alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
QuickLinks
 -- Click here to rapidly navigate through this document
  



Exhibit 10.2  


 
 

FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE
  NUESTRA TARJETA DE SERVICIOS, INC.
  2001 STOCK OPTION AND INCENTIVE PLAN    
    


        WHEREAS, effective July 18, 2006, the Board of Directors of El Banco Financial Corporation (formerly
Nuestra Tarjeta de Servicios, Inc.) (the "Company") approved the following amendment to the Nuestra Tarjeta de Servicios, Inc. 2001 Stock Option and Incentive Plan (the "Plan"); 


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


        Section 1.  Amendment of the Plan.    


        (b)   The
plan shall be renamed the "El Banco Financial Corporation 2001 Stock Option and Incentive Plan" 


        (a)   The
first paragraph of Section 5.1 is amended to read as follows: 



        Subject
to any antidilution adjustment pursuant to the provisions of Section 5.2 of this Plan, the maximum number of shares of Stock that may be issued hereunder shall be
1,300,000. Any or all shares of Stock subject to the Plan may be issued in any combination of Incentive Stock Options, non-Incentive Stock Options, Restricted
Stock, or SARs, and the amount of Stock subject to the Plan may be increased from time to time in accordance with Article 10, provided that the total number of shares of Stock issuable pursuant
to Incentive Stock Options may not be increased to more than 500,000 (other than pursuant to antidilution adjustments) without shareholder approval. Shares subject to an
Option or issued as an Award may be either authorized and unissued shares or
shares issued and later acquired by the Company. The shares covered by any unexercised portion of an Option that has terminated for any reason (except as set forth in the following paragraph), or any
forfeited portion of an Award, may again be optioned or awarded under the Plan, and such shares shall not be considered as having been optioned or issued in computing the number of shares of Stock
remaining available for option or award hereunder. 




        Section 2.  Effect on Plan.    Except as otherwise specifically provided herein, the Plan shall not be
amended but shall remain in full force and effect. 


        Section 3.  Headings.    The Section headings contained in this Amendment are for reference purposes only and
will not affect in any way the meaning or interpretation of this Amendment. 



        IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company has caused this Amendment to be executed as of July 18, 2006, in accordance with the authority
provided by the Board of Directors. 



	 	 	El Banco Financial Corporation.
	

 	
 	

By:	
 	

/s/  DREW W. EDWARDS      

	 	 	 	 	Name:	 	Drew W. Edwards

	 	 	 	 	Title:	 	Chief Executive Officer





1











QuickLinks


FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE NUESTRA TARJETA DE SERVICIOS, INC. 2001 STOCK OPTION AND INCENTIVE PLAN
§ 1120.2 Applicability of this part. ( a ) *To whom it applies.* This part: ( 1 ) Sets forth requirements for DoD Components that award grants and cooperative agreements.
( 2 ) Does not impose requirements on recipients of DoD Components' awards.
( b ) *To what awards it applies.* This part applies to grants and cooperative agreements, other than technology investment agreements (TIAs), awarded to any type of recipient entity.
#### § 200.215 Never contract with the enemy.

Federal awarding agencies and recipients are subject to the regulations implementing Never Contract with the Enemy in 2 CFR part 183. The regulations in 2 CFR part 183 affect covered contracts, grants and cooperative agreements that are expected to exceed $50,000 within the period of performance, are performed outside the United States and its territories, and are in support of a contingency operation in which members of the Armed Forces are actively engaged in hostilities.
#### In re PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION (Nostrand Ave.).

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.

June 5, 1914.)

In the matter of the application of the Public Service Commission, etc., for the appointment of commissioners of appraisal, etc.; No-strand Avenue, from Union Street to Eastern Parkway, etc.

