alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**Exhibit 10.30**

 

SECOND AMENDMENT 

TO THE 

CAREMARK RX, INC. 1995 STOCK OPTION PLAN 

(FORMERLY THE AMENDED & RESTATED MEDPARTNERS, INC. 

1995 STOCK OPTION PLAN) 

 

This Second Amendment to the Caremark Rx, Inc. 1995 Stock Option Plan(formerly the Amended & Restated Medpartners, Inc. 1995 Stock Option Plan) (the “Plan”) to be effective as of January 12, 2001. 

 

WITNESSETH: 

 

WHEREAS, Caremark Rx, Inc. (the “Company”) currently sponsors and maintains the Caremark Rx, Inc. 1995 Stock Option Plan (formerly theAmended & Restated Medpartners, Inc. 1995 Stock Option Plan) (the “Plan”); and 

 

WHEREAS, Section 11 of the Plan grants the Compensation Committee of the Board the power at any time to amend the Plan, and the CompensationCommittee now wishes to amend the Plan to modify the vesting provisions for options granted under the Plan on and after January 12, 2001; 

 

NOW, THEREFORE, the Plan is hereby amended as indicated below: 

 

1. 

 

Section 6.4 of the Plan is amended effective as of January 12, 2001, to read as follows: 

 

6.4 Vesting of Options. Except as set forth by the Committeein the applicable Option Agreement, Options granted pursuant to the Plan shall vest as follows: 

 

(a) 34% of the Options shall vest on the Grant Date; 

 

(b) 33% of the Options granted shall vest on each of the first anniversary and second anniversary of theGrant Date; provided, however, that for Options granted prior to January 12, 2001, if during 

 

Second Amendment to the 

Caremark Rx, Inc. 1995 Stock Option Plan 

Page 1 

the first year after the Grant Date, the stock price of the Common Stock closes at or above $12.00 (orsuch other price as determined by the Committee and set forth in the applicable Option Agreement) for any twenty (20) out of thirty (30) consecutive trading days, the 33% of the Options due to vest on the first anniversary of the GrantDate shall vest immediately at the end of such 20th day, and provided, however, that for Options granted prior to January 12, 2001, if during the second year after the Grant Date, the stock price of the Common Stock closes at or above $18.00(or such other price as determined by the Committee and set forth in the applicable Option Agreement) for any twenty (20) out of thirty (30) consecutive trading days, the 33% of the Options due to vest on the second anniversary of theGrant Date shall vest immediately at the end of such 20th day. 

 

2. 

 

The name of the Plan is changed effective as ofJanuary 12, 2001 from the Amended & Restated Medpartners, Inc. 1995 Stock Option Plan to the Caremark Rx, Inc. 1995 Stock Option Plan. All references in any Company documents to the Amended & Restated Medpartners, Inc. 1995Stock Option Plan shall, after January 12, 2001, be a reference to the Caremark Rx, Inc. 1995 Stock Option Plan. 

 

3. 

 

All other provisions of the Plan not inconsistent herewith are hereby confirmed and ratified. 

 

Approved by the Board of Directors 

by resolutions on January 12, 2001. 

 

Second Amendment to the 

Caremark Rx, Inc. 1995Stock Option Plan 

Page 2
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-6200

JERRY BROWN,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

JON OZMINT, Director, South Carolina

Department of Corrections; HENRY MCMASTER,

Attorney General of the State of South

Carolina; WARDEN, MacDougall Correctional

Institution,

Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Columbia. David C. Norton, District Judge.

(3:06-cv-03013-DCN) 

Submitted: June 20, 2007 Decided: July 12, 2007

Before WILLIAMS, Chief Judge, and WILKINSON and MOTZ, Circuit

Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jerry Brown, Appellant Pro Se. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Jerry Brown seeks to appeal the district court’s order

accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing

as untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition. The order is not

appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate

of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of

appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the

denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000).

A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable

jurists would find that any assessment of the constitutional claims

by the district court is debatable or wrong and that any

dispositive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise

debatable. Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003);

Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d

676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the

record and conclude that Brown has not made the requisite showing.

Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the

appeal. 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.

