alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
a) [Option One Mortgage logo]
www.optiononemortgage.com

Annual Compliance Certificate  I, Teji Singh, the undersigned, the duly authorized Chief Servicing Officer of Option One Mortgage Corporation (as "Servicer"), does hereby certify the following for the calendar year ending on December 31, 2006: 1.  A review of the activities of the Servicer during the preceding calendar year (or portion thereof) and of its performance under the Servicing Agreement (as defined in the cover letter) for such period has been made under my supervision. 2.  To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Servicer has fulfilled all of its obligations under the Servicing Agreement in all material respects throughout such year (or applicable portion thereof), except as disclosed on Appendix A. attached. Certified By: /s/: Teji Singh Name: Teji SIngh  Title: Chief Servicing Officer -- SVP Date:  March 15, 2007[Option One Mortgage logo]
www.optiononemortgage.com

APPENDIX A Criteria 1122(d)(1)(iv) Option One's fidelity bond insurance was less than FNMA requirements by approximately $5.4 million on average during the first six months of the year, and during such six month period reached up to $8.6 million less than the FNMA requirements. Upon discovery of the deficiency, Option One renewed the insurance policy on June 17, 2006 for coverage in excess of the FNMA requirements.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM SEC FORM
10-Q AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                              26
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      611
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                        502
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 1,682
<PP&E>                                           3,626
<DEPRECIATION>                                   1,944
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   5,191
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            1,906
<BONDS>                                          2,068
<COMMON>                                           698
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                              195
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                     (1,720)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     5,191
<SALES>                                          2,440
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 2,440
<CGS>                                            1,858
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    1,858
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     1
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  72
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    193
<INCOME-TAX>                                        68
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                125
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       120
<EPS-BASIC>                                       2.22<F1>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     2.08<F2>
<FN>
<F1>REPRESENTS BASIC EARNINGS PER SHARE AS DEFINED IN FASB STATEMENT NO. 128.
<F2>REPRESENTS DILUTED EARNINGS PER SHARE AS DEFINED IN FASB STATEMENT NO. 128.
</FN>
#### BAUDOT v. ABUNDANCE REALTY CORPORATION.

No. 14989.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. Orleans.

Oct. 29, 1934

Cameron C. McCann, of New Orleans, for appellant.

B. A. Dowling, of New Orleans, for appel-lee.

WESTEBFIELD, Judge.

This is a suit for damages by the daughter of a tenant against a landlord in which $21⁄8-353.75 is claimed as the result of an alleged fall in a cesspool on the leased premises.

Plaintiff alleges that on or about September 7, 1933,.while residing with her mother, Mrs. Leontine .Baudot, defendant’s tenant, she walked, into the yard for the purpose of hanging clothing on a clbthes line; that she stepped “on a cesspool manhole cover which ■turned open, causing petitioner to fall into the cesspool. She was submerged to her waist in the cesspool, which was full at the time.”. That in falling she struck her leg violently against the iron cover of the manhole, causing the formation of a hssmatoma, or blood tumor. She attributes the accident to the insecure fastening of the manhole cover, which, she says, slipped when she placed her weight upon it.

The defense is, in .effect, a general denial.

There was judgment below dismissing the suit and plaintiff has appealed.

Plaintiff’s case is supported by two witnesses, herself and her mother, both of whom testified that the iron manhole cover, though designed to be secured by two bolts, was held in place by *only*one, the missing bolt being substituted by a wooden peg; that when Miss Baudot walked upon it it slid open, causing her to fall in the pool.

On the other hand, the landlord testified that he visited the premises after the accident and found the cover securely in place. The builder of the cesspool testified that the cover fits into a groove three-eighths of an inch deep and that when in place the cover cannot slide. A plumber who connected the cesspool for the owner corroborated the builder as to the character of construction and added that he stood on the cover of the pool without having it slip or slide under his weight.

Under the circumstances we cannot say that the plaintiff has made out her case with legal certainty and that the judgment of the trial court upon the question df fact involved was manifestly erroneous.

For the reasons assigned the judgment appealed from is affirmed.

Affirmed.
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING

MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

OF FLORIDA

SECOND DISTRICT

JOHNATHAN SHARON, DOC #H53271, )

)

Appellant, )

)

v. ) Case No. 2D18-4306

)

STATE OF FLORIDA, )

)

Appellee. )

)

Opinion filed October 11, 2019.

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Polk

County; Wayne M. Durden, Judge.

