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








Exhibit 10.30
AVANTOR, INC.
NONQUALIFED STOCK OPTION AGREEMENT AMENDMENT
December 31, 2019
		
	Re:
	Avantor, Inc. (f/k/a Vail HoldCo Corp) Equity Incentive Plan


Amendment to Nonqualified Stock Option Agreement
Dear Bjorn Hofman:
Avantor, Inc. (f/k/a Vail Holdco Corp) (“Company”) is pleased to advise you that certain of the terms of the options granted to you as of December 13, 2017 (the “Grant”), under the Avantor, Inc. (f/k/a Vail HoldCo Corp) Equity Incentive Plan (the “Plan”) are hereby amended by this letter agreement (this “Agreement”). Unless otherwise expressly set forth herein, all capitalized terms used herein shall have the meaning given in your Grant.
1.    Amendments.
(a)    Section 6 of the Grant is hereby amended and restated in its entirety as provided below:
“Section 6.    Termination.    In the event of the Participant’s Termination, the Vested Portion shall remain exercisable until the tenth (10th) anniversary of the Date of Grant.”
2.    Effect of Amendment. Except as expressly set forth herein, this Agreement shall not by implication or otherwise limit, impair, constitute a waiver of, or otherwise affect, the rights and remedies of the parties under the Grant, and shall not alter, modify, amend or in any way affect any of the terms, conditions, obligations, covenants or agreements contained in the Grant, all of which are ratified and affirmed in all respects and shall continue in full force and effect. This Agreement shall apply and be effective only with respect to the provisions of the Grant specifically referred to herein.
3.    Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed simultaneously in two or more counterparts, each of which shall constitute an original, but all of which taken together shall constitute one and the same agreement.
4.    Descriptive Headings. The descriptive headings of this Agreement are inserted for convenience only and do not constitute a part of this Agreement.
5.    Governing Law. All questions concerning the construction, validity and interpretation of this Agreement shall be governed by, and construed in accordance with, the laws of the State of Delaware, without regard to the choice of law principles thereof.
*     *     *     *











Please execute the extra copy of this Agreement in the space below and return it to the General Counsel of the Company at its executive offices to confirm your understanding and acceptance of the terms and conditions of this Agreement. The effectiveness of this Agreement is conditioned upon your execution, delivery, and non-revocation of a general release on or around your last day of employment in the form of Annex 2 to the Employment Agreement you signed on or about November 12, 2017.
	
				
	 
	Very truly yours,

	 

	AVANTOR, INC.

	 

	By:
	/s/ Justin M. Miller

	 
	Name:
	Justin M. Miller

	Title:
	EVP & General Counsel




Enclosures: Copy of your Grant
The undersigned hereby acknowledges having read this Agreement and the Plan and hereby agrees to be bound by all provisions set forth herein and in the Plan.
Dated as of:
	
			
	December 31, 2019
	/s/ Bjorn Hofman

	Participant’s Signature
Exhibit
      23.1




**Consent
        of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm**
  We
        hereby
        consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements
        on Form
        S-3 (Nos. 333-95361, 333-33986, 333-37630, 333-45818, 333-49628, 333-59346,
        333-63514, 333-99559, 333-99673, 333-106420, 333-110729, 333-112611, 333-124959,
        333-124961, 333-128497 and 333-129713), and Form S-8 (Nos. 333-74197, 333-86728
        and 333-124960) of our report dated April 15, 2007, relating to the consolidated
        financial statements and schedule of Arotech Corporation appearing in the
        Form
        10-K for the year ended December 31, 2006, as amended.
  
 
 /s/
        BDO
        Seidman, LLP
 BDO Seidman, LLP
 
 
 
 Grand
        Rapids, Michigan
 June
        13,
        2007
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.                  

###### Small Business Administration

          - [Disaster Declaration # 11342]

# AGENCY:

U.S. Small Business Administration.

# ACTION:

Amendment 1.

