alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
exv4w1



 





Exhibit 4.1




AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO STOCK PURCHASE AGREEMENT




     This Amendment (this “Amendment”) No. 1 to Stock Purchase Agreement is
made as of December 6, 2004, by and among Natural Gas Services Group, Inc., a
Colorado corporation (“Buyer”), Screw Compression Systems, Inc., a Texas
corporation (the “Company”), and Paul D. Hensley, Tony Vohjesus and Jim Hazlett
(collectively, the “Sellers”).



RECITALS




     WHEREAS, Buyer, the Company and the Sellers have entered into the Stock
Purchase Agreement dated as of October 18, 2004 (the “Agreement”); and



     WHEREAS, Buyer, the Company and the Sellers wish to amend the Agreement;



     NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants contained herein
and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which
are hereby acknowledged, each of the parties hereto hereby agrees as follows:




	 	1.	 	Capitalized Terms. Capitalized terms not defined in this
Amendment shall have the same meaning given to them in the
Agreement.
	 
	 	2.	 	Amendment to Agreement. Each of Buyer, the Company and the
Sellers agrees to amend the Agreement as follows: The definition of
Closing Date in Section 1.1 is amended to replace “December 6, 2004”
with “January 7, 2005”.
	 
	 	3.	 	Remainder of Agreement Not Affected. Except as set forth in
Paragraph 2 of this Amendment, the remaining terms and provisions of
the Agreement remain in full force and effect and are hereby
ratified and confirmed.
	 
	 	4.	 	Authority. Each party represents that such party has full
corporate or other power and authority to enter into this Amendment,
and that this Amendment constitutes a legal, valid and binding
obligation of such party, enforceable against such party in
accordance with its terms.
	 
	 	5.	 	Counterparts. This Amendment may be executed in any number
of counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original, but all
of which together shall constitute one and the same instrument.
	 
	 	6.	 	Governing Law. This Amendment shall be governed by and
construed and enforced in accordance with the provisions of Section
12.6 of the Agreement.




 









 





     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Amendment as of
the date first written above.

	 	 	 	 	 
	 	NATURAL GAS SERVICES GROUP, INC.

 	 
	 	By:  	/s/ Wallace C. Sparkman
 	 
	 	 	Wallace C. Sparkman, President 	 
	 	 	 	 
	 
	 	SCREW COMPRESSION SYSTEMS, INC.

 	 
	 	By:  	/s/ Paul D. Hensley
 	 
	 	 	Paul D. Hensley, President 	 
	 	 	 	 
	 
	 	 	 
	 	                              /s/ Paul D. Hensley
 	 
	 	Paul D. Hensley, individually 	 
	 	 	 
	 
	 	 	 
	 	                              /s/ Tony Vohjesus
 	 
	 	Tony Vohjesus, individually 	 
	 	 	 
	 
	 	 	 
	 	                              /s/ Jim Hazlett
 	 
	 	Jim Hazlett, individually 	 
	 	 	 
	 





2
Note to Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-0492

SUBJECT: Meeting with Coarse Particle Coalition on 10/13/10

On 10/13/10 from 11:00 a.m. until noon, EPA staff met with members of the Coarse 

Particle Coalition.

Attendees were Scott Jenkins, Karen Martin, Lydia Wegman, Mark Schmidt (all from 

EPA); John Hayden and Emily Coyner (National Stone, Sand, and Gravel Association); 

John Richards (Air Control Techniques); David Ailor (National Oilseed Processors 

Association); Tamara Thies (National Cattlemen's Beef Association). 

On the phone were Steve Silverman (EPA), Kurt Blase (Coarse Particle Coalition), Nick 

Goldstein (?), Jennifer Gratigo (?), Glenn Urick (?). 

We discussed the Coalition's comments on the draft PM Policy Assessment.
#### Niculcea v. Unemployment Compensation Bd. of Review 36

03/30/2016

964 MAL (2015)

36

. Reconsideration Denied May 9, 2016.