Howard L. Dimmig, II, Public Defender,

and J.L. "Ray" LeGrande, Assistant Public

Defender, Bartow, for Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, 

Tallahassee, and Elba Caridad Martin, 

Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for

Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. 

KELLY, SALARIO, and ATKINSON, JJ., Concur.
**IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVA NIA** 

IN RE: APPOINTMENT TO COMMITTEE ON RULES OF EVIDENCE : : : : : No. 651 SUPREME COURT RULES DOCKET

**O R D E R**
**PER CURIA M:** 

AND NOW , this 31 st day of October , 201 4 , John P. Krill, Jr., Esquire, Dauphin County , is hereby appointed as a member of the Committee on Rules of Evidence for a term expiring October 1, 2017

.
**Exhibit 31.2**

 

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 302OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

I, Anthony Di Paola,Chief Financial Officer of FGX International Holdings Limited certify that:

 

1.*  *Ihave reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K/A of FGX InternationalHoldings Limited; and

 

2.*  *Basedon my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of amaterial fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statementsmade, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, notmisleading with respect to the period covered by this report.

 
| March 23, 2010 |   | /s/ ANTHONY DI  PAOLA    |
|---------------------|--------|-------------------------------|
|                |   | Anthony Di Paola              |
|                |   | *Chief  Financial Officer*    |
|                |   | (principal financial officer) |

 

----
#### George Quirk v. State.

No. 24758.

May 10, 1950.

*Chas. H. Dean,*Plainview, for appellant.

*Enos T. Jones,*County Attorney, Floydada, and *George P. Blackburn,*State’s Attorney, Austin, for the state.

GRAVES, Judge.

Appellant was convicted of the unlawful sale of intoxicating liquor in a dry area and fined $150.00 and given six months in jail; and also on the same information, he was convicted of the unlawful transportation of intoxicating liquor in such area and fined the sum of $150.00 and given a six-months’ jail sentence.

*566The testimony shows that on October 15, 1949, Bill Money, an inspector for the Texas Liquor Control Board, was in Floydada in Floyd County. He went to a taxi stand and contacted appellant. In their conversation he told appellant that he wanted to get another pint of whisky. Appellant told Money that he was out right at that time but there would be a load in within a few minutes, if he would come back. The inspector left but returned and waited at the stand. After awhile appellant came up in a taxi, went over to a new Plymouth car, and began to put some number plates thereon. The inspector told appellant that he wanted some whisky, and he and another man then got into the car. Appellant drove west about two blocks and turned, and then reached in his shirt and got a pint of whisky for which the inspector paid him $5.00. This transaction occurred on a public street in Floydada.

This is all the testimony save proof that Floyd County was a dry area as shown by the election and orders of the commissioners’ court.

Bills Nos. 1 and 2 are based upon the same proposition: that is, that when the liquor board employee was placed on the stand, he was asked "for what purpose” he came to Floyd County. His answer was that the sheriff of that county had asked him to try to catch some bootleggers. Bill No. 2 is also directed to a statement made by the county attorney upon the objection of appellant’s attorney that “it is our intention to try to bear that out.” In view of the evidence, we do not see how either of these statements could harm anyone. According to the testimony, with no denial thereof, it looks like the inspector caught a bootlegger, and the state’s intention relative to such is borne out.

One further bill of exception relates to the conversation allegedly had with appellant wherein the inspector testified that he told appellant that he wanted to get “another pint of whisky.” It is insisted that such a statement is an effort to show another and different offense than the ones herein complained of. While it may be true that such statement could be taken as an inference that the witness had purchased a further pint of whisky from appellant, still we think such statement was part of the res gestae of this transaction, and as such it would be admissible.

Finding no error in the record, the judgment will be affirmed.
No. 77-6023.

#### Clark *v.*United States.

C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.
##### 



Exhibit 15 Securities and Exchange Commission
450 Fifth Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20549 Commissioners: We are aware that our report dated July 23, 2004 on our review of the interim
financial information of Phelps Dodge Corporation (the Company) for the
three-month and six-month periods ended June 30, 2004 and 2003 and included in
the Companys quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2004
is incorporated by reference in its Registration Statements on Form S-3 (Nos.
333-104627, 333-67606, 333-61624 and 333-43890), Registration Statement and
Post-Effective Amendment No. 1 on Form S-3 (Nos. 33-44380 and 333-36415),
Registration Statements on Form S-8 (Nos. 33-26442, 33-6141, 33-26443,
33-29144, 33-19012, 2-67317, 33-34363, 33-34362, 33-62648, 333-117382,
333-42231 and 333-52175) and the Post-Effective Amendment No. 4 on Form S-8 to
the Registration Statement on Form S-4 (No. 333-86061). Very truly yours, /s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
Phoenix, Arizona
July 27, 2004
ex10-1amendonestockbenefit.htm






  





  











  








Exhibit 10.1







AMENDMENT NUMBER ONE


TO


HOME PROPERTIES, INC.


