alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Form of Amendment to Conversion Stock Option Agreements



 Exhibit 10.10 
 FORM OF AMENDMENT TO CONVERSION STOCK OPTION AGREEMENTS 
 1. Section 2 of the Conversion Option
Agreement is amended by adding the following proviso at the end of Section 2 thereof: 
 “provided, however, notwithstanding
anything to the contrary contained in this Agreement (including, without limitation, Section 3 and Section 4 hereof) and notwithstanding the provisions relating to the exercise of Options that may be applicable under an exchange option
award agreement between the Employee and Axle Holdings, as option award agreement between the Employee and IAA, the IAA 2003 Stock Incentive Plan and the IAA 1991 Stock Option Plan or otherwise, the Employee agrees that the Options may not be
exercised until the earliest to occur of (i) the termination of the Employee’s employment with the Company or any Subsidiary (regardless of the reason for such termination), (ii) the consummation of a Public Offering, (iii) the
consummation of an Exit Event and (iv) the date that is thirty days prior to the Expiration Date of such Options.” 
 2.
Section 16 of the Conversion Option Agreement is amended by adding the following new subsection (l) to the end thereof: 
 “(l) Upon the purported exercise of any Option, in lieu of accepting payment of the exercise price therefor and delivering the number of shares of Holdings Common Stock for which the Option is being exercised as contemplated by
Section 3 hereof, the Committee may, in its sole and absolute discretion, cause Holdings to pay the Employee an amount in cash equal to the amount, if any, by which the aggregate Fair Market Value of the shares of Holdings Common Stock as to
which the Option is being exercised exceeds the aggregate Option Price. Upon payment of cash to the Employee pursuant to this Section 16(l), the Employee’s rights as to the portion of the Options which is the subject of such payment
or distribution shall be deemed satisfied in full.” 
 3. All of the other provisions of the Conversion Option Agreement which are not
modified hereunder shall remain in full force and effect.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                          18,546
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   17,983
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                      3,430
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                47,481
<PP&E>                                         952,282
<DEPRECIATION>                                 152,558
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 915,062
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           66,758
<BONDS>                                        380,266
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        49,538
<OTHER-SE>                                      13,043
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   915,062
<SALES>                                        149,268
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               149,268
<CGS>                                            7,274
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  118,267
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                19,326
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              13,121
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  (180)
<INCOME-TAX>                                      (10)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              (170)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                      (2,969)
<NET-INCOME>                                   (3,139)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  (17.60)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (17.60)
        

</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

                                   
<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
THIS  SCHEDULE  CONTAINS  SUMMARY  FINANCIAL   INFORMATION  EXTRACTED  FROM  THE
FINANCIAL  STATEMENT  OF THE COMPANY AS OF MARCH 31, 1999  INCLUDED IN THE 10QSB
AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH 10QSB
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                         0000886093
<NAME>                        VIKING CAPITAL GROUP, INC
<MULTIPLIER>                  1
<CURRENCY>                    US DOLLARS
       
<S>                              <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                    3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                  DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                                     JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                       MAR-31-1999
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                              1
<CASH>                                                   74343
<SECURITIES>                                                 0
<RECEIVABLES>                                           236938
<ALLOWANCES>                                            115160
<INVENTORY>                                                  0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                        196121
<PP&E>                                                  836641
<DEPRECIATION>                                           88175
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                         1054491
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                  1075617
<BONDS>                                                  22746
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                        0
<PREFERRED>                                                  0
<COMMON>                                                 29657
<OTHER-SE>                                             (73529)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                           1054491
<SALES>                                                      0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                         10310
<CGS>                                                        0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                           485653
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                          3917
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                             0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                      (9078)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                       (488338)
<INCOME-TAX>                                                 0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                   (488338)
<DISCONTINUED>                                               0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                              0
<CHANGES>                                                    0
<NET-INCOME>                                          (488338)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                          (0.018)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                          (0.018)
        


