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

                           CERTIFICATE OF AMENDMENT
                                     OF
            FOURTH RESTATED ARTICLES OF INCORPORATION, AS AMENDED


  D. Scott Buchanan and Aron P. Stern hereby certify that:

  1.  They are the President and the Secretary, respectively, of Biomagnetic 
      Technologies, Inc., a California corporation (the "Corporation").

  2.  Article IV of the Fourth Restated Articles of Incorporation, as 
      amended, (the "Articles") of the Corporation is amended to read as 
      follows:

      "The corporation is authorized to issue one (1) class of stock to be 
      designated "Common Stock." The total number of shares which the 
      corporation is authorized to issue is Two Hundred Million (200,000,000) 
      shares, of which all such shares shall be Common Stock, without par 
      value."

  3.  The foregoing amendment of the Articles has been duly approved by the 
      Board of Directors.

  4.  The foregoing amendment of the Articles has been duly approved by the 
      required vote of shareholders in accordance with Sections 902 and 903 
      of the California Corporations Code. The total number of outstanding 
      shares of the Corporation entitled to vote with respect to this 
      amendment was 83,367,112 shares of Common Stock. The number of shares 
      voting in favor of the amendment equaled or exceeded the vote required. 
      The percentage vote required was more than 50 percent of all 
      outstanding shares of Common Stock.

   We further declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of 
California that the matters set forth in this certificate are true and 
correct of my own knowledge.

DATED: May 14, 1999

                                         /s/ D. Scott Buchanan
                                         ------------------------------------
                                         President

                                         /s/ Aron P. Stern
                                         ------------------------------------
                                         Secretary
§ 210.22 Definitions. For purposes of this subpart: ( a ) Unless otherwise specified, the terms used have the meanings set forth in 17 U.S.C. 115(e).
( b ) The term *blanket licensee* means a digital music provider operating under a blanket license.
( c ) The term *DDEX* means Digital Data Exchange, LLC.
( d ) The term *derivative works exception* means the limitations contained in 17 U.S.C. 203(b)(1) and 304(c)(6)(A).
( e ) The term *GAAP* means U.S. Generally Accepted Accounting Principles, except that if the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission permits or requires entities with securities that are publicly traded in the U.S. to employ International Financial Reporting Standards, as issued by the International Accounting Standards Board, or as accepted by the Securities and Exchange Commission if different from that issued by the International Accounting Standards Board, in lieu of Generally Accepted Accounting Principles, then an entity may employ International Financial Reporting Standards as “GAAP” for purposes of this section.
( f ) The term *historical unmatched royalties* means the accrued royalties transferred to the mechanical licensing collective by digital music providers pursuant to 17 U.S.C. 115(d)(10) and § 210.10.
( g ) The term *IPI* means interested parties information code.
( h ) The term *ISNI* means international standard name identifier.
( i ) The term *ISRC* means international standard recording code.
( j ) The term *ISWC* means international standard musical work code.
( k ) The term *matched historical royalties* means historical unmatched royalties attributable to a musical work (or share thereof) matched after being transferred to the mechanical licensing collective.
( l ) The term *payee snapshot* means the royalty payee information in the mechanical licensing collective's records as of a particular date used for a particular monthly royalty distribution.
( m ) The term *pre-termination copyright owner* means the owner of the relevant copyright immediately prior to: ( 1 ) The effective date of termination for an effective termination under 17 U.S.C. 203 or 304; or
( 2 ) The purported effective date of termination for a claimed, disputed, or invalid termination under 17 U.S.C. 203 or 304.
( n ) The term *producer* means the primary person(s) contracted by and accountable to the content owner for the task of delivering the sound recording as a finished product.
( o ) The term *terminating party* means: ( 1 ) A party entitled under 17 U.S.C. 203 or 304 to terminate a grant, who is seeking to terminate such a grant under such provisions;
( 2 ) A party who has effectuated termination of a grant under 17 U.S.C. 203 or 304;
( 3 ) A party to whom rights have reverted or are expected to revert pursuant to the effective termination of a grant under 17 U.S.C. 203 or 304; or
( 4 ) A successor in interest to a party identified in paragraph (o)(1), (2), or (3) of this section (*e.g.,* a subsequent publisher or administrator).
( p ) The term *UPC* means universal product code.
[85 FR 58143, Sept. 17, 2020, as amended at 89 FR 56612, July 9, 2024]
###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 2 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to trademarks regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 6 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to trademarks regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 7 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to trademarks regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 1 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to patents regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 3 pertaining to both patents and trademarks is placed in the grouping pertaining to patents regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 4 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to patents regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 5 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to patents regulations.