2011 STOCK BENEFIT PLAN












The 2011 Stock Benefit Plan (the “Plan”) of Home Properties, Inc. (the “Company”), is hereby amended as described below:







1.           Shares Subject to the Plan.  Section 2.5 shall be deleted in its entirety and replaced with the following:







“The maximum number of shares of Common Stock which may be subject to Awards granted under the Plan shall be the sum of: (i) Seven million (7,000,000); plus (ii) a number of shares equal to the number of shares remaining available for grant under the Company’s 2008 Stock Benefit Plan as of the Effective Date or which thereafter would have become available under such plan upon expiration of outstanding grants unexercised or the forfeiture of any outstanding grants, subject to adjustment as provided in Section 10.2.  The grant of any full value Award (i.e., an Award other than a Stock Option or a Stock Appreciation Right) shall be deemed, for purposes of determining the number of shares of Common Stock available for issuance under this Section 2.5, as an Award of 5.45 shares of Common Stock for each such share of Common Stock actually subject to the Award.  The grant of a Stock Option or a Stock Appreciation Right shall be deemed, for purposes of determining the number of shares of Common Stock available for issuance under this Section 2.5, as an Award for one share of Common Stock for each such share of Common Stock actually subject to the Award.  Any forfeiture, cancellation or other termination (other than by exercise) of such Awards shall be returned to the reserved pool of shares of Common Stock under the Plan in the same manner.  Notwithstanding the foregoing, the following shares of Common Stock shall not be added to the shares authorized for grant under the Plan:  (1) shares tendered or held back upon exercise of a Stock Option or settlement of an Award to cover the exercise price or tax withholding; and (2) shares, reserved for issuance upon the grant of a Stock Appreciation Right, to the extent the number of reserved shares exceeds the number of shares actually issued upon exercise of a Stock Appreciation Right.”


 


2.           Effective Date.  This Amendment Number One shall become effective upon being duly approved by the Stockholders of the Company.












Approved by the Stockholders


April 29, 2014
ex418form20f.htm




SECOND AMENDMENT TO


COOPERATIVE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT







This Second Amendment to Cooperative Development Agreement (“First Amendment”) is dated effective June 15, 2013 (“Effective Date”) by and between Peak Minerals Inc. (“Peak”) and LUMA Minerals LLC (“LUMA”).







Recitals







A.           Peak and LUMA entered into a certain Cooperative Development Agreement (“Agreement”) dated effective July 15, 2011, wherein the parties agreed, among other things, to enter into a unit agreement for the joint development and operation of certain Federal potash leases owned by the parties and certain State of Utah potash leases owned by Emerald Peak Minerals, LLC, all of which are located wholly or in part within the Sevier Playa located in Millard County, Utah.







B.           At the election of LUMA, the Agreement provided for certain cash and/or other consideration to be paid or delivered to LUMA by Peak on or before the Closing (as defined in the Agreement), subject to certain Closing conditions set forth in Section 6 of the Agreement.







C.           By a First Amendment to Cooperative Development Agreement dated June 27, 2012, but effective as of June 15, 2012, Peak and LUMA extended the Agreement from July 15, 2012 to July 15, 2013, for the reason that not all closing conditions had been met.







D.           As of the date of this Second Amendment not all of the Closing conditions have been met, the Closing has not yet occurred, and the parties wish to amend the Agreement to extend same for a term of one year.







NOW, THEREFORE, for good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, Peak and LUMA agree as follows:







1.           Extension of Term.  The parties hereby agree to extend the term of the Agreement from July 15, 2013 to July 15, 2014 (the “Second Extension”).  Except for the Second Extension, all terms, conditions, requirements, obligations and rights of the parties in and under the Agreement remain unchanged and in full force and effect and the parties hereby ratify and confirm same.







2.           Counterparts.  This Second Amendment may be executed and delivered by each part hereto in separate counterparts, each of which when so executed and delivered shall be deemed an original and all of which taken together shall constitute but one and the same Agreement.







