alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Form of Amendment to 2008 Restricted Stock Award Agreement



 EXHIBIT 10.44 
 AMENDMENT TO 2008 RESTRICTED STOCK AWARD AGREEMENT 
 This Amendment
(“Amendment”), dated as of May 14, 2012, amends the Restricted Stock Award Agreement dated November 19, 2008 (the “Agreement”) and issued by Rockwell Medical Technologies, Inc. (the “Company”) to
                     (“Holder”), as previously amended, and is made in accordance with Section 13 of the Agreement and Sections 1.5
and 10.6 of the Company’s Amended and Restated Long Term Incentive Plan (the “LTIP”). 
 WHEREAS, the Company and
Holder have determined that the terms of this Amendment are in the Company’s best interests and desire to amend the Agreement in the manner set forth herein; and 
 WHEREAS, the Compensation Committee of the Company’s Board of Directors has approved this Amendment to the extent required in the LTIP; 

NOW THEREFORE, the Agreement is amended as set forth below. 
 1. The Section 2(a) of the Agreement is amended and restated in its entirety to read as follows: 
 (a) So long as the Employee continues to be employed by the Company or its Subsidiaries, the Restricted Stock shall become vested and non-forfeitable upon the earliest to occur of (i) in two equal
installments on (A) the eighteen-month anniversary of the Grant Date and (B) March 1, 2013 (the “Vesting Dates”), or (ii) subject to the Committee’s right to declare, pursuant to Section 9.2(c) of the Plan,
that the Restricted Stock shall not become immediately vested upon a Change in Control in which the successor company assumes the Restricted Stock Award, the occurrence of a Change in Control. 

2. The term “Agreement” as used in the Agreement shall be deemed to refer to the Agreement as amended hereby. 

3. Except as specifically modified herein, the remaining provisions of the Agreement remain in full force and effect. 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned have caused this Amendment to be executed as of the date first set forth above. 

 

													
	ROCKWELL MEDICAL TECHNOLOGIES, INC.	 		 	HOLDER
					
	By:	 	  
	 		 		 	  

	Its:	 	  
	 		 	Name	 	  



  
 4
Exhibit 10.19.1
 AMENDMENT NO. 1
TO
CREDIT AGREEMENT
 This Amendment No. 1 to Credit Agreement Amendment rd Aviat Networks, Inc. Parent Aviat U.S., Inc., Aviat Networks (S) PTE. LTD Borrower Bank of America, N.A. Agent Bank of America, N.A., Hong Kong
Branch Bank of America, N.A. Silicon Valley
Bank Lender
 Recitals
 A. Credit Agreement
 B.
 C.
 agreement
  1. Amendments to Loan Agreement.
 Section 1.01 (Definitions).
 Applicable Margin
 Eurodollar Rate LoansCommitment Fee
    
    Letters of Credit
    
    Base Rate Loans.50%
    
    1.00%
    
    0.00%




---



##### 



Section 1.01 (Definitions).
 Quick Ratio
 Section 2.01 (Committed Loans).
 Committed Loans Committed Loan provided however plus plus provided further Loan Collateral Section 2.01 Section 2.05 Section 2.01
 Section 2.03 (Letters of Credit).
 Cash Collateral Sections 2.05 8.02(c)
 2




---



##### 



Section 2.03 Section 2.05 Section 8.02(c) Cash Collateralize
 Section 7.11 (Financial Covenants).
 7.11 Financial Covenant
 2. Limitation of Amendment Section 1
  3




---



##### 



3. Borrowers Representations And Warranties
          4




---



##### 



4. Effectiveness
 Amendment
 Cash Collateral.
 Amendment Fee.
  5. Counterparts
 6. Integration
 7. Governing Law .
 5




---



##### 



Borrowers:
    Aviat Networks, Inc.
a Delaware corporationBy:Printed  Name:Title:Aviat U.S., Inc.
a Delaware corporationBy:Printed  Name:Title:Aviat Networks (S) PTE. LTD.
a Singapore corporationBy:Printed  Name:Title: 6




---



##### 



AGENTS AND LENDERS:
 Bank of America, N.A.,
as Administrative AgentBy:Printed  Name:Title:Bank of America, N.A.,as a Lender,
L/C Issuer and Swing Line LenderBy:Printed  Name:Title:Bank of America, N.A., Hong Kong Branch,as Singapore Loan AgentBy:Printed  Name:Title:Silicon Valley Bank,as a Lender and
L/C IssuerBy:Printed  Name:Title: 7
[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 42 (Thursday, March 3, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Page 12207]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-04414]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION


Advisory Committee for Mathematical and Physical Sciences; Notice 
of Meeting

    In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-
463, as amended), the National Science Foundation (NSF) announces the 
following meeting:
    Name and Committee Code: Advisory Committee for Mathematical and 
Physical Sciences (#66).
    Date and Time: March 29, 2022; 12:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m.
    March 30, 2022: 12:05 p.m. to 4:45 p.m.
    Place: NSF, 2415 Eisenhower Avenue, Alexandria, VA 22314 (Virtual 
attendance only). To attend the virtual meeting, please send your 
request for the virtual meeting link to Michelle Bushey at the 
following email address: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#305d524543585549705e43561e575f46"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="caa7a8bfb9a2afb38aa4b9ace4ada5bc">[email protected]</span></a>.
    Type of Meeting: Open.
    Contact Person: Leighann Martin, National Science Foundation, 2415 
Eisenhower Avenue, Room C 9000, Alexandria, Virginia 22314; Telephone: 
703/292-4659.
    Summary of Minutes: Minutes and meeting materials will be available 
on the MPS Advisory Committee website at http://www.nsf.gov/mps/advisory.jsp or can be obtained from the contact person listed above.
    Purpose of Meeting: To provide advice, recommendations and counsel 
on major goals and policies pertaining to MPS programs and activities.

Agenda

Tuesday, March 29, 2022

<bullet> Call to Order and Official Opening of the Meeting
<bullet> Approval of Prior Meeting Minutes--Catherine Hunt, MPSAC Chair
<bullet> MPS Update by Assistant Director
<bullet> Science Highlight
<bullet> MPS and the Living World Subcommittee Report--AC Vote
<bullet> MPS Facilities Portfolio Overview and Discussion
<bullet> MPS AC Subcomittee on Facilities and Infrastructrure--AC Vote
<bullet> MPS AC Subcommittee on Facilities and Infrastructure--Charge 2
<bullet> CEOSE Updates
<bullet> Preparation for discussion with NSF Director and COO
<bullet> Closing remarks and adjourn day 1

Wednesday. March 30, 2022

<bullet> Welcome and overview of agenda
<bullet> Science Highlight
<bullet> Environmental Research and Education (ERE) AC Outbrief and 
Panel
<bullet> Measuring MPS Impact
<bullet> Preparation for discussion with NSF Director and COO
<bullet> Meeting and discussion with NSF Director and COO
<bullet> Closing remarks and adjourn

    Dated: February 25, 2022.
Crystal Robinson,
Committee Management Officer.
[FR Doc. 2022-04414 Filed 3-2-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7555-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
#### Stephen Kostka, Respondent, *v.*George E. Stack, Appellant.

Argued December 3, 1943;

decided January 13, 1944.

*809
      *Alfred L. Simon*for appellant.

*Carl L. McMahonio?*respondent.

Judgment affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

Concur: Lehman, Ch. J., Loughran, Rippey, Lewis, Conway, Desmond and Thacher, JJ.
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER**

**PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

Pursuantto 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as created by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Actof 2002, the undersigned officer of ArthroCare Corporation (the “Company”)hereby certifies, to such officer’s knowledge, that:

 

(i)                         The accompanying QuarterlyReport on Form 10-Q of the Company for the three months ended June 30,2010 (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) orSection 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, asamended; and

 

(ii)                      The information contained inthe Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial conditionand results of operations of the Company.

 

 
| Date:  August 3, 2010 | /s/  David Fitzgerald                 |
|----------------------------|---------------------------------------|
|                       | David  Fitzgerald                     |
|                       | President and Chief Executive Officer |

 

 

Asigned original of this written statement required by Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, or Section 906, or other documentauthenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appearsin typed form within the electronic version of the written statement requiredby Section 906, has been provided to ArthroCare Corporation and will beretained by ArthroCare Corporation and furnished to the Securities and ExchangeCommission or its staff upon request.

 

----
#### Judge v. Kahl *et al.*

Intoxicating Liquors : enjoining nuisance : removal of plaintiff from county. An action to enjoin as a nuisance the sale of intoxicating liquors can he begun only by a citizen of the county where the nuisance exists, but his right to prosecute it to judgment does not cease upon his removal from the county.

*Appeal from Clinton District Court.*— Hon. W. P. Brannan, Judge. '

Filed, May 18, 1888.

Action in equity to enjoin the defendants. from maintaining a nuisance. Plaintiff was a citizen of the county when the suit was instituted, but afterwards removed to another county in the state. The defendants then moved the court to vacate the temporary injunction, on the ground that plaintiff, not then being a citizen of the county, was not entitled to maintain the action; it having been brought under chapter sixty-six, Acts Twenty-first General Assembly. The district court sustained the motion, and plaintiff appeals from that order.

*J. 8.*Darling, for appellant.

*Walter I. Hayes*and *A. L.*Schuyler, for appellees.

Reed, J.