#### § 7.26 Filing date of extension of protection for purposes of examination in the Office.

(a) If a request for extension of protection of an international registration to the United States is made in an international application and the request includes a declaration of a bona fide intention to use the mark in commerce as set out in § 2.33(e) of this chapter, the filing date of the extension of protection to the United States is the international registration date.

(b) If a request for extension of protection of an international registration to the United States is made in a subsequent designation and the request includes a declaration of a bona fide intention to use the mark in commerce as set out in § 2.33(e), the filing date of the extension of protection to the United States is the date that the International Bureau records the subsequent designation.
§ 14.619 Collection action. ( a ) In a case where the Regional Counsel determines that medical care and services were furnished as a result of the negligence of a third party, other than an employee of the United States while acting in the scope of his or her employment, the Regional Counsel will request payment in full of the amount of damage from the person liable therefor or such person's insurer.
( b ) The Regional Counsel may collect, compromise, suspend, or terminate collection activity on any such claim as is authorized under § 2.6(e)(3) of this chapter. However, claims in excess of $100,000 may be compromised, settled, or waived only with the prior approval of the Department of Justice, which will be obtained through the General Counsel. Any such claim that has not been collected in full and which has not been compromised, suspended or terminated will be referred by the Regional Counsel to the appropriate U.S. Attorney along with appropriate information necessary to protect the interest of the Government. A copy of the referral to the U.S. Attorney will be sent to the General Counsel's office.
( c ) In a case where the Regional Counsel determines that a claim is appropriate under the provisions of § 17.48(g) of this chapter or 38 U.S.C. 1729, for the cost of medical, hospital, or surgical care, the Regional Counsel may assert the claim and collect payment in full. The Regional Counsel may compromise, settle, waive, suspend or terminate collection activity on any claim not exceeding $100,000. Claims in excess of $100,000 may only be compromised, settled, or waived with the approval of the General Counsel. Any such claim not compromised, settled, or waived or where collection action is not suspended or terminated will be referred to the appropriate United States Attorney with sufficient data to enable that office to protect the interest of the Government. A copy of all materials referred to the United States Attorney will be furnished the General Counsel.
(Authority: 38 U.S.C. 1729(c)(1))
[42 FR 41418, Aug. 17, 1977, as amended at 43 FR 10560, Mar. 14, 1978; 51 FR 23227, June 26, 1986; 58 FR 39153, July 22, 1993; 61 FR 27785, June 3, 1996]
§ 384.7 Verification of royalty distributions. ( a ) *General.* This section prescribes procedures by which any Copyright Owner may verify the royalty distributions made by the Collective; provided, however, that nothing contained in this section shall apply to situations where a Copyright Owner and the Collective have agreed as to proper verification methods.
( b ) *Frequency of verification.* A Copyright Owner may conduct a single audit of the Collective upon reasonable notice and during reasonable business hours, during any given calendar year, for any or all of the prior 3 calendar years, but no calendar year shall be subject to audit more than once.
( c ) *Notice of intent to audit.* A Copyright Owner must file with the Copyright Royalty Judges a notice of intent to audit the Collective, which shall, within 30 days of the filing of the notice, publish in the Federal Register a notice announcing such filing. The notification of intent to audit shall be served at the same time on the Collective. Any such audit shall be conducted by an independent and Qualified Auditor identified in the notice, and shall be binding on all Copyright Owners.
( d ) *Acquisition and retention of record.* The Collective shall use commercially reasonable efforts to obtain or to provide access to any relevant books and records maintained by third parties for the purpose of the audit. The Copyright Owner requesting the verification procedure shall retain the report of the verification for a period of not less than 3 years.
( e ) *Acceptable verification procedure.* An audit, including underlying paperwork, which was performed in the ordinary course of business according to generally accepted auditing standards by an independent and Qualified Auditor, shall serve as an acceptable verification procedure for all parties with respect to the information that is within the scope of the audit.
( f ) *Consultation.* Before rendering a written report to a Copyright Owner, except where the auditor has a reasonable basis to suspect fraud and disclosure would, in the reasonable opinion of the auditor, prejudice the investigation of such suspected fraud, the auditor shall review the tentative written findings of the audit with the appropriate agent or employee of the Collective in order to remedy any factual errors and clarify any issues relating to the audit; Provided that the appropriate agent or employee of the Collective reasonably cooperates with the auditor to remedy promptly any factual errors or clarify any issues raised by the audit.
( g ) *Costs of the verification procedure.* The Copyright Owner requesting the verification procedure shall pay the cost of the procedure, unless it is finally determined that there was an underpayment of 10% or more, in which case the Collective shall, in addition to paying the amount of any underpayment, bear the reasonable costs of the verification procedure.
[73 FR 16199, Mar. 27, 2008, as amended at 78 FR 66278, Nov. 5, 2013]
Retention Bonus dated as of June 27, 2003



