alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Amendment to Stock Option Agreement



 Exhibit 10.65 
  
  
 AMENDMENT TO STOCK OPTION AGREEMENT

  
 THIS AMENDMENT made on April 28, 2003, by and between IDT
Corporation, a Delaware corporation (the “Company”) and Joyce J. Mason (the “Executive”). 
  
  
 WITNESSETH: 
  
 WHEREAS, the Company and Executive have entered into a Stock Option Agreement dated as of August 15, 1994 (the “Agreement”) pursuant to which
Executive originally had the right to purchase 46,000 shares of the Company’s common stock, par value $.01 per share (“Common Stock”); 
  
 WHEREAS, the Company declared a stock dividend of one share of the Company’s class B common stock (“Class B Common Stock”) with respect to
each outstanding share of Common Stock, Class B Common Stock and class A common stock, par value $.01 per share, which dividend was payable on May 31, 2001 (the “Stock Dividend”); 
  
 WHEREAS, as a result of the Stock Dividend, each option to purchase a share
of Common Stock under the Agreement became an option to purchase one share of Common Stock and one share of Class B Common Stock; 
  
 WHEREAS, the Agreement is currently exercisable for 20,200 unexercised shares of Common Stock and 20,200 unexercised shares of Class B Common Stock; and

  
 WHEREAS, the parties hereto desire to amend the Agreement to
provide for the purchase of a share of Class B Common Stock in lieu of each unexercised share of Common Stock otherwise subject to the Agreement after the Stock Dividend, such that the Agreement will be exercisable for a total of 40,400 shares of
Class B Common Stock after the date of this Amendment. 
  
 NOW,
THEREFORE, the Agreement is hereby amended as follows: 
  
 1.    Section 2 of the Agreement is hereby deleted and replaced with the following: 
  
 “Grant of Options.    Pursuant to a determination by the Board of Directors of the Company (the “Board”), the
Company, subject to the terms and conditions of this Agreement, hereby grants, effective as of the date hereof (the “Grant Date”), Nonqualified Stock Options (the “Options”) to purchase from the Company 40,400 shares of class B
common stock, par value $.01 per share (“Common Stock”), subject to adjustment as provided in Section 8 hereof.” 







 2.    Section 4 of the Agreement is hereby deleted and replaced with the following:

  
 “Option Price.    The price at
which shares of Common Stock shall be purchasable upon exercise of the Options shall be $0.1035 per share (the “Option Price”), subject to adjustment as provided in Section 8 hereof.” 
  
 3.    Except as expressly provided above, the Agreement
shall remain in full force and effect. 
  
 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the
Company has caused this Amendment to be executed by an authorized officer and the Executive has hereunto set his hand all as of the day, month and year first above written. 
  

	IDT CORPORATION
	 
		
	By:	 	/S/    STEPHEN R. BROWN        
	 	

	
	 


  

	 
		
	Executive:	 	/S/    JOYCE MASON
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Res. 655 Agreed to Senate (ATS)]

111th CONGRESS
  2d Session
S. RES. 655

  Designating November 2010 as ``Stomach Cancer Awareness Month'' and 
     supporting efforts to educate the public about stomach cancer.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           September 28, 2010

   Mr. Feingold (for himself and Mr. Durbin) submitted the following 
             resolution; which was considered and agreed to

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
  Designating November 2010 as ``Stomach Cancer Awareness Month'' and 
     supporting efforts to educate the public about stomach cancer.

