alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 2(ii)

                             AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO THE
                          AGREEMENT AND PLAN OF MERGER

        AMENDMENT NO. 1, dated as of January 22, 1997 (this "Amendment"), by and
among American General Corporation, a Texas corporation ("Purchaser"), AGC Life
Insurance Company, a Missouri corporation and a wholly-owned subsidiary of
Purchaser ("Sub") and Home Beneficial Corporation, a Virginia corporation (the
"Company"), to the Agreement and Plan of Merger, dated as of December 22, 1996,
by and among Purchaser, Sub and the Company (the "Merger Agreement").

        WHEREAS, Purchaser, Sub and the Company desire to amend and modify the
Merger Agreement as set forth herein;

        NOW, THEREFORE, Purchaser, Sub and the Company hereby agree that the
Merger Agreement shall be, and hereby is, amended and modified as follows:

        1. The last sentence in clause (i) of Section 3.1(a) of the Merger
Agreement is hereby amended and replaced in its entirety to read as follows:

        "As used herein, the "Average Purchaser Price" shall mean the average of
    the high and low sales prices, regular way, of Purchaser Common Stock as
    reported in The Wall Street Journal during the ten consecutive New York
    Stock Exchange trading days (each, a "Trading Day") ending on (and
    including) the fifth Trading Day prior to the Effective Time (the "Trading
    Average"); provided, however, that if the Trading Average is less than
    $35.00, then the Average Purchaser Price shall be $35.00; and/or"

        2. Clause (iii) of Section 3.3(e) of the Merger Agreement is hereby
amended and replaced in its entirety  to read as follows:

        "(iii) Each Share covered by a Cash Election and not fully converted
    into the right to receive the Cash Consideration as set forth in clause (ii)
    above shall be converted in the Merger into the right to receive a number of
    shares of Purchaser Common Stock equal to the Exchange Ratio; and"

        3. Except as amended and modified by this Amendment, all other terms of
the Merger Agreement shall remain unchanged.

        4. This Amendment may be executed in two or more counterparts, each of
which shall be deemed to be an original, but all of which shall constitute one
and the same instrument.

        IN WITNESS WHEREOF, each of Purchaser, Sub and the Company has caused
this Amendment to be executed as of the date first above written.

                        AMERICAN GENERAL CORPORATION


                        By: Peter V. Tuters
                            Senior Vice President & Chief Investment Officer


                        AGC LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY


                        By: Peter V. Tuters
                            Vice President & Chief Investment Officer


                        HOME BENEFICIAL CORPORATION


                        By: R.W. Wiltshire, Jr.
                            President and Chief
                            Executive Officer


                                                                           44
<PAGE>
Exhibit 32.2



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. ss.1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



Solely for the purposes of complying with, and the extent required by 18 U.S.C. 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned certifies, in his capacity as the Chief Financial Officer of BlastGard International, Inc., that, to his knowledge, the Quarterly Report of the company on Form 10-QSB
for the period ended March 31, 2005, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in the report fairly presents, in all material respects, the companys
financial condition and results of operations.



May 11, 2005



|                                          
|------------------------------------------
|/s/ Michael J. Gordon                     
|Michael J. Gordon, Chief Financial Officer
Editorial Note on Part 1003
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 1003 appear at 68 FR 9846, Feb. 28, 2003, and at 68 FR 10350, Mar. 5, 2003.

§ 1003.40 Local operating procedures. An Immigration Court having administrative control over Records of Proceedings may establish local operating procedures, provided that: ( a ) Such operating procedure(s) shall not be inconsistent with any provision of this chapter;
( b ) A majority of the judges of the local Immigration Court shall concur in writing therein; and
( c ) The Chief Immigration Judge has approved the proposed operating procedure(s) in writing.
[52 FR 2936, Jan. 29, 1987. Redesignated at 57 FR 11571, Apr. 6, 1992, as amended at 60 FR 34090, June 30, 1995]
### §460uu–32. Management; provisions applicable

(a) Subject to valid existing rights, each wilderness area designated under this subchapter shall be administered by the Secretary, through the Director of the Bureau of Land Management, in accordance with the provisions of the Wilderness Act [16 U.S.C. 1131 et seq.] governing areas designated by that Act as wilderness, except that any reference in such provisions to the effective date of the Wilderness Act shall be deemed to be a reference to December 31, 1987.

