alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 4.2

    

     

      

    
      AMENDMENT NO. 1

      TO THE

      2002 EMPLOYEE STOCK PURCHASE PLAN, AS AMENDED AND RESTATED

      

      

      March 11, 2020

      

      

      WHEREAS, Centene Corporation, a
        Delaware corporation (the “Corporation”) sponsors the 2002 Employee Stock Purchase Plan, as amended and restated (the “ESPP”);

      

      

      WHEREAS, Section 18 of the ESPP
        generally provides that the Board may at any time, and from time to time, amend the ESPP;

      

      

      WHEREAS, the Corporation desires
        to amend the ESPP to provide for the issuance of an additional 5,000,000 shares of Common Stock, subject to adjustment as provided under the ESPP (the “Share
            Authorization”).

      

      

      NOW, THEREFORE, the Corporation hereby amends the ESPP as follows (this “Amendment”),
        which Amendment shall become effective only upon approval by the stockholders of the Corporation:

      

      

      	

            	1.	
              The introduction to the ESPP is hereby deleted in its entirety and replaced as follows:

            


      

      

      The purpose of this Plan is to provide eligible employees of Centene Corporation (the “Company”) and certain of its subsidiaries with
        opportunities to purchase shares of the Company's common stock, $.001 par value (the “Common Stock”), commencing on July 1, 2002. The Plan was amended and restated effective June 1, 2019.

      

      

      An aggregate of 300,000 shares of Common Stock was initially approved by the Company’s shareholders for issuance under the Plan.
        Following the Company’s three-for-two stock split on July 11, 2003, and two-for-one stock splits on: December 17, 2004, February 19, 2015 and February 6, 2019, an aggregate of 3,600,000 shares of Common Stock were subject to issuance under the
        Plan. Subject to approval by the Company’s shareholders, the Plan is hereby amended to provide for the issuance of an additional 5,000,000 shares of Common Stock, subject to adjustment as provided under the Plan.

      

      

      This Plan is intended to qualify as an “employee stock purchase plan” as defined in Section 423 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as
        amended (the “Code”), and the regulations promulgated thereunder, and shall be interpreted consistently therewith.

      

      

      	

            	2.	
              Except as amended hereby, the Plan shall remain in full effect.
<PAGE>   1




                                                                   EXHIBIT 21.01


                   SUBSIDIARIES* OF CARAUSTAR INDUSTRIES, INC.

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                            STATE OF
               NAME                       INCORPORATION                      TRADE, D/B/A NAMES
               ----                       -------------                      ------------------

<S>                                       <C>                                <C>
ACC Services, Inc.                          North Carolina
Atlantic Coast Carton Company               North Carolina
Austell Box Board Corporation               Georgia
Buffalo Paperboard Corporation              New York
Camden Paperboard Corporation               New Jersey
Caraustar Paper Sales, Inc.                 Georgia                          Caraustar Paper Sales-South
Caraustar Paperboard Corporation            Ohio                             **
Carolina Paper Board Corporation            North Carolina
Carolina Paper Box Co., Inc.                North Carolina
Carolina Recycling, Inc.                    North Carolina
Carotell Paper Board Corporation            South Carolina
Chattanooga Paperboard Corporation          Tennessee
Chesapeake Fiber Packaging Corporation      Maryland
Chesapeake Paperboard Company               Maryland
Chicago Paperboard Corporation              Illinois
Cincinnati Paperboard Corporation           Ohio
Columbus Recycling, Inc.                    Georgia
Federal Packaging Corporation               Delaware
Federal Transport, Inc.                     Ohio
Macon Recycling, Inc.                       Georgia
McQueeny Gypsum Corporation                 Delaware
Mid-State Paper Box Company, Inc.           North Carolina
The New General Packaging Service, Inc.     New Jersey                       General Packaging Services
Oak Tree Packaging Corporation              New Jersey
Packrite Packaging, Inc.                    North Carolina
Paper Recycling, Inc.                       Georgia
Paragon Plastics, Inc. (80% owned)          South Carolina
Reading Paperboard Corporation              Pennsylvania
Richmond Paperboard Corporation             Virginia
Special Packaging, Inc.                     Delaware
Star Paper Tube de Mexico, S.A.
  de C.V. (65% owned)                       Mexico
Star Paper Tube, Inc.                       South Carolina
Star Recycling Incorporated                 Georgia
Sweetwater Paper Board Company, Inc.        Georgia
The Garber Company                          Delaware
The Mid/Packaging Group, Inc.               Tennessee
</TABLE>


*           Each subsidiary is wholly-owned by Caraustar Industries, Inc. unless
            otherwise indicated.

