alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 10.4

 

THIRD AMENDMENT TO 2013 EQUITY COMPENSATION PLAN

 

SFX Entertainment, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the “Company”), hereby adopts this Amendment (this “Amendment”) to the 2013 Equity Compensation Plan (the ‘Plan”).

 

WITNESSETH

 

WHEREAS, the Company’s Board of Directors (the “Board”) has adopted the Plan and the Company’s stockholders have ratified the Plan;

 

WHEREAS, the Plan currently provides that the maximum aggregate number of shares of common stock of the Company (“Company Stock”) that may be issued or transferred under the Plan is 18,000,000 shares;

 

WHEREAS, the Company desires to amend the Plan to increase the number of shares of Company Stock that may be issued under the Plan by 2,000,000 shares to a total of 20,000,000 shares of Company Stock; and

 

WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 13 of the Plan, the Company may amend the Plan.

 

NOW, THEREFORE, the Plan is hereby amended as follows:

 

1.                                      The first sentence of Section 3 of the Plan is hereby amended in its entirety to read as follows:

 

“Subject to adjustment as described below, the aggregate number of shares of common stock of the Company (“Company Stock”) that may be issued or transferred under the Plan is 20,000,000 and the maximum aggregate number of shares that may be issued under the Plan as Incentive Stock Options is 20,000,000.”

 

2.                                      Except as expressly amended hereby, the Plan shall remain unchanged and in full force and effect.

 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company has caused this Amendment to be duly executed as of the effective date written above.

 

	
 
    	
SFX   ENTERTAINMENT, INC.
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
By:
    	
/s/ Robert F.X. Sillerman
    
	
 
    	
Name:
    	
Robert F.X. Sillerman
    
	
 
    	
Title:
    	
Chief Executive Officer
    
	
 
    	
Date:
    	
June 5, 2014
News United States Air Force
 Around the Air Force: June 22Published June 22, 2018
                        
                        By Staff Sgt. Robert Kingery
                        
                        
                        Air Force TV
                
                **FORT GEORGE G. MEADE, Md. (AFNS)** – On this look Around the Air Force B-1B operations resume, Airmen and Norwegian personnel test joint strike missiles, and Eagle Vision provides current satellite imagery to aid during hurricane season. Hosted by Staff Sgt. Robert Kingery. 
For previous episodes, click **here** for the Air Force TV page.
Related links:
- **B-1B resumes flight operations**
- **Edwards AFB squadron completes Joint Strike Missile test program**
- **Eagle Vision program highlights International and Total Force partnership**ATAF 



Air Force TV 



Around the Air Force 



JSM 



Eagle Vision 



B-1 



Joint Strike Missile 



Norwegian
Exhibit 10.15


 


ADDENDUM No. 3


 

	 	To the Charter Party Hull No. S4010
tbn “MSC Athens” dated 28th January 2011
  	 



 


It has been mutually agreed between


 


Messrs JODIE SHIPPING CO., of Liberia, as Owners


 


and


 


Messrs MSC - MEDITERRANEAN SHIPPING COMPANY S.A., of Geneva,
as Charterers


 


that:


 


Clause 36 second para is hereby deleted and replaced as follows:


 


“Charterers to take over and pay for bunkers on delivery
according to the purchase prices of bunkers ex shipyard and Owners to take over and pay for bunkers on redelivery according to
Platt’s Oilgram Bunkers wire mean prices at the port of redelivery or at the nearest port valid the date of redelivery”.


 


All other terms, conditions and exceptions of the Charter Party
and Addenda thereto to remain in force, unaltered.


 


	The Owners	 	The Charterers
	 	 	 
	/s/ K. V. Konstantakopoulos	 	/s/ MSC MEDITERRANEAN SHIPPING COMPANY CO S.A.
	K. V. Konstantakopoulos

Director	 	MSC MEDITERRANEAN SHIPPING COMPANY CO S.A.
	 	 	 
