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








Exhibit 10.55


Amendment to OPTION Agreement
(Anti-dilution option)


This Amendment (“Amendment”) to the Option Agreement, effective as of April 18, 2013 (“Option Agreement”) between David McGlade (the “Executive”) and Intelsat S.A. (f/k/a Intelsat Global Holdings S.A.) is entered into by the undersigned parties and is effective as of October 24, 2014.


1.Section 2(c) of the Option Agreement is amended to read as follows:
“Unless earlier terminated pursuant to the terms of this Agreement, the Option shall expire on February 4, 2023, and the Employee shall thereafter cease to have any rights in respect thereof.”
2.Sections 6(a) and 6(c) of the Option Agreement are each amended by replacing the phrase “the first anniversary” with the phrase “the third anniversary”, each time it occurs.
3.Section 6(b) of the Option Agreement is amended by replacing the phrase “ninety (90) days following” with the phrase “the third anniversary of”.  
4.For the sake of clarity, as contemplated by the definition of “Termination of Employment” in the Plan, if the Employee’s employment with the Company and its Subsidiaries terminates but the Employee continues to provide services to the Company and its Subsidiaries in a non-employee capacity, such change in status shall not be deemed a Termination of Employment.
5.As amended and modified by this Amendment, the Option Agreement shall remain in full force and effect. 
6.If there is any conflict between the terms of the Option Agreement and this Amendment, the terms of this Amendment shall prevail.




        
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Amendment as of October 24, 2014.


 
INTELSAT S.A.




By: /s/ Michelle V. Bryan
     Name:  Michelle V. Bryan
     Title:  Executive Vice President, General Counsel
and Chief Administrative Officer






THE EXECUTIVE 




/s/ David P. McGlade
 David P. McGlade
#### Mary White, Respondent, v. Daniel Murphy, Appellant.

Judgment of the Municipal Court affirmed, with costs. Ho opinion. Woodward, Hooker, Gaynor, Rich and Miller, JJ., concurred.
|                  (1) | the Form 10-Q 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 Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of PG&E Corporation. |
|                                                                                                      |                                                                                                                                         |

|      |                                             |
|--------------------------|--------------------------------------------------|
|                     | PETER A. DARBEE                                  |
|                     | PETER A. DARBEE                                  |
|                     | Chairman, Chief Executive Officer, and President |
|                     |                                             |

----

|                  (1) | the Form 10-Q 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 Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of PG&E Corporation. |
|                                                                                                      |                                                                                                                                         |

|   |                                              |
|--------|---------------------------------------------------|
|   | KENT. M. HARVEY                                   |
|   | KENT M. HARVEY                                    |
|   | Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer |
|   |                                              |
|   |                                              |
**Exhibit      32.1**

**CERTIFICATION      OF **

**CHIEF      EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER **

**PURSUANT      TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350**

|   | 1. | Such                Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ending September                30, 2008, 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 such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for                the period ending September 30, 2008, fairly presents, in all                material respects, the financial condition and results of operations                of                China Advanced Construction Materials Group,                Inc. |
|--------|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Date:                November __, 2008                                                                                            |   |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
|                                                                                                                              |   |
| */s/Xianfu                Han*                                                                                                    |   |
| Xianfu                HanPrinicipal                Executive Officer andPrincipal                Financial and Accounting Officer |   |
EXHIBIT 15.1.  LETTER REGARDING UNAUDITED INTERIM FINANCIAL
               INFORMATION



To the Board of Directors and Stockholders
Optical Coating Laboratory, Inc.:



Re:  Registration Statements No. 33-41050, No. 33-26271, No. 33-
12276, No. 33-48808, No. 33-65132 and No. 33-60891 on Forms S-8
and Registration Statements No. 33-61177 and No. 33-65319 on
Forms S-3.

With respect to the subject registration statements, we
acknowledge our awareness of the use therein of our report dated
August 15, 1997 related to our review of interim financial
information of Flex Products, Inc.

Pursuant to Rule 436(c) under the Securities Act of 1933, such
report is not considered part of a registration statement
prepared or certified by an accountant or a report prepared or
certified by an accountant within the meaning of sections 7 and
11 of the Act.