Whereas stomach cancer is one of the most difficult cancers to detect and treat 
        in the early stages of the disease, which contributes to high mortality 
        rates and human suffering;
Whereas stomach cancer is the second leading cause of cancer mortality 
        worldwide;
Whereas, in 2009, an estimated 21,000 new cases of stomach cancer were diagnosed 
        in the United States;
Whereas, in 2010, an estimated 10,000 Americans will die from stomach cancer;
Whereas the estimated 5-year survival rate for stomach cancer is only 26 
        percent;
Whereas approximately 1 in 113 individuals will be diagnosed with stomach cancer 
        in their lifetimes;
Whereas an inherited form of stomach cancer carries a 67 to 83 percent risk that 
        an individual will be diagnosed with stomach cancer by age 80;
Whereas, in the United States, stomach cancer is more prevalent among racial and 
        ethnic minorities;
Whereas better patient and health care provider education is needed for the 
        timely recognition of stomach cancer risks and symptoms;
Whereas more research into effective early diagnosis, screening, and treatment 
        for stomach cancer is needed; and
Whereas November 2010 is an appropriate month to observe ``Stomach Cancer 
        Awareness Month'': Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved, That the Senate--
            (1) designates November 2010 as ``Stomach Cancer Awareness 
        Month'';
            (2) supports efforts to educate the people of the United 
        States about stomach cancer;
            (3) recognizes the need for additional research into early 
        diagnosis and treatment for stomach cancer; and
            (4) encourages the people of the United States and 
        interested groups to observe and support November 2010 as 
        ``Stomach Cancer Awareness Month'' through appropriate programs 
        and activities to promote public awareness of, and potential 
        treatments for, stomach cancer.
                                 <all>
```
TEJGA~TORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS
GERALD C. MANN AUSTIN ~~.TEXAFI

AlTORNeY 0.SNE.b.l.

Honorable 0. J. S. Elllngson General Manager Texas Prison System Huntsville, Texas Dear Sir: Opinion No. O-1168 Re: From.what fundmay the Texas Prison System legally pay boiler Inspection costs? This will acknowledgereceipt of your letter of February 24, 1940,wherein you request the opinion of this department upon the followingmatter:

You desire to be~informedas to the fund from which you may legally pay inspectioncosts, that is, fees and expenses incident to the inspectionof your boilers and othermachinery.

Acts 1937, Forty-fifth Legislature, page 893, chapter 436, as amended by Acts 1939,Forty-sixth Legislature,House Bill 419 (Vernon'sCivil Statutes, Article 522lc), provides for the inspectionof steam boilers, the administration of the Act being under the jurisdictionof the Commissioner of the Bureau of Labor Statlstlcs of the State of Texas, the Act providing for the inspection to be had by the Inspector of boilers or any deputy Fnspector, or by any qualified boiler inspectoremployedby any county, city and county, or,city, or any insurancecompany, provided that such persons making inspections (other than the inspector of boilers or deputy inspectorsregularly employed by the Commissioner) shall first obtain from the Commissioner a commission as an inspector showinghis qualifications to make such inspections.

Item 12 of your Maintenance and Miscellaneous Appropriation, Senate Bill 427,Acts of the Forty-sixth Legislature,reads as follows:

"General support and maintenance; also includes transportation,re-capture, contingent expenses and liability insurancepremiums
....$375.000.00."- Honorable 0. J. S. Elllngson, page 2:: O-1168

We find no specifically ItemFeed appropriation for inspectioncosts. It Is, therefore, the opinion of this department that the items of expense incurredby the Texas Prison System in the employment of authorized persons to Inspect the boilers of the agstemmay be paid out of the general support and maintenance or contingent expense item of approprlationquoted. above. If, in the opinion of the Texas:Prlson System, It becomes necessary to have an Inspectionmade of machinery other than that which the law above referred-to requirea to be Inspectedunder the jurlsdictlonof the Commissioner of the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the expenses of such inspection in our opinion, likewisemay be paid out of the Maintenance and MiscellaneousAppropriation above referred to.