</TABLE>
Exhibit 21.1



WISCONSIN ELECTRIC POWER COMPANY
SUBSIDIARIES AS OF DECEMBER 31, 2002

The following table includes the subsidiaries of Wisconsin Electric Power Company, an electric, gas and steam utility incorporated in the state of Wisconsin, as well as the percent of ownership, as of December 31, 2002.  Wisconsin Electric is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Wisconsin Energy Corporation.



|                                  | State of        |          
|--------------------------------- | --------------- | ---------
|                                  | Incorporation   | Percent  
|Subsidiary (a)                    | or Organization | Ownership
|                                  |                 |          
|ATC Management Inc.               | Wisconsin       | 42.62%   
|American Transmission Company LLC | Wisconsin       | 37.28%   
|Bostco LLC                        | Wisconsin       | 100%     





|(a) | Omits the names of certain subsidiaries, which if considered in the aggregate as a single
|--- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|    | subsidiary, would not constitute a "significant subsidiary" as of December 31, 2002.
No. 496.

#### Heiser *v.*Woodruff et al.

May 27, 1946.

327 U. S.726.
IV 

108TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. RES. 123 

Electing a Member to a certain standing committee of the House of 

Representatives. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 5, 2003 

Ms. DELAURO submitted the following resolution; which was considered and 

agreed to 

RESOLUTION 

Electing a Member to a certain standing committee of the 

House of Representatives. 

1 Resolved, That the following named Member be, and 

2 he is hereby, elected to the following standing committee 

3 of the House of Representatives: 

4 COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES: Mr. 

5 Ruppersberger (to rank immediately after Mr. Alexander). 

Æ
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Sammy Caswell, Also Known as Pookie, Appellant.

[856 NYS2d 338]

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him, upon a jury verdict, of two counts each of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree (Penal Law § 220.16 [1]) and criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree (§ 220.39 [1]). Defendant failed to preserve for our review his contention concerning the alleged legal insufficiency of the evidence *(see People v Gray,*86 NY2d 10, 19 [1995]), and we reject defendant’s contention that the verdict is against the weight of the evidence, both with respect to credibility and the elements of the crimes *(see generally People v Danielson,*9 NY3d 342, 348-349 [2007]; *People v Bleakley,*69 NY2d 490, 495 [1987]). Also contrary to defendant’s contention, County Court did not abuse its discretion in allowing the jury to view the *1258transcripts of two audio recordings prepared by police officers with respect to the alleged drug sales *(see People v Gandy,*152 AD2d 909 [1989], *lv denied*74 NY2d 896 [1989]). The court properly advised the jury that the transcripts were not necessarily accurate and that it was for the jury to determine what was said during the recorded conversations *(see id.; see also People v Hickey,*284 AD2d 929 [2001], *lv denied*97 NY2d 656 [2001]). The court also did not abuse its discretion in admitting the two audio recordings in evidence. The People laid a proper foundation for their admission inasmuch as a police officer testified that he listened to the transmitted conversations as they were being recorded, he later transferred the recorded conversations to the compact discs played for the jury, and he reviewed the recordings prior to trial to ensure that they were unaltered *(see generally People v Ely,*68 NY2d 520, 527 [1986]).

The court properly denied defendant’s request to present the testimony of a witness who allegedly would impeach the credibility of the confidential informant who, by the time of trial, had been identified. “It is well established that the party who is cross-examining a witness[, here, the informant,] cannot . . . call other witnesses to contradict [the informant’s] answers concerning collateral matters solely for the purpose of impeaching [the informant’s] credibility” *(People v Pavao,*59 NY2d 282, 288-289 [1983]). By failing to object to the court’s ultimate *Sandoval*ruling, defendant failed to preserve for our review his contention that the court’s *Sandoval*ruling constitutes an abuse of discretion *(see People v Brown,*39 AD3d 1207 [2007], *lv denied*9 NY3d 921 [2007]; *People v Alston,*27 AD3d 1141, 1141-1142 [2006], *lv denied*6 NY3d 892 [2006]), and we decline to exercise our power to review that contention as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice *(see*CPL 470.15 [6] [a]). The sentence is not unduly harsh or severe. We have reviewed the contentions of defendant in his pro se supplemental brief and conclude that they are without merit. Present—Martoche, J.P., Lunn, Fahey, Peradotto and Pine, JJ.
UNITED STATES NAVY–MARINE CORPS

COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

_________________________

No. 201600270

_________________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Appellee

v.

MATHEW M. HURTADO

Sergeant (E-5), United States Marine Corps

Appellant

_________________________

Appeal from the United States Navy-Marine Corps Trial Judiciary

Military Judge: Lieutenant Colonel Eugene H. Robinson, Jr., USMC.

For Appellant: Commander R.D. Evans, Jr., JAGC, USN.

For Appellee: Brian K. Keller, Esq.

_________________________

Decided 27 October 2016

_________________________

Before CAMPBELL, RUGH, and HUTCHISON, Appellate Military Judges

_________________________

After careful consideration of the record, submitted without assignment of 

error, we affirm the findings and sentence as approved by the convening 

authority. Art. 66(c), Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. § 866(c). 

For the Court

R.H. TROIDL

Clerk of Court
**Exhibit
      23.1**


**Consent
      of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm**








We
      consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on
      Form
      S-8, No. 333-119370 and 33-60845, of Wilshire Enterprises, Inc. of our report
      dated March 16, 2006, which includes an explanatory paragraph relating to the
      restatement of the Company’s 2004 consolidated financial statements, with
      respect to the 2005 and 2004 consolidated financial statements and schedule
      of
      Wilshire Enterprises, Inc. included in the Annual Report on Form 10-K for the
      year ended December 31, 2005.











/s/
      J.H.
      Cohn LLP








Roseland,
      New Jersey


March
      16,
      2006
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

BENOIT SAGET,

Appellant,

v.

HUNIA JOSEPH,

Appellee.

No. 4D2023-2404

[May 2, 2024]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm 

Beach County; Rosemarie Scher, Judge; L.T. Case No. 

502018DR008387XXXSB.

Benoit Saget, Boca Raton, pro se.

Hunia Joseph, Delray Beach, pro se.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

KLINGENSMITH, C.J., GROSS and FORST, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
Exhibit 32

                Certifications Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350

         The  undersigned,  who are the chief  executive  officer  and the chief
financial officer of Peoples  Bancorporation,  Inc., each hereby certifies that,
to the best of his  knowledge,  the  accompanying  Form 10-Q of the issuer fully
complies  with the  requirements  of  Section  13(a) or 15(d) of the  Securities
Exchange  Act of 1934,  and that  information  contained  in the  report  fairly
presents,  in all material  respects,  the  financial  condition  and results of
operations of the issuer.

November 10, 2006

                                                      /s/ R. Riggie Ridgeway
                                                      --------------------------
                                                      R. Riggie Ridgeway
                                                      Chief Executive Officer


                                                      /s/ Robert E. Dye, Jr.
                                                      --------------------------
                                                      Robert E. Dye, Jr.
                                                      Chief Financial Officer
### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED JU NE 3, 2014

NO. 03

- 12

- 002 80

- CR

Mark David Simmons, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

APPEAL FROM 22ND DISTRICT COURT OF HAYS COUNTY

BEFORE JUSTICES PURYEAR, RO SE, AND GOODWIN

AFFIRMED

-- OPINION BY JUSTICE PURYEAR

This is an appeal from the judgment of conviction entered by the trial court. Having reviewed

the record and the partie s’ arguments, the Court holds that there was no reversible error in the

trial court’s judgment . Therefore, the Court affirms the trial court’s judgment of conviction

.