 EXHIBIT 10.9 
  
 New York Community Bancorp, Inc. 
 615
Merrick Avenue 
 Westbury, New York 11590 
  

June 27, 2003 
  
 Michael P. Puorro 
 The Roslyn Savings Bank 
 One Jericho Plaza 
 Jericho, New York 11753-8905 
  
 Dear Michael: 
  
 I am pleased to have this opportunity to set forth in writing certain additional information relating to your employment at New York Community Bancorp,
Inc. (the “Holding Company”) and New York Community Bank (the “Bank”) following the consummation of the transactions contemplated by the Agreement and Plan of Merger (the “Merger Agreement”) entered between the Holding
Company and Roslyn Bancorp, Inc. on this date. This letter is intended to supplement your new employment agreement with the Holding Company. 
  
 At such time as you become an employee of the Holding Company and the Bank under your new employment agreement as a result of the merger contemplated by
the Merger Agreement, you will receive a retention bonus of $600,000. However, if you voluntarily terminate employment prior to the completion of 365 days of employment after the Effective Time other than by reason of an “Event of
Termination” (as defined in your new employment agreement), or if you are terminated for “Just Cause” (as defined in your new employment agreement) within such 365-day period, you will immediately return to the Holding Company a
portion of the retention bonus equal to the product of (x) the retention bonus and (y) a fraction the numerator of which is the total number of days remaining in such 365-day period and the denominator of which is 365. 







 Notwithstanding the foregoing, if the Merger Agreement is terminated pursuant to Article VI of the Merger
Agreement, this letter agreement will be null and void. 
  
 Please
acknowledge the foregoing in the space indicated below. 
  

	 Sincerely,

	
	 /s/ Joseph R. Ficalora


	 Joseph R. Ficalora
 President and Chief Executive Officer



  

	 Acknowledged and Agreed:

	
	 /s/ Michael P. Puorro


	 Michael P. Puorro


  

 2
##### 



Exhibit 32.1 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 Sentex Sensing Technology, Inc., (the Company) on Form
10-QSB for the period ending May 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
the date hereof (the Report), I, Robert S. Kendall, Chief Executive Officer of the Company,
certify, pursuant to 18 U. S. C. (S) 1350, as adopted pursuant to (S) 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/ Robert S. KendallRobert S. KendallChief Executive OfficerJuly 14, 2005
 16
AprilS, 2013 

Mr. Todd M. Homan 

Dire_c.tor, Offic_e oLAYi.atimv\.nalysis_ 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE 

Washington, DC 20590 

KAWERAK, INC. 

P.O. BOX948 

NOME, AK 99762 

TEL: (907)443-5231 

FAX: (907)443-4452 

Re: Evergreens Helicopters, Inc. Proposal to Provide Air Service to Diomede Alaska 

Reference Docket: DOCKET DOT -OST -2009-0260 V 

Dear Mr. Homan, 

Kawerak is providing comments in support of the Evergreen Helicopter bid for Essential 

Air Service (EAS) at Diomede, Alaska. The umeliable year around transportation issues 

cause numerous health and safety problems for Diomede residents. A subsidized air 

service is the best way to assure reliable transportation to the mainland for the residents. 

Diomede is not eligible to use the Basic Essential Air Service program, but the State of 

Alaska has notified Kawerak that $200,000.00 will be appropriated to us for the July 1, 

2013- June 30,2014 budget as a grant match fund allowing Diomede to participate in the 

Air Transportation to Non-eligible Places program. The official funding agreement has 

not arrived yet. 

Kawerak: has two comments in support of the Evergreen Helicopter bid. 

1. Kawerak respectfully urges US DOT to sign the EAS contract for air service at 

Diomede with Evergreen Helicopters, Inc. as soon as possible because it will 

significantly improve access to routine health services, supplies, medicine and basic 

necessities while improving general economic welfare for the community of 

Diomede, Alaska. Evergreen has a history of providing service in this region, and the 

funding will help them add the needed number of routes to allow more passenger 

service to the residents. 