,Yoursvery truly ATTORNEYGENERAL OF TEXAS

By sji3.W. Fairchild B.W.,Fairahild Assistant RWF:LM:we

APPROVED March 22, 1940 s/ Gerald C. Mann ATTORNRY GENERAL OF TEXAS Approved Opinion CommitteeBy s/BWB Chairman
### The HONORABLE JEAN C. HAMILTON, Chief Judge, United State s 1 

### District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri.



# United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 96-3735

___________ United States of America, * * Appellee, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * Eastern District of Missouri. Allie Harper, * * [UNPUBLISHED] Appellant. *

___________ Submitted: April 7, 1997 Filed: April 16, 1997

___________ Before McMILLIAN, FAGG, and LOKEN, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. In this direct criminal appeal, Allie Harper challenges the 324 -month sente nce imposed by the district court following his guilty plea t o 1 possessing with intent to distribute in excess o f fifty grams of a mixture or su bstance containing cocaine base, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). We affirm. We reject Harper's contention on appeal that the district court erred in calculating his ba se offense level absent "proof by a preponderance of the evidence that the form of cocaine base possessed by Harper was actuall y crack." Harper did not contend below that the cocaine base he possessed was something other than

### -2-

crack coca ine. Thus, his present challenge is subject to plain erro r review. See Fritz v. United States , 995 F.2d 136, 137 (8th Cir. 1993) , cert. denied , 510 U.S . 1075 (1994). We conclude there was no plain error here, as the record demonstrates Harper was aware that he was pleadin g gui lty to an offense involving crack cocaine. The unchallenged offens e conduct portion of Harper's presentence report (PSR) clearly showed that Harper possessed crack cocaine with intent to di stribute. Further, Harper impli citly conceded to the type of cocaine involved by agreeing to th e PSR' s determination of his base offense level. See United States v
. LaRoc he , 83 F.3d 958, 959 (8th Cir. 1996) (per curiam) (district cour t entitled to accept as true factual statements in PSR to which defendan t does not object). Finally, Harper's objection at sentencing to th e enhanced penalties fo r crack versus powder cocaine revealed his awareness that his plea was to a crack-cocaine offense. Cf. United States v. Bush , 70 F.3d 557, 562 (8th Cir. 1996) (10th Cir. 1995) (sentencing for cocaine bas e upheld where clear from defendant's admissions that he intended t o plead guilty to offense involving cocaine base, not cocaine powder), cert. denied , 116 S. Ct. 795 (1996). Accordingly, we affirm.
A true copy.

Attest:
CLERK, U. S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
|                                                                                             
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                                             
|View History:  Monthly  Annual Download Data (XLS File)                                     
|View History:  Monthly  Annual                                                               
|View History:  Monthly  Annual                                                               
|View History:                                                                                
|                                                                                             
|Natural Gas Delivered to Consumers in Oklahoma (Including Vehicle Fuel)  (Million Cubic Feet)
|                                                                                             
|                                                                                             
|Natural Gas Delivered to Consumers in Oklahoma (Including Vehicle Fuel)  (Million Cubic Feet)
|                                                                                             

|Decade                                                                                                                            | Year-0  | Year-1  | Year-2  | Year-3  | Year-4  | Year-5  | Year-6  | Year-7  | Year-8  | Year-9 
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------- | ------- | ------- | ------- | ------- | ------- | ------- | ------- | ------- | -------
|1990's                                                                                                                            |         |         |         |         |         |         |         | 459,508 | 490,070 | 456,573
