alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
mbcc-ex1011_34.htm



Exhibit 10.11

 

AMENDMENT TO SHARED SERVICES AGREEMENT

 

This Amendment dated as of January 1, 2016 (“Amendment Effective Date”) by and between Nexstar Broadcasting, Inc. (“Nexstar”) and Mission Broadcasting, Inc. (“Mission”) is made to that certain Shared Services Agreement dated as of November 1, 2004 as amended by that certain amendment dated December 30, 2005 (collectively, the “Agreement”).

 

WHEREAS, Mission is the licensee of television broadcast station WTVO, Rockford, Illinois;

 

WHEREAS, Nexstar is the licensee of television broadcasting station WQRF-TV, Rockford, Illinois; 

 

WHEREAS, Mission and Nexstar have entered into the Agreement for their mutual benefit;

 

NOW THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the foregoing, Nexstar and Mission hereby amend the Agreement as follows:

 

1. Paragraph 4(g) of the Agreement is deleted in its entirety and the following is substituted in its place: “4(g) Services Fee. In consideration for the services to be provided to the Stations by Nexstar personnel as described in Sections 4(a) through 4(f), Mission will pay Nexstar the fee (“Services Fee”) described in Section 4(g).

 

(i)Base Amount. Subject to the remaining provisions of this Section 4(g), the base amount of the Services Fee will be $166,666.67 per month.

 

(ii) Payment Terms. The Services Fee will be payable monthly, in arrears, from and after the month during which this Agreement is executed, and will be prorated on a daily basis for the first and last months during which the sharing arrangements described in Sections 4(a) through 4(f) are in effect.” 

 

2.These revised payment terms are effective as of the Amendment Effective Date.

 

3. As so amended, all sections and provisions of the Agreement are hereby ratified in full. 

 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this amendment as of the Amendment Effective Date above.

 


			
	
NEXSTAR BROADCASTING, INC.

 
	
 
	
MISSION BROADCASTING, INC.

	
By: /s/ Thomas E. Carter
	
 
	
By: /s/ Dennis Thatcher

	
 

Name: Thomas E. Carter
	
 
	
 

Name: Dennis Thatcher

	
 

Title: EVP & Chief Financial Officer
	
 
	
 

Title: President
Exhibit 23.1

Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

The Board of Directors

Adolor Corporation:

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the
registration statements on Form S-8 (No. 333-51222, No. 333-62428, No. 333-100585, No. 333-105912, and No. 333-134647) and registration statement on Form S-1 (No. 333-64298) of Adolor Corporation of our report dated
February 25, 2009, with respect to the balance sheets of Adolor Corporation as of December 31, 2008 and 2007, and the related statements of operations, comprehensive loss, stockholders equity, and cash flows for each of the years in
the three-year period ended December 31, 2008, and the related financial statement schedule, and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2008, which report appears in the December 31, 2008
annual report on Form 10-K of Adolor Corporation.



|                         
|-------------------------
|/s/ KPMG LLP             
|                         
|Philadelphia Pennsylvania
|February 25, 2009
# C_2010148EN.01001001.xml

| 5.6.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 148/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.6.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 148/10

---

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 15 April 2010 — European Commission v Ireland

(Case C-294/09) (1)

1

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 2006/43/EC - Statutory audits of annual accounts and consolidated accounts - Failure to transpose completely within the prescribed period - Failure to communicate the measures to transpose the directive)

2010/C 148/15

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: G. Braun and A.-A. Gilly, Agents)

Applicant:

Defendant: Ireland (represented by: D. O’Hagan, Agent)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Failure to adopt or to communicate, within the prescribed period, the measures necessary to comply with Directive 2006/43/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 May 2006 on statutory audits of annual accounts and consolidated accounts, amending Council Directives 78/660/EEC and 83/349/EEC and repealing Council Directive 84/253/EEC (OJ 2006 L 157, p. 87)

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Declares that, by failing to adopt within the prescribed period all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2006/43/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 May 2006 on statutory audits of annual accounts and consolidated accounts, amending Council Directives 78/660/EEC and 83/349/EEC and repealing Council Directive 84/253/EEC and, in any event, by failing to communicate to the Commission of the European Communities the provisions of national law considered to contribute to ensuring such compliance, Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 53 of that directive; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Declares that, by failing to adopt within the prescribed period all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2006/43/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 May 2006 on statutory audits of annual accounts and consolidated accounts, amending Council Directives 78/660/EEC and 83/349/EEC and repealing Council Directive 84/253/EEC and, in any event, by failing to communicate to the Commission of the European Communities the provisions of national law considered to contribute to ensuring such compliance, Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 53 of that directive;

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

2.