Denied
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 121 (Wednesday, June 24, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Page 34372]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-16705]



[[Page 34372]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
[Docket No. ER98-2611-000]


Powerhouse Systems, Inc.; Notice of Withdrawal

June 18, 1998.
    Take notice that on June 15, 1998, Powerhouse Systems, Inc., 
tendered for filing a Notice of Withdrawal of its filing made on April 
20, 1998, in Docket No. ER98-2611-000.
    A copy of the notice is being served on Public Service Company of 
New Hampshire and the New Hampshire Public Utilities Commission.
    Any person desiring to be heard or to protest said filing should 
file a motion to intervene or protest with the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE, Washington, DC 20426, in 
accordance with Rules 211 and 216 of the Commission's Rules of Practice 
and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 18 CFR 385.216). All such motions and 
protests should be filed on or before June 30, 1998. Protests will be 
considered by the Commission to determine the appropriate action to be 
taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the 
proceedings. Any person wishing to become a party must file a motion to 
intervene. Copies of this filing are on file with the Commission and 
are available for public inspection.
David P. Boergers,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 98-16705 Filed 6-23-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
No. 10-5797.

#### Edward Coleman, Petitioner v. United States.

562 U.S. 938, 131 S. Ct. 347,

178 L. Ed. 2d 225,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 7125.

October 4, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.

Same case below, 377 Fed. Appx. 401.
To: Mark Scoville <ms.srstsca@gmail.com>, 

Cc: John Schaeffer/DC/USEPA/US, Marcus Aguilar/DC/USEPA/US, 

Bcc:

Subject: Request from GE Power and Water for Data Review on HPV 3 substance CASRN 

52556-42-0-- Docket OPPT 2009-0112

From: Paul Campanella/DC/USEPA/US - Thursday 01/19/2012 04:22 PM

Mark, The draft review of the Tox testing that I thought was completed has gone back to the reviewers for 

some work before it is finalized. I expect the review will be finished around the 26th of January.

EPA has reviewed the CBI document sent from GE Power and Water dealing with the P Chemical 

properties . As the result of the review, EPA cannot accept the sponsor's proposed methods to use a 

structural analog of this HPV3 test substance (CASRN 52556-42-0) to fulfill the test rule requirements for 

A1, A2, A3, A4 and A5 (i.e, the physical chemical (P/Chem) properties testing under the HPV3 test rules 

requirements). The main reason is that the HPV3 test substance is a "Class 1 chemical substance" and 

has a discrete chemical structure. The proposed structural analog is a totally different chemical compared 

to the tested substance. For the Class 1 substance, EPA always requires the sponsor(s) to do the testing 

to obtain a measured value for each P/Chem endpoint to fulfill the test requirements. Therefore, EPA will 

not accept the values from a structural analog to fulfill the testing requirements for P/Chem property 

endpoints for this HPV3 test substance.

Paul J. Campanella, Ph.D.

Chemical Information and Testing Branch

Chemical Control Division

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Washington, D.C. 

202-564-8091
P.O. BOX 3086 OSHKOS H, WI 54903

- 3086 • T el 920.426. 6522 • F ax 920.426.6560 • WWW.EAA.ORG

April 30, 2012

DOT Docket Management System 400 7th Street, SW, Room PL 401 Washington, DC 20591

Dear Sirs:

Reference: Fuel Exemption, FAA

- 2001

- 9352 , Exemption No. 10159

EAA (Experimental Aircraft Association) is the world leader in recreational aviation. With an international membership of 170,000 people in more than 112 nations, EAA brings together aviation enthusiasts, pilots and aircraft owners who are dedicated to th e continued growth of aviation, the preservation of its history and a commitment to aviation’s future. EAA programs, activities and events are known throughout the world for Preserving the heritage of aviation, Promoting access to flight, Protecting the r ight to fly, Preparing the future of aviation, and of our

Passion for aviation safety and education.