**          Holds 80% interest in partnership joint venture which does business
            in Ohio as Rittman Paperboard, Caraustar Paper Sales-North, and
            Cleveland Paper Stock and in Iowa as Tama Paperboard.
#### Otto K. Sauer *vs.*William Traeger.

Submitted on briefs Jan. 30, 1894.

Modified Feb. 1, 1894

No. 8353.

^Replevin, Value not proved.

Evidence *held*to justify the verdict of the jury, except as to value.

Appeal by defendant, William Traeger, from an order of the District Court of Hennepin County, *'Thomas Canty,*J., made January 28, 1893, denying his motion for a new trial.

*T. E. Byrnes,*for appellant.

*Otto K. Sauer, pro se.*

Buck, J.

This action was brought to recover the possession of personal property, or, in case possession could not be had, then for the value thereof. Ho writ of replevin issued, and plaintiff ■did not take or obtain actual possession of the property. Upon the trial the plaintiff recovered the following verdict: “We, the jury in the above-entitled action, find for the plaintiff and against the ■defendant, William Traeger, for the possession of the following described personal property, described in the complaint herein, to wit, “horse, harness," quarter and knee boots, sulky and runners, or the sum of $297, the value thereof, in case recovery cannot be had.’”

One of the errors assigned by the appellant is that there is not sufficient' evidence to support the verdict, and upon this point it is ■claimed that there is no evidence in the case to prove or establish the value of the property in controversy, or any part of it. This contention of the appellant must be conceded to be true. We do not discover anything in the record upon the subject, and it was ■error to allow a verdict in an action of this kind to be rendered for the value of the property in controversy without proof that the property was of some value, and of sufficient value to justify the verdict •of the jury. The exhibits referred to in the evidence were not of ■such a character that, if introduced, could have been, as between the parties, any evidence of value. But they were not offered or received as evidence in the case.

*365It is not necessary that there be a new trial of any issue, except as to the value of the property. The case is remanded for a new trial upon the question of value only, unless the plaintiff elects to waive that part of the verdict, and consents to take judgment for the return of the property.

The case is remanded accordingly.

Canty, J., took no part in this decision.

(Opinion published 57 N. W. Rep. 935.)
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-6088

LAWRENCE E. WILLIAMS, JR., Plaintiff - Appellant, versus STATE OF MARYLAND DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY AND CORRECTIONAL SERVICES; WILLIAM W. SONDERVAN, Ed. D., Commissioner (in his official and individual capacity), Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Alexander Harvey II, Senior District Judge. (CA-00-3779-H) Submitted: May 16, 2002 Decided: May 23, 2002 Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Lawrence E. Williams, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. John Joseph Curran, Jr., Attorney General, Stephanie Judith Lane-Weber, Assistant Attorney General, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Lawrence E. Williams, Jr., appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his complaint filed under 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 2001) and Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. §§ 12131-12134 (1994). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court that Williams’ claims lack merit. See Williams v. Maryland Dep’t of Pub. Safety , No. CA-00-3779-H (D. Md. Dec. 3, 2001). 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
U.S. flagAn official website of the United States government
                    Here's how you know **Official websites use .gov**
                            
                            A **.gov** website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.
 **Secure .gov websites use HTTPS**
                            
                            A **lock** (                            
                              A locked padlock                                                      
                            
                            ) or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.


Menu Agricultural Research Service
						
                    U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
 Animal Disease Research: Pullman, WA
 close



    Research

                    Research Projects
                                    Publications
                                    Collaborations
                                    News
                People

                    Staff Listing
                                    CareersSearch small
                    Search
            
            ARS Home
                                About ARS
                                Contact Us




ARS Home Pacific West Area Pullman, Washington Animal Disease Research People & Locations







Wendy  Stephenson
                        Animal Disease Research

                        




                        
                        Program Support Assistant (Office Automation)
                        Phone: (509) 335-6029
                        
                        
                        Fax: (Employee information on this page comes from the REE Directory. Please contact your front office staff to update the REE Directory.)


Return to top


Connect with ARS Sign up


ARS Home
                            USDA.gov
                            Plain Writing
                            Policies & Links
                            Civil Rights Statements
                            FOIA
                            Accessibility Statement
                            Privacy Policy
                            Non-Discrimination Statement
                            Quality of Information
                            USA.gov
                            WhiteHouse.gov
#### PHILLIPS, Respondent, v. DRAKEFORD, Appellant.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department.

July 30, 1896.)

Action by Edwin Phillips against William E. Drakeford.

