alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>
                                                                     EXHIBIT 4.5


                               FIRST AMENDMENT TO
                         THE HOUSTON EXPLORATION COMPANY
                      1999 NON-QUALIFIED STOCK OPTION PLAN

         This Amendment No. 1 (the "Amendment") to the 1999 Non-Qualified Stock
Option Plan (the "Plan") is effective as of this 11th day of December, 2001. The
Plan is for non-employee directors of the Company and employees, consultants and
advisors of the Company and its Affiliates, other than officers who are subject
to Section 16(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and is
intended to advance the best interests of the Company, its Affiliates, and its
stockholders by providing those persons who have substantial responsibility for
the management and growth of the Company and its Affiliates with additional
incentives and an opportunity to obtain or increase their proprietary interest
in the Company, thereby encouraging them to continue as directors or in the
employ of the Company or any of its Affiliates. Capitalized terms used but not
defined herein shall have the meanings ascribed to them in the Plan.

         WHEREAS, the Plan became effective on October 26, 1999; and

         WHEREAS, Section 4.2 of the Plan provides for the dedication of 400,000
shares of Stock of the Company to the Plan; and

         WHEREAS, Article VII of the Plan provides that the Board may amend,
terminate or suspend the Plan at any time, in its sole and absolute discretion;
and

         WHEREAS, the Board has determined that it is in the best interest of
the Company to grant additional Options under the Plan and therefore desires to
dedicate additional shares of Stock to the Plan.

         NOW THEREFORE, the Plan is hereby amended as follows:

         Section 4.2 is hereby deleted in its entirety and replaced with the
following:

         "Dedicated Shares. The total number of shares of Stock with respect to
which Options may be granted under the Plan shall be 800,000 shares of Stock;
provided, however, in the event that any outstanding Option shall expire or
terminate for any reason other than exercise or any Option is surrendered
unexercised, the shares of Stock allocable to the unexercised portion of that
Option may again be subject to an Option under the Plan. The shares may be
treasury shares or authorized but unissued shares. The number of shares stated
in this Section 4.2 shall be subject to adjustment in accordance with the
provisions of Section 4.5."

Except as amended and modified hereby, the Plan shall continue in full force and
effect, and the Plan and this amendment shall be read, taken and construed as
one and the same instrument.

                                         THE HOUSTON EXPLORATION COMPANY


                                         By: /s/ James F. Westmoreland
                                             ----------------------------------
                                         James F. Westmoreland
                                         Vice President, Secretary and Chief
                                         Accounting Officer
NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION

File Name: 09a0579n.06

No. 08-3508

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT

ISAAC ROSE, et al.,

Plaintiffs-Appellees,

v.

VOLVO CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT

NORTH AMERICA, INC.,

Defendant-Appellant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

ON APPEAL FROM THE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT

COURT FOR THE 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF

OHIO

AMENDED

M E M O R A N D U M

O P I N I O N*

BEFORE: GILMAN and McKEAGUE, Circuit Judges; and SARGUS, District Judge.**

PER CURIAM. Defendant-appellant Volvo Construction Equipment North America, Inc.

appeals from the March 17, 2008 summary judgment order of the district court, enjoining Volvo to

continue providing fully-funded life insurance benefits to plaintiffs-appellees Isaac Rose and a

certified class of similarly situated retirees, and to continue providing fully-funded health care

insurance benefits to the class member retirees and eligible spouses and dependents. 

__________________________

*This amended memorandum opinion corrects a clerical error in the memorandum opinion

filed on August 11, 2009, simply substituting the term “health care insurance benefits” for “life

insurance benefits” in the fourth and fifth lines of the first paragraph.

**Honorable Edmund A. Sargus, Jr., United States District Judge for the Southern District

of Ohio, sitting by designation.
No. 08-3508

Rose et al. v. Volvo Constr. Equipment N. Am., Inc.

- 2 -

Having had the benefit of oral argument and having carefully considered the record on

appeal, the arguments advanced by the parties in their briefs, and the applicable law, we are not

persuaded that the district court erred in awarding summary judgment to the plaintiff class members.

In our opinion, Volvo’s core arguments are satisfactorily and properly answered within the four

corners of the district court’s ruling. Insofar as Volvo now asserts arguments not first addressed to

the district court, they are not properly before us and, in any event, are insufficient on their merits

to undermine the integrity of the district court’s analysis. Because we conclude that the reasoning

which supports award of judgment to the plaintiff class members has been correctly articulated by

the district court, issuance of a detailed written opinion by this court would be duplicative and serve

no useful purpose.

Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is, upon the reasoning employed in its opinion

dated March 17, 2008, hereby AFFIRMED.
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 Labor

###### Employment and Training Administration

          - [TA-W-65,899]

In accordance with Section 221 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, an investigation was initiated on May 7, 2009 in response to a petition filed by United Steelworkers union officials on behalf of workers of John Maneely Company, Wheatland Tube Co. Division, a.k.a. Sharon Tube Co., Sharon, Pennsylvania.

The petitioners have requested that the petition be withdrawn. Consequently, the investigation has been terminated.

Signed in Washington, DC, this 5th day of June 2009.

Richard Church,

Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.

[FR Doc. E9-15745 Filed 7-2-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P
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.

October 15, 2013 

# Order

Clerk October 15, 2013

147356 ( 23 )

ROSE M. MULVENA

, Plaintiff

- Appell ant

, SC: 147356

v COA: 311126

MCAC: 11

- 000117

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

, Defendant

- Appell ee

.

_____________________________________ /

On order of the Chief Justice, the motion of defendant

- appellee to file a sur

- reply

brief is GRANTED. The sur

- reply brief submitted on October 11, 2013, is accepted for

filing.
<PAGE>
                                                                    Exhibit 10.6

                     SECOND AMENDMENT TO LAND SALES CONTRACT
                    BETWEEN BIGHAM HIDE INC. AND SOLOMAN LAM


     THIS SECOND AMENDMENT TO LAND SALES CONTRACT (the "Second Amendment"), is
dated as of this 18th day of October, 2001, by and between Bigham Hide Inc.
("Bigham") and Soloman Lam ("Lam").

     WHEREAS, in November 2000, Bigham and Lam entered into a Land Sales
Contract (the "Contract") which gave Lam the option (the "Option") to purchase
approximately 2,300 acres (the "Property") located in Adamsville, Florida from
Bigham for a purchase price of $8,050,000;

     WHEREAS, pursuant to Article 4 of the Contract, if Lam chose to exercise
the Option, the closing date would have to occur prior to September 1, 2001;

     WHEREAS, on August 22, 2001, Bigham and Lam entered into an Addendum to the
Contract (the "First Addendum") to extend the closing date for the exercise of
the Option under the Contract to March 1, 2002, but which referenced the date of
the Contract as August 22, 2001, rather than November 2000; and

     WHEREAS, Bigham and Lam now wish to clarify the First Addendum and formally
amend Article 4 of the Contract;

     NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants herein contained,
Bigham and Lam hereby agree as follows:

1.   The Contract shall be amended by modifying Article 4 so that, as amended,
it shall read as follows:

     4. CLOSING DATE; OCCUPANCY: This Contract will be closed and the deed and
     possession delivered on or before March 1, 2002, unless extended by other
     provisions of this Contract. If on Closing Date insurance underwriting is
     suspended, BUYER may postpone closing up to 5 days.

2.   Unless otherwise specifically amended herein, all other terms of the
Contract shall remain in full force and effect.



                         [SIGNATURES ON FOLLOWING PAGE]
<PAGE>


     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have duly executed and delivered
this Second Amendment as of the day and year first above written.




                                                BIGHAM HIDE INC.


                                                By: /s/ Robert G. Bigham
                                                    ----------------------------
                                                    Robert G. Bigham



                                                    /s/ Soloman Lam
                                                    ----------------------------
                                                    Soloman Lam
#### Svendsen *v.*Stursberg and others.1

*(District Court, E. D. New York.*

May 27, 1887.)

Charter—'Warranty of Seaworthiness—Kejection of Vessel.

Four impartial, competent, and experienced persons having, after examination of a vessel, expressed the belief that she was not seaworthy, and the owner having refused to dock the vessel and settle the question, it was *held*that, notwithstanding the subsequent good performance of the ship, the charterers were justified in rejecting her.

In Admiralty.

Libel to recover damages for failure of claimants to ship cargo by her in terms of charter-party.

*Butler, Stillman &*Hubbard, for libelant.

*Jas. K. Hill, Wing & Shoudy,*for claimants.

1

Reported by Edward G. Benedict, Esq., of the New York bar.

Benedict, J.