Because appellant is indigent and unable to pay costs, no adjudication of costs is made.
* 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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-50502

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

RUBEN ESPINOZA, JR

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 2:07-CR-262-1

Before GARWOOD, GARZA, and OWEN, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

Appealing the Judgment in a Criminal Case, Ruben Espinoza, Jr., raises

arguments that he concedes are foreclosed by United States v. Keith, 230 F.3d

784, 787 (5th Cir. 2000), which held that Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466

(2000) does not preclude the imposition of a mandatory minimum sentence

under 21 U.S.C. § 841, provided that the sentence imposed does not exceed the

statutory maximum sentence for the offense. See also United States v. Harper,

527 F.3d 396, 411 (5th Cir.) (except in the case of substantial assistance to the

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

December 4, 2008

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
No. 08-50502

2

Government or compliance with the safety valve criteria, sentencing courts, post

United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005), lack discretion to depart below

relevant statutory minimums), cert. denied, 129 S. Ct. 212 (2008). The

Government’s motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, and the judgment

of the district court is AFFIRMED.
```

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 336 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

114th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 336

To repeal the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and the Health 
        Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010 entirely.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            February 2, 2015

   Mr. Cruz (for himself, Mr. McConnell, Mr. Cornyn, Mr. Vitter, Mr. 
 Toomey, Mr. Paul, Mr. Barrasso, Mr. Portman, Mr. Isakson, Mr. Scott, 
 Mr. Hatch, Mr. Crapo, Mr. Inhofe, Mr. Wicker, Mr. Perdue, Ms. Ayotte, 
Mr. Rubio, Mr. Blunt, Mr. Moran, Mr. Coats, Mrs. Fischer, Mr. Grassley, 
    Mr. Lankford, Mr. Flake, Mrs. Ernst, Mr. Daines, Mr. Thune, Mr. 
 Cochran, Mr. Boozman, Mr. Burr, Mr. Lee, Mr. Gardner, Mr. McCain, Mr. 
Shelby, Mr. Roberts, Mr. Cotton, Mr. Sasse, Mr. Alexander, Mr. Johnson, 
   Mr. Hoeven, Mr. Rounds, Mrs. Capito, Mr. Tillis, Mr. Graham, Mr. 
  Cassidy, Ms. Murkowski, Mr. Risch, and Mr. Sessions) introduced the 
 following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on 
                                Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To repeal the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and the Health 
        Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010 entirely.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``ObamaCare Repeal Act''.

SEC. 2. REPEAL OF THE PATIENT PROTECTION AND AFFORDABLE CARE ACT AND 
              THE HEALTH CARE AND EDUCATION RECONCILIATION ACT OF 2010.

    (a) Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.--Effective on the 
date that is 180 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the 
Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Public Law 111-148) is 
repealed and the provisions of law amended or repealed by such Act are 
restored or revived as if such Act had not been enacted.
    (b) Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010.--
Effective on the date that is 180 days after the date of enactment of 
this Act, the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010 
(Public Law 111-152) is repealed and the provisions of law amended or 
repealed by such Act are restored or revived as if such Act had not 
been enacted.

SEC. 3. BUDGETARY EFFECTS OF THIS ACT.

    The budgetary effects of this Act, for the purpose of complying 
with the Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act of 2010, shall be determined by 
reference to the latest statement titled ``Budgetary Effects of PAYGO 
Legislation'' for this Act, submitted for printing in the Congressional 
Record by the Chairman of the Committee on the Budget of the House of 
Representatives, as long as such statement has been submitted prior to 
the vote on passage of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO  18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,  AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Annual Report of WJ Communications, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the period ending December 31,
2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Fred J. Krupica, Principal Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
§ 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 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.

A
signed original of this written certification required by Section 1350 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.

|/s/FRED J, KRUPICAFred J. Krupica
Chief Financial Officer
(principal financial officer)
March 27, 2004 |  | 
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ |  | 

---

QuickLinks