KPMG Peat Marwick LLP
San Francisco, California

September 14, 1998
----

|   | (i) | The      accompanying Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31,      2007 (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a)      or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as      amended; and |
|--------|-----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

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

| Date:  February      22, 2008 | /s/  JEFFREY      S. OLSON   |
|-----------------------------------------|----------------------------------------|
|                                    |                                   |
|                                    | Jeffrey      S. Olson                  |
|                                    | Chief      Executive Officer           |
|                                    |                                   |
|                                    |                                   |
|                                    |                                   |
| Date:  February      22, 2008 | /s/  GREGORY      R. ANDREWS |
|                                    |                                   |
|                                    | Gregory      R. Andrews                |
|                                    | Executive      Vice President and      |
|                                    | Chief      Financial Officer           |

----
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

     I,  Dennis  Sunshine, Chief Executive Officer of Orbit International Corp.,
certify,  pursuant to 18 U.S.C.   1350, as enacted by  906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act  of  2002,  that:
(1)     the  Quarterly  Report on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended March
31, 2008 (the "Periodic Report") which this statement accompanies fully complies
with  the  requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act
of  1934;  and
(2)     information  contained  in  the  Periodic Report fairly presents, in all
material  respects,  the  financial condition and results of operations of Orbit
International  Corp.

Dated: May 15, 2008
                                   /s/ Dennis Sunshine
                                   -------------------
                                   Dennis Sunshine
                                   Chief Executive Officer

A  signed  original  of this written statement required by Section 906, or other
document  authenticating, acknowledging or otherwise adopting the signature that
appears  in  typed  form within the electronic version of this written statement
required by Section 906, has been provided to Orbit International Corp. and will
be  retained  by  Orbit  International Corp. and furnished to the Securities and
Exchange  Commission  or  its  staff  upon  request.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Energy

###### Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 

          - [Docket No. ER08-1242-000] 

Take notice that on July 9, 2008, Northern Indiana Public Service Company filed a Notice of Cancellation of the Market-Based Rate Tariff of Sugar Creek Power Company. 

Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. On or before the comment date, it is not necessary to serve motions to intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant. 

                    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at                     *http://www.ferc.gov*. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426.                 

                    This filing is accessible on-line at                     *http://www.ferc.gov*, using the “eLibrary” link and is available for review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an “eSubscription” link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail                     *FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov*, or call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.                 

*Comment Date:*                     5 p.m. Eastern Time on August 15, 2008.                 

Kimberly D. Bose, 

Secretary.

[FR Doc. E8-18668 Filed 8-12-08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

DARRYL ALEXANDER and EDNA

ALEXANDER,

Plaintiffs,

v.

DEL MONTE CORPORATION and THE

KROGER COMPANY,

Defendants.

 /

Case No. 09-cv-12303

Honorable Patrick J. Duggan

ORDER

 At a session of said Court, held in the U.S.

District Courthouse, Eastern District 

of Michigan, on October 18, 2010.

PRESENT: THE HONORABLE PATRICK J. DUGGAN

U.S. DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

The Court has reviewed the Motion for Summary Judgment brought by Del Monte

Corporation and The Kroger Company, and considered the arguments of counsel at a

hearing held on October 14, 2010. For the reasons stated on the record, 

IT IS ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED

as to Count I of Plaintiffs’ Complaint, “Violation of the Michigan Food Law of 2000,” and

DENIED as to Plaintiffs’ remaining claims.

s/PATRICK J. DUGGAN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Copies to:

Mark F. Miller, Esq.

Jack O. Kalmink, Esq.
#### Paul Schwarz, Appellant, *v.*Minnie J. Robinson and Others, Defendants. Eugene G. Kremer, Witness, Respondent.

First Department,

December 31, 1908.

Discovery — examination of witness to effect service by publication.

Plaintiff in an action for partition should be allowed to examine a witness who filled in the name of the grantee of the premises, in order to discover the grantee’s age and whereabouts and the facts necessary to be shown in order to procure an order for the service of the summons by publication.

Appeal by the plaintiff, Paul Schwarz, from an order of the Supreme Court, made at the Hew York- Special Term and entered in the office of the clerk of the county of Hew York on the 1st day of December, 1908, vacating an order for the examination of a witness.

Action to partition real estate. A conveyance of the property did not contain any means by which to identify the grantee and an attorney who had’filled in the name of the grantee refused to make affidavit as to her age and 'whereabouts or other facts necessary to be shown in order to procure an order for service of the summons by publication.

*Edmund L.*Mooney, for the appellant.

*John*Davis, for the respondent.