	28th March 2013.
News United States Air Force
 Nomination window open for 2018 USAF Alison Award for Character and InnovationPublished Dec. 21, 2017
                        
                        By  Kat Bailey
                        
                        
                        Air Force’s Personnel Center Public Affairs
                **JOINT BASE SAN ANTONIO-RANDOLPH, Texas  --**
                Nomination packages for the 2018 U.S. Air Force Alison Award for Character and Innovation are due to the Air Force’s Personnel Center by May 31, 2018. 
  
The U.S. Air Force Academy Falcon Foundation established the award to recognize a commissioned officer who exemplifies the Air Force core values. The foundation sponsors the award in recognition of demonstrated outstanding character and innovation in a single act or a series of related events during a single year. The recipient will receive the award at the annual Falcon Foundation Banquet in October 2018 at the Air Force Academy.  
Maj. Gen. John R. Alison, for whom the award was named, was a highly decorated World War II combat ace and veteran of the Korean War who became known as the father of Air Force Special Operations. On his death, Alison's family asked that donations in his honor be sent to the Falcon Foundation and the Air Force Association.  
Organizations and base-level personnel must contact their major or combatant command, forward operating agency, direct reporting unit or MAJCOM-equivalent for applicable suspense dates and additional information regarding nomination procedures. 
Each MAJCOM, COCOM, FOA, DRU and MAJCOM-equivalent may submit one nomination.
Find additional information about nomination eligibility criteria, process and other specifics on myPers using a CAC-enabled computer. Select “Any” from the dropdown menu and search “Alison.” Prior to posting the list on myPers, AFPC provided senior raters with advanced knowledge of their officers’ selection to allow notification through the chain of command.

For more information about Air Force personnel programs, go to myPers. Individuals who do not have a myPers account can request one by following these instructions.nomination 



awards 



innovation 



Air Force Academy 



officer 



Air Force Personnel Center 



core values 



character 



Alison Award 



AFPC
Exhibit
32.1


CERTIFICATIONS
PURSUANT TO


18 U.S.C.
SECTION 1350,


AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002








Certification
of Chief Executive Officer





Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the
undersigned officer of Temecula Valley Bancorp Inc. (the “Company”) hereby
certificates, to such officer’s knowledge, that:





1.           the
Annual Report on Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2007 (“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





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/ Stephen H.
Wacknitz


Stephen
H. Wacknitz


Chairman,
President and


Chief
Executive Officer














Certification
of Chief Financial Officer





Pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned officer of Temecula Valley Bancorp
Inc. (the “Company”) hereby certificates, to such officer’s knowledge,
that:





1.           the
Annual Report on Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2007 (“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





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/ Donald A.
Pitcher


Donald
A. Pitcher


EVP/Chief
Financial Officer





The
foregoing certifications are being furnished solely to accompany the Report
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, and are not being filed for purposes of Section 18
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and are not to be
incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company, whether made before or
after the date hereof, regardless of any general incorporation language in such
filing.




A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to
the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities
and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### Sheldon *v.*Allerton and others.

The allowance in addition to the costs, under section 263 and 264 of the code of procedure of 1848, will be what the court deem a reasonable and moderate counsel fee in the cause.

January 20, 1849.

In this case the suit was for the foreclosure of a mortgage. There were numerous parties defendant, three of whom put in separate answers. The cause was noticed for trial, and finally *631an inquest was taken for about three thousand five hundred dollars as the amount due. The plaintiff claimed an allowance under the code in addition to the costs, and the court, after hearing the defendants’ counsel, allowed him two per cent, on the amount recovered. The court held, that in making these allowances, it would be governed by what appeared to be a reasonable and moderate counsel fee under the circumstances of each case.

*H. P.*Hastings, for the plaintiff.