2. Additionally, Kawerak supports the continuation of the EAS program in Alaska and 

the cmcial connection it brings to our remote communities. Diomede is located at a 

critical point near the Intemational Date Line. It is a remote economically distressed 

Alaska Native community. Poor access makes it difficult for residents to live there 

and feel secure. This program will help improve access so that Diomede continues to 

be a good commtmity to work, live and raise a family. 

40 YEARS OF SERVICE TO THE VILLAGES OF: 

. BREVIG MISSION• COUNCIL• DIOMEDE• ELIM• GAMBELL• GOLOVIN• KING ISLAND• KOYUK• MARY'S IGLOO• NOME• SAVOONGA 

SHAKTOOLIK• SHISHMAREF• SOLOMON• STEBBINS• ST. MICHAEL• TELLER• UNALAKLEET• WALES• WHITE MOUNTAIN 
Sincerely, 

KA WERAK, INC. 

==~====== Melanie Banhke 

President 

CC: Pearl Mikulski CSD Vice President 

Dora Ahkinga~ Mayor of Diomede 

Orville Ahkinga, Sr., Native Village of Diomede President 

Becky Kunayak, Inalik/Diomede Native Corporation President
EXHIBIT 32.2
 SARBANES-OXLEY ACT SECTION 906 CERTIFICATIONS
OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
  1.
    
    this Form 10-Q for the period ended April 30, 2008 fully complies with the requirements
of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and2.
    
    the information contained in this Form 10-Q for the period ended April 30, 2008 fairly
presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
Thor Industries, Inc.
 Date:   June 9, 2008
    /s/ Christian G. FarmanChristian G. FarmanSenior Vice President
and Chief Financial Officer
Re: EPA mtg at Sheritan Susan Stone to: wildart 02/08/2010 08:49 AM Cc: Tricia Crabtree, Lydia Wegman, Alison Davis

Dear Ms. Fronce: It was nice meeting you at lunch. Thank you for your testimony. We will enter it into the public docket. Best regards, Susan Stone

Susan Lyon Stone Ambient Standards Group l US EPA (C504-06) l Research Triangle Park, NC 27711 Phone: 919-541-1146 l Fax: 919- 541-0237 l HSD Phone 919-966-6226

"Linnea Fronce" 02/05/2010 12:09:06 PM We met briefly at lunch. I did not testify but woul...

From: "Linnea Fronce" <wildart@dslextreme.com> To: Susan Stone/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA Date: 02/05/2010 12:09 PM Subject: EPA mtg at Sheritan

We met briefly at lunch. I did not testify but would like to add my 2 cents now. I had forgotten the girl in the hospital in 1982. She had asthma. She was about 10-11 yrs old and hospitalized for about the 57 th time. The asthma meds had made her bones brittle and she could not pay, run, ride a bike, etc. No idea if ozone was a factor, but I wonder if she is still alive. To rebut the engineer that felt ground level ozone did not matter; only exercise
matters: When living in Santa Rosa I began to wonder if I had allergies. Nose dripped frequently. 1988 moved to Sacramento and immediately had to have handkerchief with me at all times. Ozone??? About 10 years ago I was getting plenty of exercise: hiked 6-10 miles a week, & walked my large dog. I also worked a retail job in a big building while shorthanded, so I walked back and forth all day; perhaps another 5 miles. But I was living in polluted Sacramento. Kaiser tested me and found my lungs were at bottom of normal range. Ground level ozone at work??? Now retired, I garden a lot, including laying drip irrigation, digging out bushes and trees we don’t want and propagating plants for CA Native Plant Society. I do shorter errands on bike, walk 3 miles with husband (nearly daily), & take walks on parkway with Native Plant Society. I haven’t near the stamina I used to have. At night I am tired. I had assumed it was due to getting older (am 66), but after yesterdays testimonies I wonder if that has more to do with 21 1⁄2 years in Sacramento. Please make stringent requirements. Oil & coal only care about profits, not thefuture of the country or the people. Linnea Fronce Sacramento CA
HomePeople...Melissa J. Kehoe

# 				Melissa J. Kehoe			

															Senior Advisor						Bureau of Oceans and International Environmental and Scientific Affairs												

				January 20, 2021 -									April 30, 2021							

**Melissa J. Kehoe's term ended on April 30, 2021.**

Tags

Bureau of Oceans and International Environmental and Scientific AffairsState Department Official

Back to Top
#### § 17.278 Medical care cost recovery.

VA will actively pursue medical care cost recovery in accordance with applicable law.

[87 FR 41603, July 13, 2022]