(b) Within the wilderness areas designated by this subchapter, the grazing of livestock, where established prior to December 31, 1987, shall be permitted to continue subject to such reasonable regulations, policies, and practices as the Secretary deems necessary, as long as such regulations, policies, and practices fully conform with and implement the intent of Congress regarding grazing in such areas as such intent is expressed in the Wilderness Act [16 U.S.C. 1131 et seq.] and section 108 of Public Law 96–560 (16 U.S.C. 1133 note).

(Pub. L. 100–225, title IV, §402, Dec. 31, 1987, 101 Stat. 1542.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

The Wilderness Act, referred to in text, is Pub. L. 88–577, Sept. 3, 1964, 78 Stat. 890, which is classified generally to chapter 23 (§1131 et seq.) of this title. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see Short Title note set out under section 1131 of this title and Tables.

The effective date of the Wilderness Act, referred to in subsec. (a), means Sept. 3, 1964, the date of enactment of Pub. L. 88–577, which enacted chapter 23 of this title.
No. 21524.

#### Leonard Eugene Hobbs *v.*The People of the State of Colorado.

(410 P.2d 516)

Decided January 31, 1966.

Robert G. Fredrickson, for plaintiff in error.

Duke W. Dunbar, Attorney General, Frank E. Hickey, Deputy, Robert C. Miller, for defendant in error.

*En Banc.*

Mr. Justice Day

delivered the opinion of the Court.

This writ of error was issued and the briefs submitted prior to our rulings in *Silva v. People,*158 Colo. 326, 407 P.2d 38.

*162Two of the Issues raised in the case at bar, (a) the question of dual punishment and (b) the matter of proof and identity, were fully treated in the Silva case and require no reiteration.

One other point was raised in the summary of argument by the plaintiff in error. He states that the imposition of a mandatory two-year incarceration following an escape, as provided in C.R.S. ’53, 39-18-4 (2), before a prisoner may apply for parole or be discharged, is unconstitutional in that it could result in keeping a person beyond the maximum sentence imposed by the court. Suffice it to say that this plaintiff in error is not in that category and has approximately some eight years left to serve on his maximum sentence. He cannot have the statute tested in a vacuum and on hypothetical matters not germane to his situation.

The judgment is affirmed.
#### § 630.801 Purpose.

The purpose of this subpart is to prescribe procedures for the construction and financing, by an agency of the Federal Government, of public highway bridges over dams constructed and owned by or for the United States.
MOTION FOR LEAVE IO FILE A RESPONSE

TO THE SHOW CAUSE ORDER

IOINT APPLICATION

OF DELTA AIR LINE5, INC,, VIRGIN ELUE AIRLINES PTY LIO, VIRGIN BLUE NTERNATIONAL

AIRLINES PTY LTD D/8/A V AUSTRALIA,

PACIFIC BLUE AIRLINES (NZ) LTD, PACIFIC BLUE AIRtINES (AUsT) PTY LTD Under 49 U.S.C. 5641308-41309

FOR APPROVAT

OF AND ANTITRUST IMMUNIIY

FOR ALTIANCE

AGREEMENTS,

DOCKET DOT.O5T.2OO9.O155

Hubert Horan 24 May 2O1L

ln its Show

Cause Order dated 10 May 2011, the DOTfalsely

stated that the Order

hadbeen served on all parties to this case. Even thou8h theShow

Cause Order explicitly acknowledged

that I was an active party to this case, and had filed substantive

objections

to the Department's

Order 2010-9-4,

the DOT hadnot served

its Show Cause Order on mej, Since

I have received orooer notices of DOT orders and filinSs via email in all priorca5es

I have participated

in, the Department

was fullycapable

of following

its notice of service

requirements

in this case,

but failed

to do so. In past

cases the Department

has made it clear that filings

that were not properly

served on parties

to the case

must be ercluded

from the case record, even when those filings were publicly available through other channels.