# SUMMARY:

This is an amendment of the Presidential declaration of a major disaster for Public Assistance Only for the State of Texas (FEMA-1780-DR), dated 07/24/2008.

*Incident:*                         Hurricane Dolly.                    

*Incident Period:*                         07/22/2008 through 08/01/2008.                    

*Effective Date:*                         08/01/2008.                    

*Physical Loan Application Deadline Date:*                         09/22/2008.                    

# ADDRESSES:

Submit completed loan applications to: U.S. Small Business Administration, Processing and Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

M. Mitravich, Office of Disaster Assistance, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street, SW., Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The notice of the President's major disaster declaration for Private Non-Profit organizations in the State of Texas, dated 07/24/2008, is hereby amended to establish the incident period for this disaster as beginning 07/22/2008 and continuing through 08/01/2008.

All other information in the original declaration remains unchanged.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Number 59008)

Herbert L. Mitchell,

Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance.

[FR Doc. E8-18911 Filed 8-14-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8025-01-P
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
      This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from Form
10-QSB for the quarterly period ended September 30, 1996 and is qualified in its
entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                                   SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                         5,554       
<SECURITIES>                                   0           
<RECEIVABLES>                                  152,354     
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0           
<INVENTORY>                                    1,160,846   
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               1,324,105     
<PP&E>                                         871,170      
<DEPRECIATION>                                 855,035      
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 1,340,240     
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          815,924      
<BONDS>                                        1,218,400     
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0           
<PREFERRED>                                    0           
<COMMON>                                       964,394      
<OTHER-SE>                                     (1,658,478)   
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   1,340,240     
<SALES>                                        2,054,844     
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               114,640      
<CGS>                                          1,940,284     
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  2,537,306     
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               0           
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0           
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             82,921       
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (482,382)    
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0           
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (482,382)    
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0           
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0           
<CHANGES>                                      0           
<NET-INCOME>                                   (482,382)    
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  (.28)       
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (.28)
        


</TABLE>
#### Elie MEAUX and Alma Meaux, His Wife, v. GULF INSURANCE CO. et al.*

No. 1851.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. First Circuit.

June 14, 1938.

Lewis & Lewis, of Opelousas, for appellants.

James Domengeaux and Welton P. Mouton, both of Lafayette, for appellees.

LE BLANC, Judge.

This is one of the three consolidated suits referred to in the opinion in the suit of Elie Meaux versus this same defendant, La.App., 182 So. 158, this, day handed down by the court, and which opinion was made to serve in all three cases. The facts relating to liability and to damages claimed in this suit are therein fully discussed.

For the reasons therein stated it is now ordered, adjudged and decreed that the judgment appealed from in this case be and the same is hereby amended by reducing the amount of the award made in favor of Elie Meaux from the sum of $2682.68 to the sum of $1682.68, and the amount of the award in favor of Mrs. Alma Meaux from the sum of $2500.00 to the sum of $1500.00, and that as thus amended the judgment be affirmed.
I 

117TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 6032 

To take certain Federal lands located in Siskiyou County, California, and 

Humboldt County, California, into trust for the benefit of the Karuk 

Tribe, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

NOVEMBER 18, 2021 

Mr. HUFFMAN introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Natural Resources 

A BILL 

To take certain Federal lands located in Siskiyou County, 

California, and Humboldt County, California, into trust 

for the benefit of the Karuk Tribe, and for other purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Katimiıˆn and 

5 Ameekya ́araam Sacred Lands Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. LAND HELD IN TRUST FOR THE KARUK TRIBE. 

7 (a) IN GENERAL.—In recognition of the historical use 

8 and ongoing relationship between the Karuk Tribe and the 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 6032 IH

1 Katimiıˆn and Ameekya ́araam tracts of land in the ances2 tral territory of the Karuk Tribe, administrative jurisdic3 tion of these tracts of land are hereby transferred from 

4 the Secretary of Agriculture to the Secretary of the Inte5 rior and held in trust for the benefit of the Karuk Tribe, 

6 subject to valid existing rights. 