*A. L. Pinney,*for the defendants.
```

[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 71 (Tuesday, May 2, 1995)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E921-E922]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

                TRIBUTE TO STEVEN F. WINDMUELLER, PH.D.

                                 ______

                       HON. ANTHONY C. BEILENSON

                             of california

                         HON. HOWARD L. BERMAN

                             of california

                          HON. HENRY A. WAXMAN

                             of california

                    in the house of representatives

                          Tuesday, May 2, 1995
  Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, we are honored to pay tribute to our dear 
friend, Steven Windmueller, who is retiring after a decade of 
distinguished service to the Jewish Community Relations Committee of 
the Jewish Federation Council of Los Angeles.
  Steven's career reflects a lifelong commitment to the enhancement of 
Jewish education and community relations. Since 1969, he has actively 
initiated, supervised, and directed a host of programs to further these 
goals. In recognition of this dedication, Steven was recently honored 
by the Jewish Communal Professionals Association of Southern 
California, as well as by Operation Unity, a project dedicated to 
improving intergroup relations in Los Angeles.
  In addition to his full-time employment with JCRC and his service to 
a host of community service endeavors, Steven utilizes his doctorate in 
international relations as an adjunct faculty member for the Hebrew 
Union College's 
[[Page E922]] Irwin Daniel School of Jewish Communal Service. He also 
serves as a guest lecturer for the University of Judaism's Department 
of Continuing Education. Widely published in both professional journals 
and the press, Steven has authored over 20 articles on community 
relations issues and Jewish public policy concerns. In addition, he 
appears frequently as a speaker and consultant for local and national 
media, as well as for community and civic groups.
  Mr. Speaker, in honor of his deep devotion, and in recognition of his 
lifelong achievements, we ask our colleagues to join us today in 
saluting Steven Windmueller. He is truly a credit to the field of 
Jewish education and community relations, and he has our sincerest 
admiration and congratulations.

                          ____________________
```
**EXHIBIT 31.2**
**CERTIFICATIONS**
I, Anne M. VanLent, certify that:
 1.  I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Barrier Therapeutics, Inc.;  2.  Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of amaterial fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, inlight of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading withrespect to the period covered by this report;  3.  Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial informationincluded in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financialcondition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, theperiods presented in this report;  4.  The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishingand maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:
 (a)  Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused suchdisclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, toensure that material information relating to the registrant, including itsconsolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities,particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;  (b)  Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controlsand procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about theeffectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of theperiod covered by this report based on such evaluation; and  (c)  Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s mostrecent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of anannual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely tomaterially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.
 5.  The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our mostrecent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’sauditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or personsperforming the equivalent functions):
 (a)  All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the designor operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonablylikely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarizeand report financial information; and  (b)  Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management orother employees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal controlover financial reporting.
Date: March 25, 2005    ANNE M. VANLENT   Anne M. VanLent Executive Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer (Principal financial officer)
News United States Air Force
 December enlisted in-system, SNCO board supplemental promotion list releasedPublished Dec. 13, 2018
                        
                        By  Kat Bailey
                        
                        
                        Air Force’s Personnel Center Public Affairs
                **JOINT BASE SAN ANTONIO-RANDOLPH, Texas (AFNS) --**
                The Air Force selected 304 Airmen Dec. 13, for promotion via the enlisted in-system supplemental promotion process and three from the senior noncommissioned officer supplemental board. 
There were 238 Airmen in the 18E5 cycle, 41 Airmen in the 18E6 cycle, one Airman for 17E7, 22 Airmen for 18E7, two Airmen for 18E8 and three for 18E9.
The in-system supplemental is processed monthly in the Weighted Airman Promotion System to allow eligible staff sergeants through senior master sergeants to compete monthly for promotion consideration if weighable data changes in their promotion file.
In-system supplemental consideration also applies to Airmen who test after initial promotion selections have been made, deployed Airmen, or anyone who was unable to test during their normal testing window.
Prior to releasing the list, the Air Force’s Personnel Center provided senior raters and their trusted agents access to their respective selects through the Enlisted Promotion Release application, or EPROM, 48 hours in advance of the public release notification.
The public list is available by clicking the “Supplemental Promotion Selects” button on the right side of the**Enlisted Promotions** page of the AFPC public website.AFPC 



Air Force Personnel Center 



JB San Antonio-Randolph 



enlisted 



promotion 



supplemental 



NCO 



SNCO 



staff sergeant 



tech sergeant 



master sergeant 



senior master sergeant 



AF 



Air Force 



joint base
Exhibit 32.1 Certification of Chief Executive Officer Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350) In connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2014 (the Report) of GSV Capital Corp. (the Registrant), as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Michael T. Moe, the Chief Executive Officer of the Registrant, hereby certify, to the best of 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 Registrant. /s/ Michael T. MoeName:  Michael T. MoeDate:    March 16, 2015
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster , Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