The Department

is welcome to contact

my email providers

if jt requires

additional

evidence that it had failed to follow its notice ofseNice

regulations

in this case. I have been work ing ove rseas, and only learned ofthe Department's

Show Cause Order yesterdav.

In addition

to the Department's

failure to obey its own procedures,

I would note

that, as tne Department

clearly understands,

the "applicants

have effectively

submitted

a substantially

different application."

I The public has had eighteen months to comment

on the ori8inal application,

and has had eiSht months to comnent

on the Department's

Order 2010-9-4.

TheDOT only allowed two weeks

for comments

on its decision

about a substantially

different application.

I would also note the public interest in the precedentthat

may be establtshed

bythis decision. The decision criteria used in Order 2010-9-4 were substantially

different from those used in prior antitrust immunity

cases, but the new Show Cause Orderfailed

to address

anyofthe

objections

raised about its wildly in con sistent criteria, 3 or whether the substantive

changes in the applications

had affected these inconsistencies.

The Show Cause Order states that objections

or comments

must be submitted

no laterthan14 calendar days fromthe service

date of the order,

which is today. Thus I amfiling

this motion

requesting

leave to file initial comments

untilThursday,

2 June. Given the Memorial

Oay Holiday, this adds one additional working week to the originalschedule.

ldonotbelievethisbriefdeiaywillcauseundueharmtoanyof theparties

to this case. Any inconvenience

would be solely due to the Department's

failure to obey its
ownprocedures,

Respectfully

submitted, 

# ,MP^fuN

' Show Cause Order DOT-OST-2009-0I55.

pp.-6,2t. ' Show Cause Order, p.2, also resrar€d ar p.7. ' Comments

on the Show Cause Order, DOT-OST-2009-0

I 5 5 -003 0, I 2 October

20 I 0
§ 600.4 Jurisdiction. ( a ) *Original jurisdiction.* The jurisdiction of a Special Counsel shall be established by the Attorney General. The Special Counsel will be provided with a specific factual statement of the matter to be investigated. The jurisdiction of a Special Counsel shall also include the authority to investigate and prosecute federal crimes committed in the course of, and with intent to interfere with, the Special Counsel's investigation, such as perjury, obstruction of justice, destruction of evidence, and intimidation of witnesses; and to conduct appeals arising out of the matter being investigated and/or prosecuted.
( b ) *Additional jurisdiction.* If in the course of his or her investigation the Special Counsel concludes that additional jurisdiction beyond that specified in his or her original jurisdiction is necessary in order to fully investigate and resolve the matters assigned, or to investigate new matters that come to light in the course of his or her investigation, he or she shall consult with the Attorney General, who will determine whether to include the additional matters within the Special Counsel's jurisdiction or assign them elsewhere.
( c ) *Civil and administrative jurisdiction.* If in the course of his or her investigation the Special Counsel determines that administrative remedies, civil sanctions or other governmental action outside the criminal justice system might be appropriate, he or she shall consult with the Attorney General with respect to the appropriate component to take any necessary action. A Special Counsel shall not have civil or administrative authority unless specifically granted such jurisdiction by the Attorney General.
§ 971.204 Management systems requirements. ( a ) The tri-party partnership shall develop, establish, and implement the management systems as described in this subpart. If the State has established a management system for FH that fulfills the requirements in 23 U.S.C. 303, that management system, to the extent applicable, can be used to meet the requirements of this subpart consistent with 23 CFR 660.105(b). The management systems may be tailored to meet the FH program goals, policies, and needs using professional engineering and planning judgment to determine the nature and extent of systems coverage consistent with the intent and requirements of this rule.
( b ) The tri-party partnership shall develop and implement procedures for the acceptance of the existing, or the development, establishment, implementation, and operation of new management systems. The procedures shall include: ( 1 ) A process for ensuring the output of the management systems is considered in the development of the FH program transportation plans and transportation improvement programs, and in making project selection decisions under 23 U.S.C. 204;
( 2 ) A process for the analyses and coordination of all management systems outputs to systematically operate, maintain, and upgrade existing transportation assets cost-effectively;
( 3 ) A description of each management system;
( 4 ) A process to operate and maintain the management systems and their associated databases; and
( 5 ) A process for data collection, processing, analysis, and updating for each management system.
( c ) All management systems will use databases with a common or coordinated reference system, that can be used to geolocate all database information, to ensure that data across management systems are comparable.
( d ) Existing data sources may be used by the tri-party partnership to meet the management system requirements.
( e ) The tri-party partnership shall develop an appropriate means to evaluate the effectiveness of the management systems in enhancing transportation investment decision-making and improving the overall efficiency of the affected transportation systems and facilities. This evaluation is to be conducted periodically, preferably as part of the FS planning process.
( f ) The management systems shall be operated so investment decisions based on management system outputs can be accomplished at the State level.
EXHIBIT 32.2