DISMISSED
Exhibit 32.1


                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 quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Franklin Street
Properties Corp. (the "Company") for the period ended September 30, 2007 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), the undersigned, George J. Carter, President and Chief Executive
Officer of the Company, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
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; 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:  October 30, 2007                   /s/ George J. Carter
                                          ---------------------------
                                          George J. Carter
                                          President and Chief Executive Officer
Case: 1:01-cv-00616 Document #: 57 Filed: 01/14/04 Page 1 of 5 PageID #:385
Case: 1:01-cv-00616 Document #: 57 Filed: 01/14/04 Page 2 of 5 PageID #:386
Case: 1:01-cv-00616 Document #: 57 Filed: 01/14/04 Page 3 of 5 PageID #:387
Case: 1:01-cv-00616 Document #: 57 Filed: 01/14/04 Page 4 of 5 PageID #:388
Case: 1:01-cv-00616 Document #: 57 Filed: 01/14/04 Page 5 of 5 PageID #:389
# C_2016048EN.01004401.xml

| 8.2.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 48/44 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.2.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 48/44

---

Judgment of the General Court of 16 December 2015 — Greece v Commission

(Case T-241/13) (1)

1

((EAGGF - Guarantee Section - EAGF and EAFRD - Expenditure excluded from the financing - Beef and beef products - Sheepmeat and goatmeat - Tobacco - Article 69 of Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 - Article 31(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005 - Article 23(1) of Regulation (EC) No 796/2004))

(2016/C 048/49)

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Parties

Applicant: The Hellenic Republic (represented by: I. Chalkias, S. Papaïoannou and A. Vasilopoulou, acting as Agents)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: A. Marcoulli and D. Triantafyllou, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

ACTION for annulment of Commission Implementing Decision 2013/123/EU of 26 February 2013 on excluding from European Union financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF), under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) (OJ 2013 L 67, p. 20), so far as it excludes certain expenditure carried out by the Hellenic Republic.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls Commission Implementing Decision 2013/123/EU of 26 February 2013 on excluding from European Union financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF), under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) (OJ 2013 L 67, p. 20), so far as it excludes certain expenditure carried out by the Hellenic Republic in the tobacco sector, in respect of claim year 2006; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls Commission Implementing Decision 2013/123/EU of 26 February 2013 on excluding from European Union financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF), under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) (OJ 2013 L 67, p. 20), so far as it excludes certain expenditure carried out by the Hellenic Republic in the tobacco sector, in respect of claim year 2006;

| 2. | Dismisses the action for the remainder; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Dismisses the action for the remainder;

| 3. | Orders the European Commission and the Hellenic Republic to bear their own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the European Commission and the Hellenic Republic to bear their own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 207, 20.7.2013.

1

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

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 9
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE FORM
10-QSB FOR THE QUARTERLY PERIOD ENDING SEPTEMBER 30, 2000 AND IS QUALIFIED IN
ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH 10-QSB
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                           3,680
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                               0
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                 9,861
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                     21,949
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                          15,234
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                            14,967
<LOANS>                                        117,761
<ALLOWANCE>                                      1,053
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 176,524
<DEPOSITS>                                     157,665
<SHORT-TERM>                                         0
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                              1,460
<LONG-TERM>                                        725
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         4,333
<OTHER-SE>                                      12,341
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                 176,524
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                  7,414
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                1,637
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                   156
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                 9,207
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                               4,392
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               4,462
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                            4,745
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                      270
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   2
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                  3,444
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,766
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                       1,766
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,292
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.90
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.89
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    4.48
<LOANS-NON>                                        106
<LOANS-PAST>                                       733
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                   938
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                      269
<RECOVERIES>                                       114
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                1,053
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                             1,053
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                             91


</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 32.2



Certification



Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002



(Subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code)



Pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of section
1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code), the undersigned officer of Entrust, Inc., a Maryland corporation (the Company), hereby certifies, to such officers knowledge, that:



The quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2005 (the
Report) of the Company fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and
results of operations of the Company.



|                     |  |  |  |        |  |                        
|-------------------- |  |  |  | ------ |  | -----------------------
|Date: August 4, 2005 |  |  |  |        |  | /s/ David J. Wagner    
|                     |  |  |  | Name:  |  | David J. Wagner        
|                     |  |  |  | Title: |  | Chief Financial Officer
----

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case No COMP/M.3235 — TEIJIN/ZEON/JV)

(2004/C 222/02)

(Text with EEA relevance)

On 12 August 2003, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(2) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 4064/89. 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:

----
# C_2020399EN.01003101.xml

| 23.11.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 399/31 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.11.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 399/31

---

Judgment of the General Court of 23 September 2020 — Vincenti v EUIPO

(Case T-174/19) (1)

(Civil service - Officials - Promotion - Promotion exercises 2014 to 2017 - Decision not to promote the applicant to the AST 8 grade - Right to be heard)

(2020/C 399/44)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Guillaume Vincenti (Alicante, Spain) (represented by H. Tettenborn, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by A. Lukošiūtė and K. Tóth, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application based on Article 270 TFEU seeking the annulment of the decision of EUIPO of 6 June 2018 not to promote the applicant to the AST 8 grade in the 2014 to 2017 promotion exercises.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the decisions of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 6 June 2018 not to promote Mr Guillaume Vincenti to the AST 8 grade in the 2014 to 2017 promotion exercises; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decisions of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 6 June 2018 not to promote Mr Guillaume Vincenti to the AST 8 grade in the 2014 to 2017 promotion exercises;

| 2. | Orders EUIPO to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders EUIPO to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 206, 17.6.2019.