No opinion. Judgment and order affirmed, with costs.
<PAGE>

                                                                    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 of Transmeta Corporation (the "Company")
on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2003, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Matthew
R. Perry, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify to the
best of my knowledge, 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) 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 result of
                  operations of the Company for the periods presented therein.

/s/ MATTHEW R. PERRY
--------------------------

President and Chief Executive Officer
November 7, 2003

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to Transmeta Corporation and will be retained by Transmeta Corporation
and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.
U.S. flagAn official website of the United States government
                    Here's how you know **Official websites use .gov**
                            
                            A **.gov** website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.
 **Secure .gov websites use HTTPS**
                            
                            A **lock** (                            
                              A locked padlock                                                      
                            
                            ) or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.


Menu Agricultural Research Service
						
                    U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
 Manhattan, Kansas (NBAF)
 close




            Search small
                    Search
            
            ARS Home
                                About ARS
                                Contact Us




ARS Home People & Locations







Tiffany  Oberdorf
                        Research Program Support

                        




                        
                        Animal Caretaker
                        Phone: (785) 712-3349
                        
                        
                        Fax: (Employee information on this page comes from the REE Directory. Please contact your front office staff to update the REE Directory.)


Return to top


Connect with ARS Sign up


ARS Home
                            USDA.gov
                            Plain Writing
                            Policies & Links
                            Civil Rights Statements
                            FOIA
                            Accessibility Statement
                            Privacy Policy
                            Non-Discrimination Statement
                            Quality of Information
                            USA.gov
                            WhiteHouse.gov
From: LTEMPSEIS, BOR-SHA-UCRTo: Brianna Zurita 

Cc: Jill Grams 

Subject: FW: [EXTERNAL] Oak City Utah Comment to GLEN CANYON DAM LONG-TERM EXPERIMENTAL AND 

MANAGEMENT PLAN (LTEMP) DRAFT SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT (DSEIS) 

Date: Tuesday, March 26, 2024 8:02:00 AM 

Draft Response: 3/26/24 

Thank you, 

Valerie

From: David Steele <dksteele@hotmail.com> 

Sent: Monday, March 25, 2024 11:30 PM 

To: LTEMPSEIS, BOR-SHA-UCR- <bor-sha-ucr-ltempseis@usbr.gov> 

Subject: [EXTERNAL] Oak City Utah Comment to GLEN CANYON DAM LONG-TERM EXPERIMENTAL 

AND MANAGEMENT PLAN (LTEMP) DRAFT SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

(DSEIS) 

This email has been received from outside of DOI - Use caution before clicking on links, 

opening attachments, or responding. 

Town of Oak City 

P.O. Box 217 

30 W. Center St. 

Oak City, Utah 84649 

Phone 435-846-2707 

March 25, 2024 

Bureau of Reclamation 
Attn: LTEMP SEIS Project Manager 

125 South State Street, Suite 800 

Salt Lake City, UT 84138 

Via Email only – LTEMPSEIS@usbr.gov 

RE: GLEN CANYON DAM LONG-TERM EXPERIMENTAL AND MANAGEMENT 

PLAN (LTEMP) DRAFT SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

(DSEIS) – 89 FR 28, February 9, 2024 

Oak City’s Interest in LTEMP DSEIS: 

 Oak City is a municipally owned electric utility and Colorado River Storage Project 

(CRSP) preference customer. Oak City’s CRSP allocation provides power to 309 customers 

and generates on an annual basis 966 KWh of energy for our community. This energy 

represents about 26% of our annual load, and is a significant and critical resource for us. 

Oak City Supports UAMPS’ Comments : 

 As a member of Utah Associated Municipal Power Systems (UAMPS), Oak City 

supports the comments submitted by UAMPS. In particular, UAMPS joins CREDA’s 

comments addressing the following issues in particular: 

1. Insufficient data on which to base decision: 

2. Costs to Oak City’s customers 

Sincerely, 

David Steele 
David Steele 

Oak City, UT 

Council Member/Power Dept. Manager
#### Deborah Bruno, Appellant, v Dellwood Foods, Inc., Respondent.

*774Since the defendant did not challenge the relevance of the requested inspection and, indeed, indicated it would permit the filming of the milk-filling process so long as certain safety precautions were undertaken, Special Term abused its discretion in failing to allow the filming and in vacating the plaintiffs demand therefor. Mangano, J. P., Brown, Rubin and Eiber, JJ., concur.
#### In the Matter of Ronald Rascoe, Petitioner, v Brian Fischer, Commissioner, New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision, Respondent.

[948 NYS2d 841]

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Fourth Judicial Department by order of the Supreme Court, Erie County [Christopher J. Burns, J.], entered December 27, 2011) to review a determination of respondent. The determination found after a tier III hearing that petitioner had violated various inmate rules.