### The International Aerobatic Club (IAC) was formed in 1970 for the purpose of formalizing

the Experimental Aircraft Association’s (EAA) Precision Flying Division into a tru e membership organization, to write the rules and to set up the corporate structure to promote "grass roots" aerobatics. Included within that purpose was to encourage the development of the basic skills needed in aerobatic flying through the creation of a "building block" system of aerobatic competition categories

- what became the Sportsman, Intermediate, Advanced and Unlimited levels. These categories remain in place today with a Primary category added in the early 1990’s.

This petition for exemption request is being submitted t o renew the current exemption , No.

10159

. The condi tions and reasons regarding public interest and safety, presented in the original petition for Exemption No. 5745 remain unchanged.

IAC requests this exemption be renewed for a three year period

.

If you have any questions, please call the undersigned at 920

- 426

- 6574.

Sincerely,

Patricia Deimer

- Steineke Manager, IAC
#### People v Cumberland

1st Dept: 139 AD3d 598 (NY)

denied 8/17/16 (Pigott, J.)
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2393 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

103d CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 2393

To eliminate a maximum daily diversion restriction with respect to the 
   pumping of certain water from Lake Powell, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

              August 16 (legislative day, August 11), 1994

  Mr. DeConcini (for himself and Mr. McCain) introduced the following 
bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and 
                           Natural Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To eliminate a maximum daily diversion restriction with respect to the 
   pumping of certain water from Lake Powell, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. ELIMINATION OF 24-HOUR RESTRICTION.