In the case of *Premuda*v. *Goepel,*23 Fed. Rep. 410, it was decided by Judge Brown that the warranty of the seaworthiness of a ship is a warranty that the ship is in such a fit condition for all the ordinary hazards of the contemplated voyage as to be approved as seaworthy in the judgment of impartial, *competent, and*experienced men, versed in that business. If such be the legal effect of the warranty of seaworthiness, and I incline to the opinion that such must be its effect, the libelant in this case cannot recover; for the proof shows that four impartial, competent, and experienced persons, agents of various underwriters, after examining the ship, formed and expressed the judgment that the ship was not seaworthy; while the agent of the Norwegian underwriters, and the agent of the ship, himself an experienced shipmaster, formed a contrary opinion.

No bias against the ship on the part of those who rejected her is shown, and no reason assigned for their adverse opinion other than the condition of the ship as visible to them. The difference in opinion thus disclosed could have been terminated at once by having the ship docked, and the *87condition of her bottom thus disclosed. The ship was not put on the dock, nor was such an examination of her tendered. This omission indicates to my mind that what was visible of the ship afforded just ground for the belief that such an examination would disclose an unsound bottom. No reason is suggested for omitting to dock the ship, except the expense. That reason appears to moto be an insufficient one, under the circumstances. The rejection of the ship by one insurance inspector was of itself so serious a matter for the ship that it seems to me that some other reason than the expense of docking the ship must have existed to cause the omission to tender that examination, that would have laid to rest all doubts as to the seaworthiness of the ship.

I have not overlooked the subsequent performance of the ship, but the question is not whether the ship wrould make the contemplated voyage in safety, but whether the condition of the ship was such as to justify the belief of competent persons that she was not in tit condition to be exposed to the hazards of the contemplated voyage.

If that ho the question, it seems clear that the charterers were justified in rejecting the vessel, and the libel must bo dismissed, with costs.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Bridget M. McCormack

,

Chief Justice

David F. Viviano,

Chief Justice Pro Tem

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Richard H. Bernstein

Elizabeth T. Clement

Megan K. Cavanagh,

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.

March 13 , 2020 

# Order

Clerk March 13 , 2020

158652( 62 )

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

SC: 158652

v COA: 338030

Oakland CC: 2016

- 260154

- FC

KRISTOPHER ALLEN HUGHES,

Defendant

- Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the C hief Justice , the motion of p laintiff

- a ppellee to extend the time for

filing it s supplemental br ief is GRANTED. The supplemental brief will be accepted as

timely filed if s ubmitted on or before April 8 , 2020.
II 

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1057 

To direct the Secretary of the Interior to execute and carry out agreements 

concerning Colorado River Drought Contingency Management and Operations, and for other purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

APRIL 8, 2019 

Ms. MCSALLY (for herself, Ms. CORTEZ MASTO, Mr. BARRASSO, Mrs. FEINSTEIN, Mr. GARDNER, Mr. ROMNEY, Ms. SINEMA, Mr. LEE, Mr. ENZI, 

Ms. ROSEN, Mr. BENNET, Mr. UDALL, Mr. HEINRICH, and Ms. HARRIS) 

introduced the following bill; which was read twice, considered, read the 

third time, and passed 

A BILL 

To direct the Secretary of the Interior to execute and carry 

out agreements concerning Colorado River Drought Contingency Management and Operations, 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 ‘‘Colorado River 

5 Drought Contingency Plan Authorization Act’’. 


pamtmann on DSKBFK8HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 1057 CPS

1 SEC. 2. COLORADO RIVER BASIN DROUGHT CONTINGENCY 

2 PLANS. 

3 (a) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding any other provi4 sion of law expressly addressing the operation of the appli5 cable Colorado River System reservoirs, immediately upon 

6 execution of the March 19, 2019, versions of the Agree7 ment Concerning Colorado River Drought Contingency 

8 Management and Operations and the agreements attached 

9 thereto as Attachments A1, A2, and B, by all of the non10 Federal parties thereto, the Secretary of the Interior shall, 

11 without delay, execute such agreements, and is directed 

12 and authorized to carry out the provisions of such agree13 ments and operate applicable Colorado River System res14 ervoirs accordingly. 

15 (b) EFFECT.—Nothing in this section shall— 

16 (1) be construed or interpreted as precedent for 

17 the litigation of, or as altering, affecting, or being 

18 deemed as a congressional determination regarding, 

19 the water rights of the United States, any Indian 

20 Tribe, band, or community, any State or political 

21 subdivision or district of a State, or any person; or 

22 (2) exempt the implementation of such agree23 ments and the operation of applicable Colorado 

24 River System reservoirs from any requirements of 

25 applicable Federal environmental laws. 