It is hereby ordered that the determination is unanimously confirmed without costs and the petition is dismissed. Present — Centra, J.P., Fahey, Peradotto, Carni and Sconiers, JJ.
## THE STATE OF TEXAS
MANDATE

TO THE COUNTY COURT OF LAMAR COUNTY, GRE ETINGS:
Before the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Court of Appeals District of Texas, on the 2nd
day of September, A.D. 2015, the cause upon appeal to revise or reverse your Judgment was

determined; and therein our said Court made its order in these words:

Larry Joe McNeal, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee No. 06

- 15

- 00010

- CR

Trial Court No. 61963

As stated in the Court’s opinion of this date, we find no error in the judgment of the court

below

. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.
We note that the appellant, Larry Joe McNeal, has adequately indicated his inability to pay
costs of appeal. Th erefore, we waive payment of costs.

WHEREFORE, WE COMMAND YOU to observe the order of our said Court in this
behalf, and in all things to have it duly recognized, obeyed, and executed.

WITNESS, the Hon. Josh R. Morriss, III, Chief Justice of our said Court of Appeals, with
the seal thereof annexed, at the City of Texarkana, this the 29th day of October , A.D. 2015

.

DEBRA K. AUTREY , Clerk
# L_2009171EN.01004601.xml

| 1.7.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 171/46 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.7.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 171/46

---

COMMISSION DECISION

of 30 June 2009

amending Decision 2008/788/EC fixing the net amounts resulting from the application of voluntary modulation in Portugal for the calendar years 2009 to 2012

(notified under document number C(2009) 5095)

(only the Portuguese text is authentic)

(2009/505/EC)

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 378/2007 of 27 March 2007 laying down rules for voluntary modulation of direct payments provided for in Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 establishing common rules for direct support schemes under the common agricultural policy and establishing certain support schemes for farmers, and amending Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005 (1), and in particular Article 4(1) thereof,

Whereas:

| (1) | Commission Decision 2008/788/EC (2) establishes the net amounts resulting from the application of voluntary modulation in Portugal for the calendar years 2009 to 2012. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

Commission Decision 2008/788/EC (2) establishes the net amounts resulting from the application of voluntary modulation in Portugal for the calendar years 2009 to 2012.

| (2) | Under Article 1(5) of Regulation (EC) No 378/2007 the rates established in Article 7 of Council Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 (3), reduced by five percentage points, must be deducted from the rate of voluntary modulation applied by the Member States. Consequently, the net amounts resulting from voluntary modulation should be reduced. |
| --- | --- |

(2)

Under Article 1(5) of Regulation (EC) No 378/2007 the rates established in Article 7 of Council Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 (3), reduced by five percentage points, must be deducted from the rate of voluntary modulation applied by the Member States. Consequently, the net amounts resulting from voluntary modulation should be reduced.

| (3) | Decision 2008/788/EC should therefore be amended, |
| --- | --- |

(3)

Decision 2008/788/EC should therefore be amended,

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Article 1

Article 1 of Decision 2008/788/EC shall be replaced by the following:

‘Article 1

The net amounts resulting from the application of voluntary modulation in Portugal for the calendar years 2009 to 2012 shall be as follows:

| (EUR million) |
| --- |
| 2009 | 2010 | 2011 | 2012 |
| 32,8 | 29,0 | 25,0 | 21,0 ’ |

(EUR million)

2009

2010

2011

2012

32,8

29,0

25,0

21,0 ’

Article 2

This Decision shall apply from the 2010 budgetary year.

Article 3

This Decision is addressed to the Portuguese Republic.

Done at Brussels, 30 June 2009.

For the Commission

Mariann FISCHER BOEL

Member of the Commission

---

(1)  
  OJ L 95, 5.4.2007, p. 1.

1

(2)  
  OJ L 271, 11.10.2008, p. 44.

2

(3)  
  OJ L 30, 31.1.2009, p. 16.

3

---
Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR Document 243 Filed 03/07/16 Page 1 of 2
Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR Document 243 Filed 03/07/16 Page 2 of 2
Exhibit
32.2
 CERTIFICATIONS
PURSUANT TO
 18
U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
 AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
 SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
 
 In
connection with Amendment No. 1 to the Annual Report of ARC Wireless Solutions,
Inc. on Form 10-K/A for the year ended December 31, 2009 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Steven
Olson, Acting Principal Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to
18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, to my knowledge that:
 
 (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/
      Steven OlsonName:   
      Steven OlsonTitle:     Acting Principal Financial Officer