(2005/C 82/28)

Language of procedure: English

An action against the United Kingdom was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 31 January 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities, represented by Mr Michel van Beek, acting as agent, assisted by Mr Frédéric Louis, avocat, and Mr A. Capobianco, avvocato, with an address for service in Luxembourg.

The Commission requests that the Court should:

| — | declare that, in failing to correctly transpose the requirements of Articles 2(1) and 4 of the Council Directive 85/337/CEE on the assessment of certain public and private projects on the environment (1) as amended by Council Directive 97/11/EC (2), the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under the Directive and under the Treaty. |
| --- | --- |

—

declare that, in failing to correctly transpose the requirements of Articles 2(1) and 4 of the Council Directive 85/337/CEE on the assessment of certain public and private projects on the environment (1) as amended by Council Directive 97/11/EC (2), the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under the Directive and under the Treaty.

1

2

| — | order the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments:

A directive must be transposed into binding provisions of national law in a manner that fully satisfies the requirements of clarity and legal certainty. Administrative guidance does not ensure compliance with these requirements. A mere assurance that a practical breach of the provisions of Council directive 85/337/CEE is unlikely to arise in practice does not constitute effective transposition of that directive.

---

(1)  OJ L 175, 05.07.1985, p. 4

1

(2)  OJ L 73, 14.03.1997, p. 5

2

---
# C_2005115EN.01002302.xml

| 14.5.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 115/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.5.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 115/23

---

Action brought on 17 February 2005 by Deutsche Telekom AG against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

(Case T-72/05)

(2005/C 115/45)

Language of the Case: German

An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 17 February 2005 by Deutsche Telekom AG, Bonn, Germany, represented by J.-C. Gaedertz and D.R. Marschollek, lawyers.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | set aside the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market of 15 December 2004; |
| --- | --- |

—

set aside the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market of 15 December 2004;

| — | order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

| Community trade mark sought: | The word mark 'Telekom Global Net' for goods and services in Classes 9, 16, 35, 36, 38, 39, 41 and 42 (Electric instruments, printed matter, advertising, financial and real estate affairs, telecommunications, transport and storage, education, computer programming...) — Application No 2 168 169. |
| --- | --- |
| Decision of the Examiner: | Refusal of the application for almost all of the goods and services in Classes 9, 38 and 42. |
| Decision of the Board of Appeal: | Dismissal of the appeal. |
| Pleas in law: | — | The mark applied for displays no descriptive character in relation to the goods and services in Classes 9, 38 and 42 for the purposes of Article 7(1)(c) of Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94. |

Community trade mark sought:

The word mark 'Telekom Global Net' for goods and services in Classes 9, 16, 35, 36, 38, 39, 41 and 42 (Electric instruments, printed matter, advertising, financial and real estate affairs, telecommunications, transport and storage, education, computer programming...) — Application No 2 168 169.

Decision of the Examiner:

Refusal of the application for almost all of the goods and services in Classes 9, 38 and 42.

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

Dismissal of the appeal.

Pleas in law:

—

The mark applied for displays no descriptive character in relation to the goods and services in Classes 9, 38 and 42 for the purposes of Article 7(1)(c) of Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94.

| — | The mark applied for has sufficient distinctive character within the meaning of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94. |
| --- | --- |

—

The mark applied for has sufficient distinctive character within the meaning of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94.

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>      5
<LEGEND>
         The schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
         consolidated financial statements and is qualified in its entirety by
         reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                            3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                  JUN-30-2000
<PERIOD-START>                                     SEP-30-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                       DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                                  14,100
<SECURITIES>                                                 0
<RECEIVABLES>                                          196,900
<ALLOWANCES>                                                 0
<INVENTORY>                                                  0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                       251,500
<PP&E>                                               1,503,200
<DEPRECIATION>                                         736,200
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                       1,277,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                1,102,550
<BONDS>                                                      0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                7,400,000
<PREFERRED>                                                  0
<COMMON>                                                     0
<OTHER-SE>                                                   0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                         1,277,000
<SALES>                                                354,400
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                        354,400
<CGS>                                                   270,600
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                           323,200
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                              0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                              0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                       24,970
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                             500
<INCOME-TAX>                                                  0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                         500
<DISCONTINUED>                                                0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                               0
<CHANGES>                                                     0
<NET-INCOME>                                                500
<EPS-BASIC>                                                   0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                                 0



</TABLE>
#### W. W. WOODFIN v. GEORGE BEACH and others.

When the allegations in the complaint upon which it is sought to set up injunctive relief, are fully met by the answer, the restraining order first issued will be set aside, and an injunction until the hearing refused.

MotioN to set aside a restraining order, heard by *Henry J.,*at Chambers in BunooMBE county, 26th day of August, 1873.

The plaintiff in his complaint, demanded that the defendants should be enjoined from selling certain lands under' the provisions of a deed in trust, alleging irreparable injury, and on the 4th of August obtained a restraining order until the 26th of the same month, when the defendants were summoned to appear. The defendants appeared and answered, and his Honor refused to continue such restraining order to the hearing; from which judgment plaintiff appealed.

*McCorlde <&*Bailey, for appellant.

*J. H.*Merrimm, contra.

Reade, J.

Ve agree with his Honor that the injunctive relief set up in the complaint is fully met by the answer.

There was, therefore no error in setting aside the restraining order and refusing the motion to grant'an injunction until the hearing.

This will be certified to the end that the parties may proceed as they may be advised.

Per CuriaM. Judgment accordingly.
EXHIBIT 23

            CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM



The Board of Directors:
Profile Technologies, Inc.


     We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statement
(No. 333-53575) on Form S-3 of Profile Technologies, Inc. of our report dated
October 11, 2004 relating to the balance sheet of Profile Technologies, Inc. as
of June 30, 2004, and the related statements of operations, stockholders'
deficit, and cash flows for each of the years in the two-year period ended June
30, 2004, which report appears in the June 30, 2004 annual report on Form 10-KSB
of Profile Technologies, Inc.

     Our report dated October 11, 2004 contains an explanatory paragraph that
states that the Company has incurred net losses since inception and has a
working capital deficit at June 30, 2004 that raise substantial doubt about its
ability to continue as a going concern. The financial statements do not include
any adjustments that might result from the outcome of that uncertainty.


                                            /s/  KPMG LLP


Seattle, Washington
October 11, 2004