    The second sentence of section 104(c) of the Reclamation 
Development Act of 1974 (Public Law 93-493; 88 Stat. 1488) is amended 
by striking ``or three million gallons of water in any twenty-four hour 
period,''.
                                 <all>
```
# Disposition Services Eglin continues providing support to services

/ Published May 25, 2023
BATTLE CREEK, Mich., 
The Defense Logistics Agency’s Disposition Services site in Eglin, Florida, is a large site supporting a variety of customers in the region.

The nearly 13-acre Disposition Services Eglin site primarily disposes of damaged, used, or surplus government property received from military services, with a focus on DEMIL required property being shipped to Anniston for destruction.

“We’re a larger site and cover more than a few states,” said Tara Rios-Dean a property disposal specialist and disposal service representative. “We deal with all branches of the military. You name it, we see it. We see a large amount of electronics and demilitarized property.”

One of the locations supplying a large amount of property is nearby Tyndall Air Force Base. The region is still feeling the devastating effects of 2018’s Hurricane Michael as Tyndall AFB still navigates the base restoration process.

As a result of the ongoing renovations on base, the 325th Medical Group at Tyndall AFB recently turned in a magnetic resonance imaging machine to accommodate the downsizing of their medical clinic.

“My first thoughts were, ‘Where in the warehouse can we store it?’,” said Rios-Dean. “Luckily for us we had the capability to offload and store the item in one of our warehouses.”

This type of unique item is the result of having a varied customer base and an equally broad-spectrum of property turn-ins.

“We have a very wide range of customers,” said Rios-Dean. “For example, the Air Force Armament Directorate, Air Force Research Laboratory, and the Army and Air Force Special Operations Units. This means a wider range of property as well.”

This property and other items turned into the site become available through the reutilization, transfer and donation process. Eglin typically sees upwards of 80,000-line items every fiscal year come through the site.
# Chief of Staff’s Travel Log: Hocking Hills

/ Published April 2, 2021
COLUMBUS, Ohio, 
Visited Hocking Hills this past weekend. Thanks to some great recommendations. Located about one hour from Defense Supply Center Columbus, Hocking Hills offers a variety of services for outdoor activity. Here’s the state website: https://ohiodnr.gov/wps/portal/gov/odnr/go-and-do/plan-a-visit/find-a-property/hocking-hills-state-park. While we only hiked, the full list of available activities is really impressive.

We walked into the Ash Cave area and the view of the gorge as you make your way past the hemlocks and into the cave itself is breathtaking. It’s easy to imagine when live music concerts were played there. There were lots of families walking in and around the open recess cave. It’s not a spelunking type of cave experience as the cave is open at grade. There is a small waterfall there too. Great place for pictures. From there we hiked to Cedar Falls which is about two miles away – passed a fire tower along the way!

The hike in this weather was good and the trail is sporadically soft from some surface water. Can do sneakers, and a good hiking shoe is probably preferred – I had sneakers and did fine. We saw a few families on the hike, and some enthusiasts that looked like they were backpacking on a multi-day visit since camping is available there too. We had a small pack with trail food, water and having a charged phone felt like a good idea. The traffic is pretty steady on the trails and keeping distant and COVID-mindful seemed pretty easy.

At Cedar Falls we took in a beautiful view. Descending the steep stairs into a magnificent chasm you can smell the hemlocks and begin to hear the waterfall. Again lots of families and met an octogenarian from Pennsylvania who was also making his visit to Cedar Falls and Hocking. On a next trip for us to Hocking we will park this time at the falls and hike over to both Whispering Cave and Old Man’s Cave.

For information on the trail please see this link: https://ohiodnr.gov/static/documents/parks/parkmaps/hockinghillstrailmap.pdf
exv10w1



 

\








Director Compensation Summary

(to be effective as of the May 2005 Annual Meeting of the Board of Directors)











     Directors who also are employees of Quanta or any of its
subsidiaries do not receive additional compensation for serving as
directors. Each non-employee director receives a fee for
attendance at each meeting of the Board of Directors or any
committee according to the following schedule: $2,000 for
attendance at a board meeting in person; $1,000 for attendance at
a board meeting by telephone; $1,000 for attendance at a committee
meeting in person; $500 for attendance at a committee meeting by
telephone; and $500 additional compensation for attendance at a
committee meeting by the committee chairman. Upon initial
appointment to the Board of Directors other than at an annual
meeting of stockholders, for the period from the appointment
through the end of the director service year during which the
appointment is made, each such initially appointed non-employee
director receives a pro rata portion of both (i) an annual cash
retainer payment of $30,000 and (ii) an annual award of shares of
restricted Common Stock having a value of $60,000. Upon initial
election to the Board of Directors at an annual meeting of
stockholders, each such initially elected non-employee director
receives an annual cash retainer payment of $30,000 and an annual
award of shares of restricted Common Stock having a value of
$120,000. At every annual meeting of stockholders at which a
non-employee director is re-elected or remains a director, each
such re-elected or remaining non-employee director receives an
annual cash retainer payment of $30,000 and an annual award of