Orders Ireland to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 220, 12.9.2009.

1

---
Bradley Antoine DAVIS, petitioner, v. Chad PRINGLE, Warden.

No. 16-6744.

Supreme Court of the United States

Jan. 9, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit denied.
Commodity Futures Trading Co

Hearing on

Speculative Position Lim

in Energy Futures Mark

July 28, 2009
Current Practices

July 28, 2009

Category Sample Contracts 

Speculative Position 

Position Account

Spot Month Single Mo

CFTC Speculative Position Limits 

Federal 

limits 

Corn, oats, soybeans, soybean oil, soybean meal, wheat, and cotton ¤ ¤ 

Limits and Levels Set by Exchanges 

Energy 

NYMEX Crude Oil, Natural Gas, Heating Oil, and Gasoline; ICE U.K. WTI 

¤ 	 

Metals COMEX Gold and Silver ¤ 	 
Number of NYMEX Energy Traders

Over Position Accountability Levels

in Crude Oil, Natural Gas, Heating Oil, and Gasoline

July 1, 2008 to June 30, 2009

Trader Category Single Month 

Commercial/Physical 20 

Risk Management/Swap 13 

Managed Money 28 

Other Non‐Commercial 11 

Total 69 
Number of NYMEX Energy Traders

Over Position Accountability Levels

July 1, 2008 to June 30, 2009

Contract Market Accountability Level (Contracts) Number of Traders

A

NYMEX WTI Crude Oil

Single Month 10,000 43 

All‐Months‐

Combined 20,000 23 

NYMEX Natural Gas

Single Month 6,000 40 

All‐Months‐

Combined 12,000 26 

NYMEX No. 2 Heating

Oil

Single Month 5,000 17 

All‐Months‐

Combined 7,000 13 

NYMEX RBOB Gasoline

Single Month 5,000 24 

All‐Months‐

Combined 7,000 16 

* Physical delivery futures positions are aggregated with options on physical delivery futures contracts.
Number of NYMEX Energy Traders

Over Position Accountability Levels

July 1, 2008 to June 30, 2009

NYMEX Contract

Market

Nearby Futu

Traders >

10%

of OI

Traders >

20%

of OI

WTI Crude Oil 2  ‐  

Natural Gas 13 4 

Heating Oil 4  ‐  

Gasoline 8 1  

Note: “Max % of OI” represents the largest trader’s position, as a percein that single contract month. 
Number of NYMEX Energy Traders

Over Position Accountability Levels

July 1, 2008 to June 30, 2009

NYMEX Contract

Market

1st Deferred F

Traders >

10%

of OI

Traders >

20%

of OI

T

WTI Crude Oil 5  ‐  

Natural Gas 14 5 

Heating Oil 11  ‐  

Gasoline 12 2  

Note: “Max % of OI” represents the largest trader’s position, as a percein that single contract month. 
NYMEX Spot Month Speculative Position Limit E

As of July 21, 2009

Contract Number of Exemptions 

Crude Oil 37 

Heating Oil 36 

Gasoline 37 

Natural Gas 43 

NYMEX spot month speculative position limits:

• 3,000 contracts for Crude Oil

• 1,000 contracts for others

• Applies during last three days of trading
Federal Speculative Position

Exemptions for Agricultural Traders

As of July 21, 2009

Contract Number of Exemptions by Cat

1.Physical Inventory/

Sales

2.Physical Anticipated

Needs

Chicago Board of Trade

Wheat 12 3 

Corn 10 4 

Soybeans 10 5 

Soybean Oil 10 6 

Soybean Meal 8 4 

ICE Futures U.S.