No opinion. Motion denied, without costs.
DJI PHANTOM 3 Maintenance Log
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1995
<CASH>                                       1,625,657
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                8,415,793
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                  6,753,272
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            17,507,447
<PP&E>                                       9,970,154
<DEPRECIATION>                               2,798,906
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              25,119,440
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        4,288,586
<BONDS>                                              0
<COMMON>                                       268,489
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                  16,958,557
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                25,119,440
<SALES>                                      6,958,330
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             6,958,330
<CGS>                                        3,646,439
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                3,646,439
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              97,034
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                107,118
<INCOME-TAX>                                    43,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             64,118
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    64,118
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .01
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .01
        

</TABLE>
<PAGE>   1
                                                                      Exhibit 11


                       Computation of Earnings Per Share


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                          THREE MONTHS ENDED                 SIX MONTHS ENDED
                                                               JUNE 30,                          JUNE 30,
                                                      ----------------------------      ----------------------------
                                                          1997           1996              1997             1996
                                                      -----------      -----------      -----------      -----------
 <S>                                                          <C>                        <C>            <C>
 PRIMARY EARNINGS PER SHARE:
   Weighted average and common equivalent shares       26,283,343       26,196,613       26,273,447       26,135,111
                                                      -----------      -----------      -----------      -----------
   Net income                                         $ 9,884,637      $10,674,046      $17,780,644      $20,522,156
                                                      ===========      ===========      ===========      ===========
   Net income per share                               $      0.38      $      0.41      $      0.68      $      0.79
                                                      ===========      ===========      ===========      ===========

 FULLY DILUTED:
   Weighted average and common equivalent shares       26,283,343       26,196,613       26,273,447       26,135,111
                                                      -----------      -----------      -----------      -----------
   Net income                                         $ 9,884,637      $10,674,046      $17,780,644      $20,522,156
                                                      ===========      ===========      ===========      ===========
   Net income per share                               $      0.38      $      0.41      $      0.68      $      0.79
                                                      ===========      ===========      ===========      ===========
</TABLE>





                                       35
§ 460.202 Thermostats and controls. ( a ) At least one thermostat must be provided for each separate heating and cooling system installed by the manufacturer. The thermostat and controls requirements are adapted from section R403 of the 2021 IECC.
( b ) Any programmable thermostat installed by the manufacturer that controls the heating or cooling system must— ( 1 ) Be capable of controlling the heating and cooling system on a daily schedule to maintain different temperature set points at different times of the day and different days of the week;
( 2 ) Include the capability to set back or temporarily operate the system to maintain zone temperatures down to 55 °F (13 °C) or up to 85 °F (29 °C); and
( 3 ) Initially be programmed with a heating temperature set point no higher than 70 °F (21 °C) and a cooling temperature set point no lower than 78 °F (26 °C).
( c ) Heat pumps with supplementary electric-resistance heat must be provided with controls that, except during defrost, prevent supplemental heat operation when the heat pump compressor can meet the heating load.
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  Quarterly  Report  of The  Topps  Company,  Inc.  (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended November 27, 2004 as filed with the
Securities  and  Exchange  Commission  on the date  hereof  (the  "Report"),  I,
Catherine K. Jessup, Vice President-Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer of the
Company,  certify,  pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.1350, as adopted pursuant to ss.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.







                                                     s/ Catherine K. Jessup
                                                     -------------------------
                                                        Catherine K. Jessup
                                                  Vice President-Chief Financial
                                                      Officer and Treasurer



January 6, 2005
§ 1108.85 Cognizant agency for indirect costs. *Cognizant agency for indirect costs* means the Federal agency responsible for reviewing, negotiating, and approving cost allocation plans and indirect cost proposals on behalf of all Federal agencies. The cognizant agency for indirect costs for a particular entity may be different than the cognizant agency for audit. The cognizant agency for indirect costs: ( a ) For an institution of higher education, nonprofit organization, State, local government, or Indian tribe is assigned as described in the appendices to 2 CFR part 200. See 2 CFR 200.19 for specific citations to those appendices.
( b ) For a for-profit entity, normally will be the agency with the largest dollar amount of pertinent business, as described in the Federal Acquisition Regulation at 48 CFR 42.003.
Connecticut Department of 