|2000's                                                                                                                            | 450,596 | 400,740 | 429,152 | 443,139 | 444,514 | 487,723 | 528,236 | 563,474 | 590,997 | 566,176
|2010's                                                                                                                            | 582,389 | 559,215 | 587,287 | 539,056 | 508,012 | 540,782 | 558,828 | 518,647 | 640,960 | 667,089
|2020's                                                                                                                            | 670,188 | 581,503 | 611,600 | 674,485 |         |         |         |         |         |        
|- = No Data Reported;  -- = Not Applicable;  NA = Not Available;  W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data.
|                                                                                                                                 
|Release Date: 5/31/2024                                                                                                          
|Next Release Date: 6/28/2024
No. 12-6573.

#### Lawson *v.*United States.

C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.

Justice Kagan took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.
Exhibit 32.2

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 for the period ended December 31, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report) of Nuveen Diversified Commodity Fund (the Fund) and pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned, as Chief Financial Officer of the manager of the Fund, hereby certifies, that to his knowledge:



|(1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m(a) or 78o(d)), and
|--- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



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

Dated as of this 23rdday of March, 2011.

/s/ Stephen D. Foy



Stephen D. Foy

Chief Financial Officer

(Principal Financial Officer)

Nuveen Commodities Asset Management, LLC, manager of the registrant

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Fund and will be retained by the Fund and furnished to
the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
No. 12-6268.

#### Pita-Mota *v.*United States.

C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.
returned to the custody of real party in interest in Kansas pending an

evidentiary hearing on the issue of custody modification.

Petitioner has not demonstrated that the district court's order was in excess of the court's jurisdiction or rose to the level of an arbitrary or capricious exercise of discretion. 

### See NRS 34.320;

### Int? Game Tech., Inc. v. Second Judicial Dist. Court, 124 Nev. 193, 197, 179 P.3d 556, 558 (2008); 

### Pan, 120 Nev. at 228, 88 P.3d at 844; 

### see also Ellis v. Carucci, 123 Nev. 145, 149, 161 P.3d 239, 241 (2007) (recognizing the district court's broad discretionary powers in matters of child custody). Accordingly, we deny this writ petition, and we vacate the temporary stay imposed by our August 6, 2015, order. 

### See Smith v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 107 Nev. 674, 677, 818 P.2d 849, 851 (1991) (stating that a petition for extraordinary writ relief is purely discretionary with this court).

It is so ORDERED.

Saitta

J.

cc: Hon. Sandra 

### L. Pomrenze, District Judge, Family Court Division David L. Mann Smith Legal Group Eighth District Court Clerk

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 2

(0) 1947A
No. 12-5427.

#### Elliott *v.*California.

Sup. Ct. Cal. Certio-rari denied.
No. 11-10893.

#### Droegemeier *v.*Arizona.

Ct. App. Ariz. Certiorari denied.
Exhibit 31.1—Section 302 CertificationI, Ellen Z. Lamale, certify that:I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K, and all reports on Form 8-K containingdistribution or servicing reports filed in respect of period included in the year covered bythis annual report, of Principal Life Income Fundings Trust 2005-122;1. Based on my knowledge, the information in these reports, taken as a whole, does not containany untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make thestatements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, notmisleading as of the last day of the period covered by this annual report; 2. Based on my knowledge, the distribution or servicing information required to be provided tothe depositor by the trustee under the pooling and servicing, or similar agreement, forinclusion in these reports is included in these reports; 3. I am responsible for reviewing the activities