Cotton 13 0
# C_2011173EN.01000202.xml

| 11.6.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 173/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.6.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 173/2

---

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 7 April 2011 — Hellenic Republic v European Commission

(Case C-321/09 P) (1)

1

(Appeal - EAGGF - Expenditure excluded from Community financing owing to failure to comply with Community rules - Expenditure incurred by the Hellenic Republic)

2011/C 173/03

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Parties

Appellant: Hellenic Republic (represented by: I. Chalkias, Agent)

Appellant:

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: H. Tserepa-Lacombe and F. Jimeno Fernández, Agents)

Other party to the proceedings:

Re:

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Eighth Chamber) of 11 June 2009, in Case T-33/07 Greece v Commission, by which that court dismissed an application for the partial annulment of Commission Decision 2006/932/EC of 14 December 2006 excluding from Community financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) (notified under document number C(2006) 5993) — Olive oil, cotton, dried grapes and citrus fruit sectors

Greece

Commission

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the appeal; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the appeal;

| 2. | Orders the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 244, 10.10.2009.

1

---
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 118 (Tuesday, June 19, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Page 32952]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-15414]


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

FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM


Notice of Proposals to Engage in Permissible Nonbanking 
Activities or to Acquire Companies that are Engaged in Permissible 
Nonbanking Activities

    The companies listed in this notice have given notice under section 
4 of the Bank Holding Company Act (12 U.S.C. 1843) (BHC Act) and 
Regulation Y (12 CFR Part 225) to engage de novo, or to acquire or 
control voting securities or assets of a company, including the 
companies listed below, that engages either directly or through a 
subsidiary or other company, in a nonbanking activity that is listed in 
Sec. 225.28 of Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.28) or that the Board has 
determined by Order to be closely related to banking and permissible 
for bank holding companies. Unless otherwise noted, these activities 
will be conducted throughout the United States.
    Each notice is available for inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank 
indicated. The notice also will be available for inspection at the 
offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their 
views in writing on the question whether the proposal complies with the 
standards of section 4 of the BHC Act. Additional information on all 
bank holding companies may be obtained from the National Information 
Center website at www.ffiec.gov/nic/.
    Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding the applications must be 
received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of 
Governors not later than July 13, 2001.
    A.Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta (Cynthia C. Goodwin, Vice 
President) 104 Marietta Street, N.W., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-2713:
    1. Commercial Bancgroup, Inc., Harrogate, Tennessee; to acquire 100 
percent of the voting shares of Cumberland Mountain Bancshares, Inc., 
Middlesboro, Kentucky, and thereby indirectly acquire Middlesboro 
Federal Bank, FSB, Middlesboro, Kentucky, and thereby engage in 
operating a savings association, pursuant to section 225.28(b)(4)(ii) 
of Regulation Y.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, June 14, 2001.
Robert deV. Frierson,
Associate Secretary of the Board.
[FR Doc. 01-15414 Filed 6-18-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6210-01-S
Doyle Lee HAMM, petitioner, v. Richard F. ALLEN, Commissioner, Alabama Department of Corrections, et al.

No. 15-8753.

Supreme Court of the United States

Dec. 5, 2016.

Petition for rehearing denied.
1

Impact of the Dodd-Frank Act on 

Commodity Futures and Swaps Markets

Keynote Address by Commissioner Scott D. O’Malia

2014 Bank of Canada International Economic Analysis Workshop

on Financialization of Commodity Markets

March 21, 2014
Record High Natural Gas Cash Prices

Source: ICE 2
March – April Natural Gas Spread

3

February 26, 2014 was last trading day for the NYMEX March 2014 Natural Gas Future 

Source: FutureSource
Natural Gas Storage Level at 11 Year Lows

4

• As of March 7th, total working gas in storage was 49% below year-ago level 

and 46%below the 5-year average

Source: US Energy Information Administration’s Natural Gas Weekly Update
Importance of Hedging in the Commodity Markets

5

Dear Customers:

We are writing to inform you, with deep regret, that the recent extreme weather, which sent the wholesale 

electricity market into unchartered territories, has fatally compromised our ability to continue to 

serve customers.

We are extremely saddened to share this news with you.

What does this mean for you?