ENERGY & 

ENVIRONMENTAL 

~ PROTECTION 

79 Elm Street " Hartford, CT 06106-5127 www.ct.gov/deep Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Employer 

July 11, 2012 

David Conroy, Chief, Air Programs Branch 

US EPA - New England 

5 Post Office Square- Suite 100 (Mail Code OEP05-2) 

Boston, MA 02109-3912 

Re: Commitment Regarding the CAA §1 10(a)(2)(A) Portion of Connecticut's Infrastructure 

Submittals for the 1997 and 2006 PMZ,5 NAAQS 

Dear Mr. Conroy: 

The Connecticut Department of Energy and Environmental Protection (DEEP) submitted revisions to 

its State Implementation Plan (SIP) addressing the regulatory infrastructure requirements of 

§ 110(a)(1) and (2) of the Clean Air Act (CAA) for the 1997 annual and 2006 24-hour PM2.5 national 

ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) on September 4, 2008 and September 18, 2009, 

respectively . Subsequent clarifications to those submissions, requested by the Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA), were submitted on January 7, 2011 and August 19, 2011 . Most recently, 

your staff has requested we specifically incorporate the NAAQS into our regulations. 

We understand that EPA is now preparing conditional approvals of these SIP revisions and has 

requested DEEP provide a commitment to submit such a revision to the Regulations of Connecticut 

State Agencies. As required by EPA staff, DEEP hereby commits to provide a statement of legal 

authority and/or pursue adoption of any necessary regulatory revisions to meet the requirements of 

Section 110(a)(2)(A) by a date no later than one year from the date on which EPA finalizes 

conditional approval of Connecticut's PM2.5 infrastructure submissions. 

Connecticut appreciates EPA's efforts to move forward swiftly with conditional approval of the 

Infrastructure SIP revisions and approval of Connecticut's redesignation request and maintenance 

plan SIP revision for the PM2.5 NAAQS, submitted on June 22, 2012. Redesignation of Connecticut's 

portion of the New York/New Jersey/Connecticut area to attainment will formally recognize the 

public health benefits from the successful implementation of federal and state control programs . 

Furthermore, redesignation will streamline the permitting process, thereby reducing regulatory 

burdens and supporting economic growth in the Connecticut portion of the area . 

Thank you for your assistance expediting the approval of this SIP and redesignation . 

Sincerely, 

awp-L 

Anne Gobin, Chief 

Bureau of Air Management
# IVED U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION OFFICE OF HEARINGS

WASHINGTON, D.C. 

## EARING DOCKET

In the Matter ofLaurel Avionics Company, Inc. FDMS No. FAA 2015-0202 The Honorable J.E. Sullivan

ANSWER Pursuant to Rule 209 ofthe Ru1es ofPractice (14 C.F.R. 13.209), Respondent answers the Administrator's Complaint and states as follows:

1. Admitted. 2. Admitted. 3. Admitted 4. Respondent is without sufficientknowledge or information to admit or deny this paragraph. 5. Respondent is without sufficient knowledge or information to admit or deny this paragraph. 6. 

### Admitted. 7. 

### Admitted. 8. 

### Denied. 9. 

### Denied. 10. Denied. 11. Denied.12. Admitted. 

### 13. Admitted. 14. Admitted. 15. Denied. 16. Denied. 17. Denied.
To the extentnothereinabove denied, Respondent also denies all other allegations in the Complaint and specifically denies that there is any merit to the Administrator's allegationthat Respondent violated any Federal AviationRegulation and/or that the issuance ofa civil penalty is required.

Respectfully submitted,CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify thatcopies ofthe foregoing Answer were mailed first class, postage prepaid, in the matter ofLaurel Avionics Company, Inc., FDMS No. FAA 2015-0202, this 23rd day ofFebruary, 2015, to:
ORIGINAL AND ONE COPY Federal Aviation Administration 800 Independence Avenue, S.W. Attn.: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 Wilbur Wright Building- Suite 2W1000 Washington, DC 20591 ONE COPY ZacharyM. BermanEsq. Federal Aviation Administration Office ofRegional Counsel Eastern Region, AEA-7 1 Aviation Plaza Jamaica, NY 11434
Hon. J.E. Sullivan Office ofHearings, M-20 U.S. Department ofTransportation 1200NewJersey Avenue, S.E. (Ell-310) Washington, DC 20590

Counsel for Respondent
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

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Accupoll Holding Corporation (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended December 31, 2003 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Craig A. Hewitt, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. ss.1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 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.