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER  PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

In
connection with the Amendment No. 1 to the Annual Report of The Hertz Corporation (the "Company") on Form 10-K/A for the period ending December 31, 2005 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Paul J. Siracusa, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to
18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:



|Date: April 28, 2006 |  |     |                                                                                         
|-------------------- |  | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                     |  | By: | /s/PAUL J. SIRACUSAPaul J. Siracusa
Executive Vice President and
Chief Financial Officer

---



QuickLinks
1

MEMO to Docket

DATE: February 24, 2015

SUBJECT: HCl Compliance Method

In attendance:

USEPA:

Keith Barnett

Sharon Nizich

Robin Segall

Candace Sorrell

Raymond Merrill

Stef Johnson

Portland Cement Association:

Tom Harman

Private Consultant: John Holmes

The EPA had a discussion today with cement industry stakeholders regarding the HCl compliance

method.
ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS

Appeal of

-- )

)

Butt Construction Company, Inc. ) ASBCA No. 62247

)

Under Contract No. W912QR

- 15

- D

- 0002 )

APPEARANCES FOR THE APPELLANT: Mr. William T. Butt Jr.

President

APPEARANCES FOR THE GOVERNMENT: Michael P. Goodman , Esq.

Engineer Chief Trial Attorn ey

Nicole E. Angst , Esq.

Engineer Trial Attorney

U.S. Army Engineer District,

Louisville

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

The appeal has been withdrawn. Accordingly, it is dismissed from the Board’s

docket with prejudice.

Dated: March 20, 2020

JOHN J. THRASHER

Administrative Judge

Chairman

Armed Services Board

of Contract AppealsI certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the Order of Dismissal of the Armed

Services Board of Contract Appeals in ASBCA No. 62 247 , Appeal of Butt Construction

Company, Inc. , rendered in conformance with the Board’s Charter.

Dated: March 25, 2020

PAULLA K. GATES

- LEWIS

Recorder, Armed Services

Board of Contract Appeals
<PAGE>

                                                                   Exhibit 10.35

                                    AMENDMENT
                                       TO
                       ANALEX CORPORATION VOTING AGREEMENT

     This Amendment to Voting Agreement (the "Amendment") effective as of
November 1, 2002, by and among certain holders (the "Holders") (including but
not limited to John D. Sanders ("Sanders")) of the common stock, par value $.02
per share (the "Common Stock") of Analex Corporation, a Delaware corporation
formerly known as Hadron, Inc. (the "Company"), and certain Members of the
Voting Group under the Original Agreement (as defined below).