November 25, 2013

s1118 

# Order

Clerk November 25, 2013

147200

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIG AN,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v SC: 147200

COA: 314075

Macomb CC: 2011

- 000373

- FC

JIMMY LEE SCOTT,

Defendant

- Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the February 15, 2013

order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
News United States Air Force
 Air Force releases CY18A, CY18C officer central selection board results for Medical, Dental, Biomedical Sciences CorpsPublished Jan. 9, 2019
                        
                        By Kat Bailey
                        
                        
                        Air Force’s Personnel Center Public Affairs
                **JOINT BASE SAN ANTONIO-RANDOLPH, Texas (AFNS) --**
                The Air Force selected 519 active-duty officers for promotion to colonel, lieutenant colonel and major during the calendar year 18A Medical and Dental Corps central selection boards and 55 to lieutenant colonel during the calendar year 18C Biomedical Sciences Corps central selection boards.
In total, the boards selected 76 lieutenant colonels for promotion to colonel, 201 majors for promotion to lieutenant colonel and 297 captains for promotion to major.
Prior to releasing the public list on myPers, the Air Force’s Personnel Center provided senior raters with advance knowledge of their officers’ selection to allow notification through the chain of command.
To view the lists, click the “Central Selection Board Results” button on the right side of the **Officer Promotions** page of the AFPC public website.AFPC 



Air Force’s Personnel Center 



promotion 



colonel 



lieutenant colonel 



major 



Medical and Dental Corps 



Biomedical Sciences Corps 



selection 



board 



AF 



Air Force 



MyPers 



active duty 



officer
#### JOSEPH GRUM v. WILLIAM B. LUM.

March 18, 1985.

Petition for certification denied.
#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. DOMINICK NATALE, JR.

February 26, 1985.

Petition for certification denied.
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR . R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

## FILED May 2, 2006 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-30903 Summary Calendar ANTHONY LECO, JR., Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus E & S TOWING INC.,

Defendant-Appellee.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana

USDC No. 2:03-CV-2422-B

-------------------- Before HIGGINBOTHAM, BENAVIDES, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Anthony Leco, Jr. filed a complaint against E & S Towing, Inc. seeking damages under the Jones Act, 46 U.S.C. § 688, and maintenance and cure under general maritime law. Leco alleged that he was injured on July 9, 2003, while employed as a member of the crew of M/V MISS AUDREY DEAN. The district court found that Leco did not bear his burden of proving that an injury occurred on July 9, 2003. The district court stated that this case came down to aNo. 04-30903 -2- credibility choice between the version of the events by Leco and the other witnesses to the alleged injury. Leco argues that the district court erred in finding that he had not shown that the alleged injury occurred. “In a bench tried

case [in admiralty], a trial court’s findings respecting negligence, cause, and proximate cause are findings of fact reviewed under the

clearly erroneous standard.” Gavagan v. United States , 955 F.2d 1016, 1019 (5th Cir. 1992). Leco argues that this court should review the credibility of witnesses testifying by deposition de novo and not defer to the findings of the district court. Findings based

on documentary evidence as well as oral, in-court testimony are subject to review under the clearly erroneous standard. FED . R. CIV . P. 52(a); Missouri Pac. R.R. Co. v . Railroad Comm’n of Tex. , 948 F.2d 179, 181 n. 1 (5th Cir. 1991); McFarland v. T. E. Mercer Trucking Co. , 781 F.2d 1146, 1148 (5th Cir. 1986). “If the district court’s account of the evidence is plausible in light of the record viewed in its entirety, the court of appeals may not reverse it even though convinced that had it been sitting as the trier of fact, it would have weighed the evidence differently.” Anderson v. City of Bessemer City, N.C. , 470 U.S. 564, 573-74 (1985). The district court’s view of the evidence is plausible, and Leco has not shown that the district court was clearly erroneous in its factual finding that no accident occurred. AFFIRMED.