---
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

 No. 06-8029 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

EZELL MCKELVER,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Orangeburg. Patrick Michael Duffy, District

Judge. (5:03-cr-00262-PMD)

Submitted: April 26, 2007 Decided: May 2, 2007

Before WILLIAMS, MICHAEL, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Ezell McKelver, Appellant Pro Se. Leesa Washington, OFFICE OF THE

UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Ezell McKelver appeals the district court’s margin order

denying McKelver’s Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion to reconsider his

August 2003 criminal judgment. McKelver filed neither a direct

appeal nor a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion, and he filed his Rule

60(b) motion more than three years after the district court entered

judgment on his conviction and sentence. 

Although “the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure do not

specifically provide for motions for reconsideration and prescribe

the time in which they must be filed,” Nilson Van & Storage Co. v.

Marsh, 755 F.2d 362, 364 (4th Cir. 1985), a motion for rehearing or

reconsideration in a criminal case extends the time for filing a

notice of appeal if the motion is filed before the order sought to

be reconsidered becomes final. See United States v. Ibarra, 502

U.S. 1, 4 n.2 (1991) (holding would-be appellant who files timely

motion for reconsideration from criminal judgment entitled to full

time period for noticing appeal after motion for reconsideration

has been decided); United States v. Dieter, 429 U.S. 6, 7-8 (1976)

(same); see also United States v. Christy, 3 F.3d 765, 767 n.1 (4th

Cir. 1993) (same).

McKelver submitted his Rule 60(b) motion well beyond the

applicable period of time provided to notice an appeal of the

judgment he sought the district court to reconsider. Accordingly,

because McKelver’s Rule 60(b) motion was untimely, we affirm the
- 3 -

district court’s order denying the motion. See United States v.

McKelver, No. 5:03-cr-00262-PMD (D.S.C. Oct. 11, 2006). 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
#### Joan Cusamano, Respondent, v Charles Cusamano, Appellant.

—In an action for a divorce and ancillary relief, the defendant husband appeals, as limited by his notice of appeal and brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Ferraro, J.), entered June 4, 1985, as (1) directed him to pay the plaintiff wife the sum of $5,000 for her pendente lite counsel fees and (2) denied his motion for exclusive occupancy of the marital premises.

Order affirmed, insofar as appealed from, with costs.

Under all of the circumstances of this case, we are disinclined to reverse or modify Special Term’s order. Lazer, J. P., Thompson, Weinstein and Fiber, JJ., concur.
#### TOWNSEND et al., Appellants, v. PENDLETON, Respondent.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.

October 11, 1907.)

Action by Emma A. Townsend, individually and as administratrix, etc., and others, against Jennie F. Pendleton, individually and as executrix, etc.

No opinion. Motion denied, with costs.
Exhibit 32.1


                            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 Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Merrill Lynch
Preferred Capital Trust II (the "Trust") and Merrill Lynch Preferred
Funding II, L.P. for the period ended September 24, 2004 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Marlene B. Debel, Regular Trustee of the Trust, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)
    of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

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





                              MERRILL LYNCH PREFERRED CAPITAL TRUST II


                              By:  /s/ MARLENE B. DEBEL
                                   ---------------------------------------------
                              Name:    Marlene B. Debel *
                              Title:   Regular Trustee









Dated: November 3, 2004
_______________________

* Marlene B. Debel functions as the equivalent of the Chief Executive Officer
  and Chief  Financial  Officer of the Trust for  purposes  of Section  906
  of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.
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

I, Douglas R.
Young, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Amendment No. 1 to the Quarterly Report of NeoMagic Corporation on Form 10-Q/A for the quarterly period
ended April 30, 2006 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such Quarterly Report fairly presents in all material respects the financial
condition and results of operations of NeoMagic Corporation.

Date: October 27, 2006



By:

/s/ Douglas R. YoungName:

Douglas R. YoungTitle:

Chief Executive Officer
### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED AP RIL 3, 2013

NO. 03

- 12

- 00670

- CV

J. C., Appellant

v.

Texas Department of Family and Protective Services, Appellee

APPEAL FROM THE 345TH DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY

BEFORE C HIEF JUSTICE JONES, JUSTICES GOODWIN AND FIELD

AFFIRMED

-- OPINION BY JUSTICE GOODWIN

THIS CAUSE came on to be heard on the record of the court below, and the same being

considered, because it is the opinion of this Court that there was no error in the trial court’s final

decree : IT IS THEREFORE considered, adjudged and ordered that the trial court’s final decree

is in all things affirmed. It FURTHER appearing that the appellant is indigent and unable to pay

costs relating to this appeal, that no adjud ication as to costs is made; and that this decision be

certified below for observance.