Æ 


pamtmann on DSKBFK8HB2PROD with BILLS
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 130 (Thursday, July 9, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 32945]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-16107]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke; Notice 
of Closed Meetings

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following 
meetings.
    The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 
U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Institute of Neurological Disorders 
and Stroke Special Emphasis Panel P-30 Faculty Recruitment 1.
    Date: July 23, 2009.
    Time: 8 a.m. to 5 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: Hotel Monaco, 501 Geary St., San Francisco, CA 94102.
    Contact Person: Phillip F. Wiethorn, Scientific Review 
Administrator, DHHS/NIH/NINDS/DER/SRB, 6001 Executive Boulevard; MSC 
9529, Neuroscience Center; Room 3203, Bethesda, MD 20892-9529, (301) 
496-5388, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#bec9d7dbcad6d1cccefed0d7d0dacd90d0d7d690d9d1c8"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="90e7f9f5e4f8ffe2e0d0fef9fef4e3befef9f8bef7ffe6">[email protected]</span></a>.

    Name of Committee: National Institute of Neurological Disorders 
and Stroke Special Emphasis Panel P-30 Faculty Recruitment 2.
    Date: July 28, 2009.
    Time: 8 a.m. to 5 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: Ritz Carlton Hotel, 1150 22nd Street, NW., Washington, DC 
20037.
    Contact Person: Phillip F. Wiethorn, Scientific Review 
Administrator, DHHS/NIH/NINDS/DER/SRB, 6001 Executive Boulevard; MSC 
9529, Neuroscience Center; Room 3203, Bethesda, MD 20892-9529, (301) 
496-5388, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#5027393524383f2220103e393e34237e3e39387e373f26"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="cfb8a6aabba7a0bdbf8fa1a6a1abbce1a1a6a7e1a8a0b9">[email protected]</span></a>.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.853, 
Clinical Research Related to Neurological Disorders; 93.854, 
Biological Basis Research in the Neurosciences; 93.701, ARRA Related 
Biomedical Research and Research Support Awards, National Institutes 
of Health, HHS)

    Dated: June 30, 2009.
Jennifer Spaeth,
Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. E9-16107 Filed 7-8-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
SUITE 2500

ONE GATEWAY CENTER

NEWARK, NJ 07102

(973) 848-1244

STEVEN A. STADTMAUER

DIRECT: (212) 313-5479

FAX: (212) 687-0659

SSTADTMAUER@HARRISBEACH.COM

May 21, 2012

VIA ECF

The Honorable Mark J. Falk

United States Magistrate Judge

United States District Court

District of New Jersey

U.S. Post Office & Courthouse, Room 457

1 Federal Square

Newark, New Jersey 07102

Re: Demodulation Inc. v. Applied DNA Sciences, Inc., et al.

Case No. 2:11-cv-00296 (WJM/MJF)

Motion Return Date: June 4, 2012

Dear Judge Falk:

Defendant, Alfred Technology Resources, Inc. (“ATRI”) has moved for a permanent

sealing order pursuant to Local Civil Rule 5.3. The motion is on the Court’s calendar for June 4,

2012. The motion seeks to make permanent the Temporary Sealing Order entered by Your

Honor on April 30.

Counsel for the parties involved in the motion have agreed that, with the Court’s

permission, the sealing motion should be deferred to permit related litigation in New York state

court to proceed. However, since the state court hearing has been rescheduled for June 21, an

adjournment to a date prior to the hearing would not be productive. Counsel therefore jointly

request that the motion be adjourned to the Court’s July 16, 2012 motion day. This is the first

motion day where plaintiff’s opposition would be due after the the June 21 New York hearing.

Opposition would be due on July 2 and reply on July 9. The extension is agreed to, of course, on

the condition that the Court’s temporary order remain in effect and that the documents remain

sealed.

Although not directly involved in the motion, other counsel have been notified and have

no objection to the adjournment.

Case 2:11-cv-00296-WJM-MF Document 71 Filed 05/21/12 Page 1 of 2 PageID: 1233
Hon. Mark J. Falk

May 21, 2012

Page 2

Thank you for the Court’s time and attention to this request. We are available to respond

to any questions or concerns the Court may have.

Respectfully,

s/ Steven A. Stadtmauer

Steven A. Stadtmauer

STS:548954

cc: All Counsel via ECF

Case 2:11-cv-00296-WJM-MF Document 71 Filed 05/21/12 Page 2 of 2 PageID: 1234