February 23, 2004

Signed,

/s/ Craig A. Hewitt
-------------------
Craig A. Hewitt
CFO
AccuPoll Holding Corp.

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, an other
document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that
appears in typed form within the electronic version 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.
United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit

No. 21-20636

Summary Calendar

United States of America, 

Plaintiff—Appellee,

versus

Bernard Robinson, 

Defendant—Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:19-CR-303-1

Before Higginbotham, Graves, and Ho, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

The attorney appointed to represent Bernard Robinson has moved for 

leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 

386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores, 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). 

Robinson has not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the 

* Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 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 Circuit Rule 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

October 5, 2022

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 21-20636 Document: 00516497906 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/05/2022
No. 21-20636

2

relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We concur with counsel’s 

assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate 

review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is 

GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and 

the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5th Cir. R. 42.2.

Case: 21-20636 Document: 00516497906 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/05/2022
#### § 1108.395 Unique entity identifier.

*Unique entity identifier* means the identifier required for System for Award Management registration to uniquely identify entities with which the Federal Government does business (currently the Dun and Bradstreet Data Universal Numbering System, or DUNS, number).
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from  the
Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements and is qualified in its entirety by
reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                          16,956
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,066,665
<ALLOWANCES>                                  (35,000)
<INVENTORY>                                    716,021
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,780,123
<PP&E>                                       1,374,208
<DEPRECIATION>                             (1,043,590)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,418,832
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,551,956
<BONDS>                                        208,781
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       265,332
<OTHER-SE>                                     392,763
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 2,418,832
<SALES>                                      1,082,622
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,082,622
<CGS>                                          568,539
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  568,539
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               538,237
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             (6,237)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (30,391)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (3,611)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (34,002)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  ($0.00)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  ($0.00)
        

</TABLE>
From: Angus Crane [mailto:acrane@naima.org] 

Sent: Tuesday, December 11, 2012 10:59 PM

To: Reeves, David

Subject: Fwd: Question

See response from Guardian.

Sent from my iPad

Begin forwarded message:

From: <gthomas@bp.Guardian.com>

Date: December 11, 2012 5:49:20 PM EST

To: Angus Crane <acrane@naima.org>

Subject: Re: Question

Angus, here you go:

Albion, Michigan - Major

Inwood, WV - Major

Kingman, Arizona - Synthetic Minor - Area - Shutdown

Mineral Wells, Mississippi - Major

Winnsboro, South Carolina - Major - Shutdown

Kind regards,

Grover Thomas

|------------>

| From: |

|------------>

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

-----------------------------|

|Angus Crane 

<acrane@naima.org> |

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

-----------------------------|
|------------>

| To: |

|------------>

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

-----------------------------|

|"'gthomas@bp.Guardian.com' (gthomas@bp.Guardian.com)" 

<gthomas@bp.Guardian.com> |

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

-----------------------------|

|------------>

| Date: |

|------------>

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

-----------------------------|

|12/11/2012 05:15 

PM |

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

-----------------------------|

|------------>

| Subject: |

|------------>

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

-----------------------------|

|Question |

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

-----------------------------|

Can you give me the major/area source status

Of Inwood, West Virginia; Mineral Wells, Mississippi; and Winnsboro, South

Carolina?

Sincerely,

Angus E. Crane

Executive Vice President, General Counsel

North American Insulation Manufacturers Association
Ph: (703) 684-0084 ext. 123

Fax: (703) 684-0427

Visit NAIMA online at:

www.NAIMA.org

www.PipeInsulation.org