The statute provides that any citizen of the county may institute and maintain an action of this character in his own name. Chapter 66, Acts 21st Gen. Assem. sec. 1. In *Applegate v.*Winebrenner, 66 Iowa, 67, we held that the action could not be maintained by a person not a citizen or resident of the county where it was instituted. Under the language of the statute, the right, *i. e.,*the right to institute the suit, is clearly dependent on the residence or citizenship of the party in the county; but we are of the 'opinion that when that right has attached, and the suit has been instituted, *487the right to prosecute it to judgment does not terminate by the removal of the party to another county. The language of the statute is that *“*nothing in this section shall prevent any citizen of a county from instituting and maintaining in his own name an action,” etc. It may be said that two rights are conferred by this language, viz., the right to institute the suit in his own name, and the right to prosecute to judgment; and that both are dependent on the citizenship of the party in the county. But it is his citizenship when the suit is instituted that is referred to, and it is upon that fact that both rights depend. This is the fair import of the words made use of, and there is nothing in the nature of the case requiring them to be construed in any other than their ordinary sense.

Reversed.
#### Eric H. RICHMOND, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SELECT PORTFOLIO SERVICING, INC., as servicing agent FOR U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, Defendant-Appellee, P.B. #7, LLC, Defendant. In re Eric H. Richmond, Debtor. Eric H. Richmond, Debtor-Appellant, v. Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc., as servicing agent for U.S. Bank National Association, Appellee.

16-2178

16-2179

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

November 17, 2016

Eric H. Richmond, Pro Se.

*653David Vincent Mignardi, Esq., Eckert, Seamans, Cherin *&*Mellott, LLC, White Plains, NY, for Defendant-Appellee and Defendant in 16-2178 and Appellee in 16-2179.

Present: Amalya L. Kearse, Richard C. Wesley, Debra Ann Livingston, Circuit Judges.

Appellant, pro se, moves in both appeals for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. Upon due consideration, it is hereby ORDERED that the motions are DENIED and the appeals are DISMISSED because they “laek[] an arguable basis either in law or in fact.” *Neitzke v. Williams,*490 U.S. 319, 325, 109 S.Ct. 1827, 104 L.Ed.2d 338 (1989); *see also*28 U.S.C. § 1915(e).

Appellant has filed a number of frivolous matters in addition to these two appeals. *See*2d Cir. 15-3389, 16-2763, 16-2764, 16-2768, 16-2801, 16-2802, 16-2803, 16-2856, 16-2859, and 16-2861. Accordingly, Appellant is hereby warned that the continued filing of duplicative, vexatious, or clearly meritless appeals, motions, or other papers, will result in the imposition of a “leave-to-file” sanction, which may require Appellant to obtain permission from this Court prior to filing any further submissions in this Court. *See In re Martin-Trigona,*9 F.3d 226, 229 (2d Cir. 1993); *Sassower v. Sansverie,*885 F.2d 9, 11 (2d Cir. 1989).
<PAGE>






                                                               Exhibit 23.1


                          Independent Auditors' Consent

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statements on Form S-3 (File No. 333-109495) and Form S-8 (File No. 333-34156)
of deltathree, Inc. (the "Company"), our report, dated March 10, 2003, relating
to our audit of the financial statements of the Company as of December 31, 2001,
and 2002 and for the years ended December 31, 2000, 2001, and 2002, contained in
this Amendment No. 2 to Annual Report on Form 10-K/A.

/s/ Brightman Almagor & Co.

Brightman Almagor & Co.
Certified Public Accountants
A member firm of Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu

Tel Aviv, Israel
December 1, 2003
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Victor TOVAR-MARTINEZ, Defendant-Appellant

No. 16-41068 Conference Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed August 18, 2017

Carmen Castillo Mitchell, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Victor Tovar-Martinez, Pro Se

Before JOLLY, HIGGINBOTHAM, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Victor Tovar-Martinez has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), and *United States v. Flores,*632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Tovar-Martinez has not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. *See*5th Cir. R. 42.2.

*

 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.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Thomas Mellor BAINS, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 16-12928 Non-Argument Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.

(April 25, 2017)

Jason Sterling Beaton, Pamela C. Marsh, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Tallahassee, FL, Robert G. Davies, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Pensacola, FL, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Before ED CARNES, Chief Judge, MARTIN and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Michael Ufferman, appointed counsel for Thomas Mellor Bains in this direct criminal appeal, has moved to withdraw from further representation of the appellant and filed a brief pursuant to *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Our independent review of the entire record reveals that counsel’s assessment of the relative merit of the appeal is correct. Because independent, examination of the entire record reveals no arguable issues of merit, counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED, and Bains’s conviction and sentence are AFFIRMED.
STEAM ELECTRIC

C B I R E P L AC E M E NT P A G E

EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 20 09

- 0819

DCN:

________________________________________

T H E FO LL OW ING H AS BEE N R E M O V E D BE CAUSE IT
C O N T AINS C O N F ID E N T IAL B USIN E SS IN FO RMA T I O N (C B I) P E R 4 0 C F R P ART 2
, SU B P ART B

. SE04360A145
COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02-13-00533-CR

Pablo Reyna, Jr.

v.