All Clean Currents customers will be returned to their utility service, effective immediately. You should see this change 

in service on your next bill, or the bill after that, dependent on your meter read cycle. If you so choose, you are able to 

switch to another third party electricity supplier, effective immediately. Clean Currents waives any advanced notice 

requirement or early termination fee provisions in our contracts.

Please contact your utility if you have any questions about your change in service:

PEPCO (DC & MD): 202-833-7500

BGE: 800-685-0123

PECO: 800-494-4000

PPL: 800-342-5775

We are deeply grateful that you chose to be a Clean Currents customer. It has been a pleasure to serve you. We hope 

you will still choose renewable energy for your home or business.

P.O. Box 8176

Silver Spring, MD

20907

Source: www.cleancurrents.com
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.1

                                  CERTIFICATION
            PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsection (a) and
(b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code), the
undersigned officer of The Pepsi Bottling Group, Inc. (the "Company") certifies
to his knowledge that:

      (1) The Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the year ended
          December 25, 2004 (the "Form 10-K") fully complies with the
          requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act
          of 1934 (the "Act"); and

      (2) The information contained in the Form 10-K fairly presents, in all
          material respects, the financial conditions and results of operations
          of the Company as of the dates and for the periods referred to in the
          Form 10-K.

                                                   /s/ John T. Cahill
                                                   -----------------------
                                                   John T. Cahill
                                                   Chief Executive Officer
                                                   February 25, 2005

The foregoing certification (the "Certification") is being furnished solely
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsection (a) and
(b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code).

A signed original of the Certification has been provided to the Company and will
be retained by the Company in accordance with Rule 12b-11(d) of the Act and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
II-01128

From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Jean Marie Naples <jnaples@jhsph.edu>

Thursday, December 2, 2010 8:04 AM

dfadefinitions <dfadefinitions@CFTC.gov>

Re: No loopholes in Dodd-Frank

1) Securities and Exchange Commission/Commodities Futures Trading Commission, Re: Commercial Risk (CFTC RIN

3235-AK65, SEC File Number $7-12-10)

Dear Commissioners Shapiro and Gensler: Don’t let the American Bankers Association (ABA) redefine important terms like

"commercial risk" to keep banks that engage in risky derivatives trading from complying with transparency and business

conduct requirements. Commercial risk should not be expanded to include financial risk. Accepting the ABA argument

would open the door for exemptions for risky hedge funds and insurance companies.

2) Commodities Futures Trading Commission, Re: Position Limits (RIN 3038-AD 17 )

Dear Commissioner Gensler: The CFTC needs to set strong position limits to crack down on the energy and food commodity

speculation that serves no productive purpose. I urge the Commission to define limits that will address not only manipulation,

but also excessive speculation, which will require a stricter approach.

3) U.S. Department of the Treasury, Re: FX Swaps (75 FR 66426 Document Number 2010-27274)

Dear Secretary Geithner: Just say "no" to foreign exchange traders who want to exempt foreign currency derivatives from the

clearing and transparency requirements of the

Dodd-Frank Act. $4 trillion dollars a day is traded in these highly-leveraged swaps and this number may increase to over $10

trillion in a decade. As the head of the Financial

Stability Oversight Board your job is to decrease risk in the system, not encourage off-book trading and opaque markets.

Jean Marie Naples

9 Benson Street

West Haverstraw, NY 10993
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 6
 

<CIK>     0000744822


<NAME>      Fidelity Investment Trust


<SERIES>

        <NUMBER>        111


        <NAME>      Fidelity Broadly Diversified International Fund


<MULTIPLIER>    1,000


       