7 (b) LAND DESCRIPTION.—The land taken into trust 

8 pursuant to subsection (a) is the approximately 1,031 

9 acres of Federal land located in Siskiyou County, Cali10 fornia, and Humboldt County, California, and generally 

11 depicted as ‘‘Proposed Area’’ on the map titled ‘‘Katimiin 

12 AreaBoundary Proposal’’ and dated 08–09–2021, includ13 ing improvements and appurtenances thereto. 

14 (c) SURVEY.—Not later than 180 days after the date 

15 of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of the Interior 

16 shall complete a survey of the land taken into trust under 

17 subsection (a). 

18 (d) USE OF LAND.— 

19 (1) IN GENERAL.—Land taken into trust under 

20 subsection (a) shall be used only for traditional and 

21 customary uses for the benefit of the Karuk Tribe. 

22 (2) GAMING.—Class II and class III gaming 

23 under the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 

24 2701 et seq.) shall not be allowed on the land taken 

25 into trust under subsection (a). 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 6032 IH

1 (e) WILD AND SCENIC RIVERS MANAGEMENT.—The 

2 fact that the land described in subsection (b) is held in 

3 trust for the benefit of the Karuk Tribe shall not affect 

4 the status or administration of any component of the na5 tional wild and scenic rivers system, including components 

6 located on such land. 

Æ 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 03-6747

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

TREVOR LITTLE, a/k/a Tragedy, a/k/a Trag,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern

District of West Virginia, at Charleston. Charles H. Haden II,

District Judge. (CR-95-198)

Submitted: July 10, 2003 Decided: July 17, 2003

Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Trevor Little, Appellant Pro Se. Kasey Warner, United States

Attorney, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Trevor Little appeals the district court’s order accepting the

recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying his motions for

correction or reduction of sentence pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P.

35. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error.

Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district

court. See United States v. Little, No. CR-95-198 (S.D.W. Va. Apr.

24, 2003). 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
#### Margaret Lucy, as Administratrix de Bonis Non of Timothy Lucy, Deceased, Respondent, v. American Bridge Company, Appellant.

Judgment and order affirmed, with costs. All concurred, except Kellogg, J., not voting,
Hon. R. H. Cory, Chairman, OpinionNo. M-70

State Affairs Committee House of Representatives Re: Constltutlonalltyof Austin, Texas H.B. 1187, 60th Legislature,Regular Bear RepresentativeGory: Session, 1967.

You ask the opinion of this office as to whether House Bill Number 1187, now pending In the 60th Legislature, Regular Session, 1967, is constitutional.

This Bill, In creating appraisal service districts and boards for the appraisal and assessment of all real property and certain types of personal property for the purpose of taxation, entirely eliminates the County Tax Assessor and Collector from the performance of such duties and therefore conflictswith and Is antagonistictoSection 14 of Article VIII of the Texas Constitution,which provides:

"Sec. 14. Except as provided in Section 16 of this Article, there shallbe elected by the qualified voters of each county, an Assessor and Collector of Taxes,who shall hold his office for fouryears and until his successor is elected and qualified; and such Assessor and Collector of Texes shall perform all the dutieswith respect to assessingproperty for the purpose of taxationand of collectingtaxes, asmay be prescribedby the Legislature:'As amended Nov. 8, 1932; Nov. 2, 1954. Since the Constitutionprovides that the CountyTax Assessor and Collector "shallperform all the dutieswith respect to assessingproperty for the purpose of taxation", and this necessarily includes the duty of appraisalwhich la the setting of the valuation of taxableproperty for the purpose of taxation, it Is evident that House Bill 1187 is In violation of Section 14 of ArticleVIII of the Texas Constitution.