     WHEREAS, the Holders and the Members of the Voting Group are party to that
certain Voting Agreement, dated as of March 30, 2000 (the "Original Agreement"),
relating to voting as to the number and identity of the directors of the Company
and certain other matters related to the Common Stock; and

     WHEREAS, the Holders and the Members of the Voting Group desire to amend
the Original Agreement to effect the removal of Sanders as a party to the
Agreement.

     NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises and other good and valuable
consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, the
parties hereby agree as follows (capitalized terms not otherwise defined in this
Amendment shall have the meaning given them in the Original Agreement):

     1. Effective as of the date hereof, Sanders shall no longer be a party to
the Original Agreement, and shall be released from any and all further
obligations and liabilities thereunder.

     2. All references to "Holders" under the Original Agreement shall
henceforth be deemed to exclude Sanders.

     3. Except as expressly set forth above, all other provisions of the
Original Agreement shall remain the same and in full force and effect.

                         [Signatures on following page]

<PAGE>

     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, and pursuant to Section 5 of the Original Agreement,
the undersigned, constituting Holders holding not less than a majority of the
shares of Common Stock held by all Holders and the Members of the Voting Group
holding not less than a majority of the shares of Common Stock held by all
Members of the Voting Group, have caused this Amendment to be executed effective
as of the date first above written.

HOLDERS:                                    VOTING GROUP MEMBERS:


-------------------------------------       ------------------------------------
John D. Sanders                             Jon M. Stout

                                            Stout Dynastic Trust


-------------------------------------       ------------------------------------
J. Richard Knop                             Jon M. Stout, Trustee


                                            ------------------------------------
                                            J. Richard Knop
§ 71.34 Evidence. ( a ) The ALJ shall determine the admissibility of evidence.
( b ) Except as provided in this part, the ALJ shall not be bound by the Federal Rules of Evidence. However, the ALJ may apply the Federal Rules of Evidence where appropriate, e.g., to exclude unreliable evidence.
( c ) The ALJ shall exclude irrelevant and immaterial evidence.
( d ) Although relevant, evidence may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or by considerations of undue delay or needless presentation of cumulative evidence.
( e ) Although relevant, evidence may be excluded if it is privileged under Federal law.
( f ) Evidence concerning offers of compromise or settlement shall be inadmissible to the extent provided in Rule 408 of the Federal Rules of Evidence.
( g ) The ALJ shall permit the parties to introduce rebuttal witnesses and evidence.
( h ) All documents and other evidence offered or taken for the record shall be open to examination by all parties, unless otherwise ordered by the ALJ pursuant to § 71.24.
# C_2015381EN.01004302.xml

| 16.11.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 381/43 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.11.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 381/43

---

Order of the President of the General Court of 21 September 2015 — Consorzio Vivaisti viticoli pugliesi and Negro v Commission

(Case T-436/15 R)

((Interim measures - Agriculture - Protective measures against pests of plants - Measures to prevent the introduction into and the spread within the European Union of Xylella fastidiosa - Application for suspension of operation of a measure - Failure to comply with the procedural requirements - Inadmissibility))

(2015/C 381/52)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Parties

Applicants: Consorzio Vivaisti viticoli pugliesi (Otrante, Italy) and Negro Daniele (Otrante) (represented by: V. Pellegrino and A. Micolani, lawyers)

Applicants:

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: D. Bianchi and I. Galindo Martín, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Application to suspend the operation of Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2015/789 of 18 May 2015 as regards measures to prevent the introduction into and the spread within the Union of Xylella fastidiosa (Wells et al.) (OJ 2015 L 125, p. 36) in so far as that decision encompasses grapevine varieties grown in the province of Lecce.

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The application for interim measures is dismissed. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The application for interim measures is dismissed.

| 2. | Costs are reserved. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Costs are reserved.

---