AGREED to and accepted this 5th day of June, 2013, but effective as of June 15, 2013.








	
PEAK MINERALS, INC.

	
LUMA MINERALS LLC


	  	  
	
By: /s/ Lance D’Ambrosio

	
By: /s/ Luke R. Kline


	
Name: Lance D’Ambrosio

	
Name: Luke R. Kline


	
Title: CEO

	
Title: Partner
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION

In
connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Stratasys, Inc. (the
Company) for the period ended December 31, 2007, as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, S. Scott Crump,
Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350,
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 Company.





|Date: March 14,
      2008 | By: | /s/                           | S. SCOTTCRUMP | 
|-------------------------- | --- | ----------------------------- | ------------- | 
|                           |     | S.
      Scott Crump         
|                           |     | Chief
      Executive Officer

---
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 Transportation

###### Office of the Secretary 

Aviation Proceedings, Agreements filed the week ending August 8, 2008. 

The following Agreements were filed with the Department of Transportation under the Sections 412 and 414 of the Federal Aviation Act, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1383 and 1384) and procedures governing proceedings to enforce these provisions. Answers may be filed within 21 days after the filing of the application.

*Docket Number:*                     DOT-OST-2008-0241.                 

*Date Filed:*                     August 7, 2008.                 

*Parties:*                     Members of the International Air Transport Association.                 

*Subject:**Technical Correction:*                     Mail Vote 574—Resolution 010d, TC3 Within South East Asia, Special Passenger Amending Resolution, from Brunei Darussalam to Singapore (Memo 1232),                     *Intended effective date:*                     1 September 2008.                

*Docket Number:*                     DOT-OST-2008-0242.                 

*Date Filed:*                     August 8, 2008.                 

*Parties:*                     Members of the International Air Transport Association.                 

*Subject:*                     Mail Vote 573—Resolutions 010c.  TC3/TC23/TC31/TC123 Special Passenger Amending, Resolution to/from Japan (Memo 1470),                     *Intended effective date:*                     1 October 2008.                 

Renee V. Wright, 

Program Manager, Docket Operations Federal Register Liaison.

[FR Doc. E8-19286 Filed 8-19-08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910-9X-P
#### Central Fish Company, Respondent, v. Union Fish Company, Appellant.

Judgment and order affirmed, with costs. No opinion.
Exhibit



Exhibit 4.3



Amendment No. 1. to 
Stockholder Rights Agreement
This Amendment No. 1 to Stockholder Rights Agreement (the “Amendment”), is made as of November 6, 2019 by and between GrafTech International Ltd., a Delaware corporation (the “Company”), and BCP IV GrafTech Holdings LP, a limited partnership formed under the laws of Delaware (the “Initial Stockholder”), and amends that certain Stockholder Rights Agreement dated April 23, 2018 by and between the Company and the Initial Stockholder (the “Stockholder Rights Agreement”).  Capitalized terms used but not defined herein have the meaning ascribed in the Stockholder Rights Agreement.
1.       Section 1.1(f)(iv) of the Stockholder Rights Agreement is amended and restated in its entirety to read as follows:
(iv)       the Company shall reimburse (a) the Majority Approved Holders for (x) the value of the services of each Designated Director in an amount consistent with the compensation received by other members of the Board for services as such, and (y) to the extent a Designated Director serves as Chairman of the Board, the value of the service of such Designated Director in an amount consistent with any additional compensation as may be approved by the Unaffiliated Independent Directors of the Board for service as Chairman of the Board, and (b) reasonable, out-of-pocket and documented expenses incurred with respect to the attendance by the Designated Directors at meetings of the Board and its committees;
2.        Except as expressly provided for in this Amendment, no other term or provision of the Stockholder Rights Agreement is amended or modified in any respect.
[Signature pages follow]



IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have duly executed this Amendment by their authorized representatives as of the date first above written.


GRAFTECH INTERNATIONAL LTD.


By: /s/ Quinn J. Coburn    
Name: Quinn J. Coburn
		
	Title:
	Chief Financial Officer, Vice President Finance and Treasurer






BCP IV GRAFTECH HOLDINGS LP 
By its general partner, BPE IV (Non-Cdn) GP LP, 
By its general partner, Brookfield Capital Partners Ltd.,


/s/ Jaspreet Dehl    
Name: Jaspreet Dehl    
Title: Managing Partner & Secretary    


/s/ Arin Jonathan Silber    
Name: Arin Jonathan Silber
Title: Chairman of the Board