The State of Texas

§

§

§

§

§

From the 213th District Court

of Tarrant County (1301204D)

December 4, 2014

Opinion by Justice McCoy

(nfp)

JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that 

there was no error in the trial court’s judgment. It is ordered that the judgment of 

the trial court is affirmed.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS 

By /s/ Bob McCoy_________________

 Justice Bob McCoy
#### Edmund Deyo, Resp’t, *v.*Foster S. Morss, Ex’r, *et al.,*App’lts.

*(Supreme Court, General Term, Third Department,*

*Filed May 21, 1891.)*

Stay—Injunction.

A court of record cannot by order stay proceedings pending in another court of record. Such relief must be obtained by injunction when security can be required.

Appeal from an order of the special term staying all proceedings in an accounting of an executor in the surrogate’s court of Greene county until the determination of the action or the further order of the court.

*Howard Chipp, Jr.,*and *Sidney Crowell,*for app’lts; *John A. Griswold,*for resp’t.

Learned, P. J.

This court and many other courts of record can stay proceedings by order in actions pending before them. But a court cannot by order stay proceedings in an action pending in another court of record. Belief of that general nature must be obtained, when proper, by injunction. The plaintiff cites *478us to no case to sustain his practice. 8 Pomeroy’s Equity, § 1371, speaks only of injunctions. *German Savings Bk.*v. *Habel,*80 N. Y., 273, was the case of an injunction. So was *Rogers*v. *King,*8 Paige, 210.

The distinction is plain and important. An injunction cannot "be granted without security. Code, § 620. And it is most important, where legal proceedings in another court are restrained, that the court granting the injunction should carefully consider what protection by way of security should be required. Special provisions are made in many such cases. Section 611 *et seq.*

Stays of proceedings are granted in the free discretion of the court. But injunctions are to be granted only when authorized by §§ 603, etc.

We do not decide whether in this case an injunction restraining the authority in the surrogate’s court would or would not be proper. It is enough to say that a stay of proceedings should not be granted to control the proceeding pending in that court.

Order reversed, with ten dollars costs and printing disbursements, and motion denied, with ten dollars costs, without prejudice to any application for an injunction.

Landon, J., concurs; Mayham, J., not acting.
```

[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 18 (Tuesday, January 28, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 4526]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-01546]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Office of the Secretary

Notice of Applications for Certificates of Public Convenience and 
Necessity and Foreign Air Carrier Permits Filed Under Subpart B 
(Formerly Subpart Q) During the Week Ending December 21, 2013

    The following Applications for Certificates of Public Convenience 
and Necessity and Foreign Air Carrier Permits were filed under Subpart 
B (formerly Subpart Q) of the Department of Transportation's Procedural 
Regulations (See 14 CFR 301.201 et seq.). The due date for Answers, 
Conforming Applications, or Motions to Modify Scope are set forth below 
for each application. Following the Answer period DOT may process the 
application by expedited procedures. Such procedures may consist of the 
adoption of a show-cause order, a tentative order, or in appropriate 
cases a final order without further proceedings.
    Docket Number: DOT-OST-2006-24190.
    Date Filed: December 20, 2013.
    Due Date for Answers, Conforming Applications, or Motion to Modify 
Scope: January 10, 2014.
    Description: Application of ACM AIR CHARTER Luftfahrtgesellschaft 
mbH (``AMC'') requesting issuance of an exemption and an amended 
foreign air carrier permit authorizing AMC to engage in the following, 
without limitation as to the size of aircraft that may be used: (i) 
Foreign charter air transportation of persons, property and mail from 
any point or points behind any Member State of the European Union, via 
any point or points in any EU Member State and via intermediate points, 
to any point or points in the United States and beyond; (ii) foreign 
charter air transportation of persons, property and mail between any 
point or points in the United States and any point or points in any 
member of the European Common Aviation Area; (iii) foreign charter air 
transportation of cargo between any point or points in the United 
States and any other point or points; (iv) other charters pursuant to 
the prior approval requirements; and (v) charter transportation 
authorized by any additional route rights made available to European 
Union carriers in the future, to the extent permitted by ACM'S homeland 
license on file with the Department.

Barbara J. Hairston,
Supervisory Dockets Officer, Docket Operations, Federal Register 
Liaison.
[FR Doc. 2014-01546 Filed 1-27-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-9X-P
```