<S>

<C>

<PERIOD-TYPE>

6-MOS


<FISCAL-YEAR-END>

OCT-31-1998


<PERIOD-END>

APR-30-1998


<INVESTMENTS-AT-COST>

1,628,514


<INVESTMENTS-AT-VALUE>

2,008,643


<RECEIVABLES>

47,959


<ASSETS-OTHER>

59


<OTHER-ITEMS-ASSETS>

0


<TOTAL-ASSETS>

2,056,661


<PAYABLE-FOR-SECURITIES>

27,764


<SENIOR-LONG-TERM-DEBT>

0


<OTHER-ITEMS-LIABILITIES>

7,061


<TOTAL-LIABILITIES>

34,825


<SENIOR-EQUITY>

0


<PAID-IN-CAPITAL-COMMON>

1,588,517


<SHARES-COMMON-STOCK>

107,431


<SHARES-COMMON-PRIOR>

91,363


<ACCUMULATED-NII-CURRENT>

6,185


<OVERDISTRIBUTION-NII>

0


<ACCUMULATED-NET-GAINS>

47,045


<OVERDISTRIBUTION-GAINS>

0


<ACCUM-APPREC-OR-DEPREC>

380,089


<NET-ASSETS>

2,021,836


<DIVIDEND-INCOME>

21,490


<INTEREST-INCOME>

3,425


<OTHER-INCOME>

(2,196)


<EXPENSES-NET>

10,038


<NET-INVESTMENT-INCOME>

12,681


<REALIZED-GAINS-CURRENT>

49,679


<APPREC-INCREASE-CURRENT>

224,927


<NET-CHANGE-FROM-OPS>

287,287


<EQUALIZATION>

0


<DISTRIBUTIONS-OF-INCOME>

17,340


<DISTRIBUTIONS-OF-GAINS>

37,418


<DISTRIBUTIONS-OTHER>

0


<NUMBER-OF-SHARES-SOLD>

51,064


<NUMBER-OF-SHARES-REDEEMED>

38,295


<SHARES-REINVESTED>

3,299


<NET-CHANGE-IN-ASSETS>

507,509


<ACCUMULATED-NII-PRIOR>

14,788


<ACCUMULATED-GAINS-PRIOR>

58,357


<OVERDISTRIB-NII-PRIOR>

0


<OVERDIST-NET-GAINS-PRIOR>

0


<GROSS-ADVISORY-FEES>

6,990


<INTEREST-EXPENSE>

0


<GROSS-EXPENSE>

10,216


<AVERAGE-NET-ASSETS>

1,686,628


<PER-SHARE-NAV-BEGIN>

16.570


<PER-SHARE-NII>

 .130


<PER-SHARE-GAIN-APPREC>

2.720


<PER-SHARE-DIVIDEND>

 .190


<PER-SHARE-DISTRIBUTIONS>

 .410


<RETURNS-OF-CAPITAL>

0


<PER-SHARE-NAV-END>

18.820


<EXPENSE-RATIO>

124


<AVG-DEBT-OUTSTANDING>

0


<AVG-DEBT-PER-SHARE>

0



        



</TABLE>
* District Judge of the Western District of Louisiana, sitting by

designation.

1 We note that the appellant argues that the standard of review is "abuse of discretion" rather than "gross abuse of discretion." As authority for this standard, the appellant cites United States v. Kirkland , 853 F.2d 1243 (5th Cir. 1988). The Kirkland case states that the court will "examine only whether the sentence was illegal or whether the district court abused its discretion." Id. at 1246. As authority for this standard, the Kirkland court cites United States UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FIFTH CIRCUIT

_____________________
No. 92-1610

_____________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Plaintiff-Appellee

versus

CLIFFORD SINCLAIR Defendant-Appellant

___________________________________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas

____________________________________________________________ (August 27, 1993)

Before WIENER, EMILIO GARZA, Circuit Judges, and LITTLE *

, District Judge.

PER CURIAM:

Clifford Sinclair, a federal prisoner, has appealed from the

district court's denial of his motion to reduce his sentence, which

was filed pursuant to Rule 35 of the Fede ral Rules of Criminal

Procedure. A district court's ruling under Rule 35 will be

reversed "only for illegality or gross abuse of discretion." 1v. Hayward , 762 F.2d 1226, 1228 (5th Cir. 1985). The Hayward case provides that

a district court's ruling on a motion under Rule 35 will be reversed "only for illegality or gross abuse of discretion." Id. (cites omitted). Therefore, the standard of review remains gross abuse of discretion.

2 United States v. Lewis

, 743 F.2d 1127, 1129 (5th Cir. 1984)

( quoting United States v. Sparrow
, 673 F.2d 862, 864 (5th Cir.

1982)). We have reviewed the record and considered the arguments

presented, and we do not find that the district court grossly

abused its discretion.

AFFIRMED.