-320-Hon. R. H. Gory,page 2 (M-70)

The appraisal to bemade by the Appraisal Service Dlstrlct Board as provided in the Act Is not advisory to the Tax Assessor and Collector as the Act specificallyprovides in Section 5(b) that the appraisalmade by such Board "shall be used by all taxing &rlsdfctlons within the county'.- -(Emphasisadded)

It appears that other sections of this bill also violate other provisions of ArticleVIII which would render It unconstitutional;however, since the bill clearlyviolates Sec. 14 of Art. VIII, there is no necessity for discussing these various provisions.

SUMMARY ------- House Bill 1187, 60th Legislature of Texas, Regular Session, 1967, IS unconstitutional. It violates Section 14 of ArticleVIII of the Texas Constitution as well as other Sections of said ArticleVIII. YjaGrs very truly,

Preparedby: W. E. Allen and William J. Craig Assistant Attorneys General
APPROVED; OPINION COMMITTEE Hawthorne Phillips, Chairman W. V. Geppert, Co-Chairman V. C. Taylor Kerns B. Taylor Nell Wllllams Arthur Sandlln
STAFF LEGAL ASSISTANT A, J. Carubbl, Jr.

- 321 -
#### Michael Neikam, Appellant, v County of Suffolk et al., Respondents.

[675 NYS2d 900]

In an action to recover damáges for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Doyle, J.), dated July 24, 1997, which denied his motion which was, in effect, to reargue the defendants’ motion for summary judgment.

Ordered that the appeal is dismissed, with costs.

The Supreme Court denied the plaintiffs motion, denomi*417nated as one for renewal and reargument. Inasmuch as this motion was not based upon new evidence which was unavailable upon the original motion, the motion was actually one for reargument *(see, Lawless v O’Brien,*222 AD2d 657). Thus, the appeal must be dismissed, because no appeal lies from an order denying reargument *(see, Segale v Nu Wave Mar.,*244 AD2d 326). Rosenblatt, J. P., O’Brien, Altman and Friedmann, JJ., concur.
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1

Consent Of Independent Certified Public Accountants


Microelectronic Packaging, Inc.
San Diego, California


We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statement on Form S-8 (No. 333-06677) of our report dated March 16, 1998
relating to the consolidated financial statements of Microelectronic Packaging,
Inc., and of our report dated March 16, 1998 relating to the schedule, appearing
in the Company's Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31,
1997.  Our report contains an explanatory paragraph regarding the Company's
ability to continue as a going concern.


/s/BDO Seidman, LLP
BDO SEIDMAN, LLP


Costa Mesa, California
March 30, 1998
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 95-7926
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus WILLIAM F. BRAHAM, Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Elkins. Robert Earl Maxwell, District Judge. (CR-90-168, CA-95-88) Submitted: January 18, 1996 Decided: February 8, 1996 Before HAMILTON and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges, and CHAPMAN, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. William F. Braham, Appellant Pro Se. Sherry L. Muncy, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Elkins, West Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (1988) motion. 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. United States v. Braham , Nos. CR-90-168; CA-95-88 (N.D.W. Va. Oct. 2, 1995). 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
Exhibit 12.1

PROTECTION ONE, INC.

COMPUTATION OF RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES
(IN THOUSANDS)
(UNAUDITED)

|                                                      |                                                                 | PROTECTION ONE    |        
|----------------------------------------------------- | --------------------------------------------------------------- | ----------------- | -------
|
|Earnings:                                             |                                                                 |                   |        
|                                                      | Pretax loss from continuing operations before accounting change |                   | $      
|                                                      | Adjustments:                                                    |                   |        
|                                                      |                                                                 | Fixed charges (B) |        
|                                                      |                                                                 |                   |        
|Earnings as adjusted (A)                              |                                                                 |                   | (11,804
|                                                      |                                                                 |                   |        
|Ratio of earnings to fixed charges (A) divided by (B) |                                                                 |                   | (0.29  
|Deficiency of earnings to fixed charges               |                                                                 |                   | 51,905 

---
#### George A. Schusler, as Administrator, etc., of Louis Schusler, Deceased, Respondent, v. Erie Railroad Company, Appellant.

Judgment and order unanimously affirmed, with costs.