performed by the depositor and the trusteeunder the pooling and servicing, or similar agreement, and based upon my knowledge and theannual compliance review required under that agreement, and except as disclosed in thereports, the depositor and trustee have each fulfilled its obligations under that agreement;and 4. The reports disclose all significant deficiencies relating to the compliance by the trusteeand the depositor with the minimum servicing or similar standards based upon the reportprovided by an independent public accountant, after conducting a review in compliance with theUniform Single Attestation Program for Mortgage Bankers or similar procedures, as set forth inthe pooling and servicing, or similar agreements, that is included in these reports.In giving the certifications above, I have reasonably relied on information provided to me by thefollowing unaffiliated parties: Ernst and Young and Citibank, N.A.   Date: March 24, 2006   By:  /s/ Ellen Z. LamaleName:
Aleris International Inc.

Furnace Hood Flow Measurements

Recycling

Chicago Hts #1 Rotary 16,190 20,641 08/18/09 T 26,062 01/17/12 21,133 05/09/12 T

#3 Rotary 26,114 56,826 06/12/12 T

Coldwater #7N Reverb 14,462 20,433 10/16/08 T 20,874 11/10/09 29,994 04/19/11

#8N Reverb 14,164 20,714 10/16/08 T 23,838 11/10/09 23,375 04/19/11

#1N Reverb 20,743 30,703 10/17/08 T 43,839 11/10/09 48,354 04/19/11

#1S Rotary 21,713 37,406 07/15/08 T 49,890 08/20/10

#2S Rotary 35,649 40,009 07/17/08 T 45,717 02/09/11

Friendly #1 Rotary 13,097 15,361 05/31/06 T 13,471 06/14/10 24,203 06/28/12

Goodyear #1 Rotary 21,895 34,166 03/26/07 T 39,941 12/03/09 34,370 09/12/11 T

Loudon #1 Rotary 15,840 26,957 01/11/07 T 33,509 05/12/09 39,106 09/02/11

#2 Rotary 16,290 26,690 01/11/07 T 31,871 05/12/09 28,265 09/02/11

#3 Rotary 15,270 26,666 01/11/07 T 33,907 05/12/09 31,506 09/02/11

Reverb Reverb 19,157 27,433 05/10/09 T 28,798 09/02/11

Morgantown #5 Rotary 20,685 16,732 05/09/06 T 16,780 11/04/09 22,519 04/11/11 T

#6 Rotary 20,872 15,649 05/09/06 T 15,995 11/04/09 21,850 04/11/11 T

#8 Rotary 21,405 53,044 03/06/12 T

#9 Rotary 21,045 41,963 03/06/12 T 43,695 06/07/12

Reverb Reverb 12,589 19,325 07/12/10 T 19,438 03/08/12

Post Falls #3 Rotary 21,745 24,603 07/12/06 T 26,494 06/03/09 31,551 10/18/11

Bens Run #1 Rotary 16,005 18,013 09/14/09 T 18,467 08/25/10 21,190 06/27/12

#2 Rotary 17,002 20,048 09/14/09 T 20,358 08/25/10 23,615 10/24/11 T

Saginaw #1 Reverb 12,780 11,594 09/11/07 T 22,693 12/17/08 24,683 11/12/09 24,968 06/14/12

#2 Reverb 14,325 17,605 09/11/07 T 15,620 12/17/08 18,378 11/12/09 18,534 06/14/12

#3 Reverb 12,015 15,018 09/10/07 T 17,954 12/17/08 17,981 11/12/09 23,767 06/14/12

Sapulpa #7 Rotary 22,040 25,377 06/22/10 T

Steele #1 Reverb 21,525 33,087 11/26/07 T 32,118 12/06/10

#2 Reverb 21,150 31,619 11/26/07 T 34,475 12/06/10

Wabash(S) #10 Reverb 22,988 23,716 09/23/08 T 26,022 08/16/10

#11 Reverb 23,850 25,515 09/23/08 T 26,175 08/16/10

#14 Reverb 25,288 25,550 09/23/08 T 25,587 08/16/10

#17 Reverb 24,567 29,296 05/15/08 T 45,463 08/17/10

Rolling

Uhrichsville #1 Rotary 12,984 18,390 07/13/09 T 18,435 12/08/11

#2 Rotary 13,269 22,856 07/16/09 T 26,779 12/08/11

#3 Rotary 13,509 21,954 07/13/09 T 23,933 12/08/11

#5 Rotary 12,534 21,435 07/16/09 T 24,719 12/08/11

#8 Rotary 13,508 26,142 07/16/09 T 28,299 12/08/11

#12 Reverb 22,690 49,291 02/08/10 T 55,643 05/17/11 44,778 08/29/11 T 45,095 06/27/12

Richmond #1 Reverb 15,675 34,469 05/31/11 T

#2 Reverb 16,797 38,894 05/31/11 T

#3 Reverb 19,873 36,988 05/31/11 T

Lewisport W2 Reverb 13,443 13,719 06/15/10 T 15,054 06/06/12

W1 Reverb 18,078 27112 04/11/12 T

Measured 

scfm Date Measured scfm Date Stack Test

Stack 

Test

LOCATION FURNACE ID EQUIPMENT

Calculated 

ACGIH 

Minimum scfm Date Measured 

scfm Date

ACTUAL 

Stack 

Test

ACTUAL ACTUAL ACTUAL 

Stack 

Test

Measured 

scfm

Attachment #1
# C_2019039EN.01001201.xml

| 1.2.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 39/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.2.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 39/12

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.9148 — Univar/Nexeo)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2019/C 39/06)

On 23 January 2019, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the internal market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1). The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32019M9148. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32019M9148. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.

---