shares of restricted Common Stock having a value of $60,000. In
addition, at every annual meeting of the Board of Directors, the
chairman of the Audit Committee receives an annual cash retainer
payment of $5,000 and the chairman of the Compensation Committee
and of the Governance and Nominating Committee receive an annual
cash retainer payment of $3,000. Directors are reimbursed for
reasonable out-of-pocket expenses incurred in attending meetings
of the Board of Directors or the committees thereof, and for other
expenses reasonably incurred in their capacity as directors of
Quanta.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Robert Green, Appellant.

[769 NYS2d 532]

*280Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Arlene Silver-man, J., at suppression hearing; Richard Carruthers, J., at jury trial and sentence), rendered May 20, 2002, convicting defendant of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to concurrent terms of 6 to 12 years, unanimously modified, as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, to the extent of reducing the sentence to a term of 5 to 10 years, and otherwise affirmed.

Defendant’s suppression motion was properly denied. Probable cause for defendant’s arrest was established by the arresting officer’s testimony that after receiving a transmission from the observing “ghost” officer stating that there had been a “positive buy” and describing the participants, he went to the specified location and arrested defendant, who matched the description that had been provided *(People v Ketcham,*93 NY2d 416 [1999]). Since the nature of undercover drug operations and the meaning of the term “positive buy” are sufficiently well known so that a hearing court would not normally need any enlightenment, we reject defendant’s argument that the People are obligated to elicit explanatory testimony on such matters at a suppression hearing *(see People v Saverino,*270 AD2d 146 [2000], *lv denied*95 NY2d 857 [2000]).

The verdict was not against the weight of the evidence *(see People v Bleakley,*69 NY2d 490 [1987]). There is no basis for disturbing the jury’s determinations concerning identification and credibility.

The court properly exercised its discretion in admitting limited background testimony about street-level drug operations in order to explain the fact that no drugs or prerecorded buy money were recovered from defendant *(see People v Brown,*97 NY2d 500 [2002]). Defendant expressly requested that the court not declare the testifying officer to be an expert witness. In any event, although not formally declared to be an expert, the officer was sufficiently experienced to give testimony on the subject *(see People v Powell,*262 AD2d 134 [1999], *lv denied*94 NY2d 799 [1999]).

We find the sentence excessive to the extent indicated. Concur—Mazzarelli, J.P., Saxe, Lerner and Marlow, JJ.
No. 10-5729.

#### Carl Allen Nakagawa, Petitioner v. Colorado.

562 U.S. 936, 131 S. Ct. 339,

178 L. Ed. 2d 221,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 7212,

October 4, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals of Colorado denied.
No. 09-11372.

#### Angel Zavala-Alonso, Petitioner v. United States.

562 U.S. 876, 131 S. Ct. 186,

178 L. Ed. 2d 112,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 6933.

October 4, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.

Same case below, 369 Fed. Appx. 547.
#### Com. v. Woods

08/24/2016

150 WAL (2016)

Denied

Pa.Super., 144 A.3d 197
EXHIBIT 10.1



 





Exhibit 10.1




December 9, 2004




VIA FACSIMILE



AND REGULAR MAIL



Dick’s Sporting Goods, Inc.

300 Industry Drive

RIDC Park West

Pittsburgh, PA 15275

Attn: Chief Administrative Officer

Facsimile: (724) 227-1134



Dear Sir:




     Reference is made to that certain OTC Convertible Note Hedge Agreement by and among Dick’s
Sporting Goods, Inc. (the “Counterparty”) and Merrill Lynch International (“ML”) through its agent
Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Incorporated (“Agent”) dated as of February 13, 2004 (the
“Note Hedge”) and accompanying Guarantee of Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc. (“ML & Co.”) (the
“Guarantee”). Capitalized terms used herein and not otherwise defined herein shall have the
meanings given to them under the Note Hedge.



     By executing this letter, ML, through its Agent, and ML& Co. as guarantor, hereby waive its
rights to take any action under the Note Hedge, including but not limited to termination of the
Note Hedge, to the extent that the execution by the Counterparty of a supplemental indenture
pursuant to the terms of the Consent Solicitation Agreement dated December 10, 2004, a copy of
which is attached hereto as Exhibit A (the “Consent Agreement”) may be deemed to constitute
an Amendment Event. All other terms of the Agreement shall remain in full force and effect,
including all terms of the Guarantee, and this waiver will not be held to constitute a waiver of
any other condition of the Note Hedge or Guarantee.



 









 





December 9, 2004

Page - 2 -




Very Truly Yours,



	 	 	 	 	 
	MERRILL LYNCH INTERNATIONAL	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 
	By:

	 	/s/ Brian Carroll	 	 
	

	 	
 	 	 
	Name:

	 	Brian Carroll	 	 
	

	 	
 	 	 
	Title:

	 	Authorized Signatory	 	 
	

	 	
 	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 
	MERRILL LYNCH & CO., INC.	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 
	By:

	 	/s/ Patricia Kroplewnicki	 	 
	

	 	
 	 	 
	Name:

	 	Patricia Kroplewnicki	 	 
	

	 	
 	 	 
	Title:

	 	Designated Signatory	 	 
	

	 	
 	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 
	Acknowledged and agreed as to matters relating to the Agent:
	 
	 	 	 	 
	MERRILL LYNCH, PIERCE, FENNER & SMITH INCORPORATED,
	solely in its capacity as Agent
	 
	 	 	 	 
	By:

	 	/s/ Angelina Lopes	 	 
	

	 	
 	 	 
	Name:

	 	Angelina Lopes	 	 
	

	 	
 	 	 
	Title:

	 	Authorized Signatory
May 12, 2014

CAAP-11-0000561

#### U.S. Bank Nat. Ass’n v. Rimarim

Affirmed