Per Curiam:

We think that the plaintiff was entitled to examine the witness in relation to his knowledge as to the defendant Eobinson.

The order appealed from should be reversed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, and the order for examination reinstated; the time for the examination of the witness to be fixed on the settlement of the order to be entered hereon.

Present — Ingraham, McLaughlin, Clarke, Houghton and Scott, JJ.

Order reversed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, and order for examination reinstated. Settle order on notice.
```

[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 156 (Tuesday, August 12, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Page 46924]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-18585]

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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

[TA-W-63,617]

Comprehensive Logistic, Inc., Including Leased Workers of Source 
Providers, Inc., Youngstown, Ohio; Notice of Termination of 
Investigation

    Pursuant to Section 221 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, an 
investigation was initiated on June 30, 2008, in response to a worker 
petition filed by a company official on behalf of workers of 
Comprehensive Logistics, Inc., including leased workers of Source 
Providers, Inc. employed on-site at the Ford Motor Company, Louisville 
Assembly Plant, Vehicle Operations Division, Louisville, Kentucky.
    The petitioning group of workers is covered by an active 
certification, (TA-W-62,214 as amended) which expires on November 8, 
2009. Consequently, further investigation in this case would serve no 
purpose, and the investigation has been terminated.

    Signed at Washington, DC, this 31st day of July 2008.
Richard Church,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. E8-18585 Filed 8-11-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P
```
<PAGE>


Exhibit 23.1



                       Consent of Independent Accountants



We consent to the  incorporation by reference in the registration  statements of
Equity Inns,  Inc. on Form S-3 (File Nos.  333-26559,  33-99840 and 33-90364) of
our report dated  January 22, 1998 on our audits of the  consolidated  financial
statements and financial  statement schedule of Equity Inns, Inc. as of December
31, 1997 and 1996,  and for each of the three years in the period ended December
31, 1997 which report is included in this Annual Report on Form 10-K.


COOPERS & LYBRAND L.L.P.






Memphis, Tennessee
March 10, 1998
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-4855

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus JESSIE SCOTT, Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. T. S. Ellis, III, District Judge. (CR-04-453) Submitted: February 28, 2006 Decided: March 16, 2006 Before NIEMEYER, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Bruce A. Johnson, Jr., BRUCE A. JOHNSON, JR., L.L.C., Bowie, Maryland, for Appellant. Paul J. McNulty, United States Attorney, Owen M. Kendler, Special Assistant United States Attorney, G. David Hackney, Assistant United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 2 - PER CURIAM: Jessie Scott appeals his conviction by a jury of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute more than fifty grams of crack cocaine and more than five kilograms of cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846 (2000), and possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime, in violation of 18 U.S.C.A. § 924(c)(1) (West 2000 & Supp. 2005). He contends that the district court erred by denying his motion for judgment of acquittal pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. 29, and that the Government failed to prove that venue was proper. We affirm. Scott contends that the evidence did not support his conspiracy and § 924(c) convictions. We review de novo the district court’s denial of a Rule 29 motion. United States v. Alerre , 430 F.3d 681, 693 (4th Cir. 2005). Where, as here, the motion was based on a claim of insufficient evidence, “[t]he verdict of a jury must be sustained if there is substantial evidence, taking the view most favorable to the Government, to support it.” Glasser v. United States , 315 U.S. 60, 80 (1942). We have reviewed the trial testimony in the joint appendix and are convinced that the evidence was sufficient to convict Scott. See United States v. Strickland , 245 F.3d 368, 384-85 (4th Cir. 2001) (discussing elements of conspiracy offense); United States v. Wilson , 135 F.3d 291, 305 (4th Cir. 1998) (upholding § 924(c) conviction based on acts of co-conspirator); see alsoUnited- 3 - States v. Sun , 278 F.3d 302, 313 (4th Cir. 2002) (“[W]e do not review the credibility of the witnesses and assume the jury resolved all contradictions in the testimony in favor of the government.”). Scott also asserts that the Government failed to prove that venue was proper in the Eastern District of Virginia. The trial testimony belies his claim. SeeUnited States v. Bowens , 224 F.3d 302, 311 n.4 (4th Cir. 2000) (recognizing that “in a conspiracy charge, venue is proper for all defendants wherever the agreement was made or wherever any overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy transpires”). Accordingly, we affirm Scott’s convictions. 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