alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>   1

EXHIBIT 4.2


Amendments of the 1996 Stock Option Plan

Section 4 of the 1996 Stock Option Plan is amended and restated in full as
follows:

"4.     NUMBER OF SHARES SUBJECT TO PLAN

        The stock to be offered under the Plan shall consist of up to 3,000,000
shares of the Company's Common Stock. If any Option granted hereunder shall
expire or terminate for any reason without having been exercised in full, the
unpurchased shares subject thereto shall again be available for purposes of this
Plan."
**Exhibit
        32.1**


**Certification**





Pursuant
      to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, the undersigned officer of Elcom International,
      Inc.,
      a Delaware corporation (the “Company”), does hereby certify that Elcom’s Annual
      Report on Form 10-KSB for the year ended December 31, 2006 (the “Form 10-KSB”),
      fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable,
      of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and that the information
      contained in the Form 10-KSB fairly presents, in all material respects, the
      financial condition and results of operations of Elcom as of, and for, the
      periods presented in the Form 10-KSB.


Dated:
                December 20, 2007
            By:
            /s/
                Gregory KingGregory
                King
              Chief
                Executive Officer
              (Principal
                Executive Officer)




The
      foregoing Certification is being furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section
      1350 and is not being filed as part of the Form 10-KSB or as a separate
      disclosure document.
# C_2022385EN.01002101.xml

| 6.10.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 385/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.10.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 385/21

---

State aid – Decision to raise no objections

(2022/C 385/03)

The EFTA Surveillance Authority raises no objections to the following state aid measure:

| Date of adoption of the decision | 21 June 2022 |
| --- | --- |
| Case No | 88873 |
| Decision No | 153/22/COL |
| EFTA State | Iceland |
| Title (and/or name of the beneficiary) | COVID-19 – amendment to the Icelandic temporary guarantee scheme |
| Legal basis | Act No 25/2020 amending Act No 121/1997 on State Guarantees. |
| Type of measure | Scheme |
| Objective | Ensure access to liquidity for undertakings facing a sudden shortage of liquidity due to the COVID-19 outbreak |
| Form of aid | Public guarantees |
| Budget | ISK 50 billion |
| Duration | 20 April 2020 – 31 December 2020 |
| Economic sectors | All sectors |
| Name and address of the granting authority | The Ministry of Finance and Economic Affairs |
| Arnarhvoli við Lindargötu, |
| 101 Reykjavík, Iceland |

Date of adoption of the decision

21 June 2022

Case No

88873

Decision No

153/22/COL

EFTA State

Iceland

Title (and/or name of the beneficiary)

COVID-19 – amendment to the Icelandic temporary guarantee scheme

Legal basis

Act No 25/2020 amending Act No 121/1997 on State Guarantees.

Type of measure

Scheme

Objective

Ensure access to liquidity for undertakings facing a sudden shortage of liquidity due to the COVID-19 outbreak

Form of aid

Public guarantees

Budget

ISK 50 billion

Duration

20 April 2020 – 31 December 2020

Economic sectors

All sectors

Name and address of the granting authority

The Ministry of Finance and Economic Affairs

Arnarhvoli við Lindargötu,

101 Reykjavík, Iceland

The authentic text of the decision, from which all confidential information has been removed, can be found on the EFTA Surveillance Authority’s website: http://www.eftasurv.int/state-aid/state-aid-register/decisions/

---
§ 308.204 Enforcement of directives. ( a ) *Judicial remedies.* Whenever an FDIC-supervised institution fails to comply with a directive issued under section 38, the FDIC may seek enforcement of the directive in the appropriate United States district court pursuant to section 8(i)(1) of the FDI Act (12 U.S.C. 1818(i)(1)).
( b ) *Administrative remedies* — ( 1 ) *Failure to comply with directive.* Pursuant to section 8(i)(2)(A) of the FDI Act, the FDIC may assess a civil money penalty against any FDIC-supervised institution that violates or otherwise fails to comply with any final directive issued under section 38 and against any institution-affiliated party who participates in such violation or noncompliance.
( 2 ) *Failure to implement capital restoration plan.* The failure of an FDIC-supervised institution to implement a capital restoration plan required under section 38, or subpart H of part 324 of this chapter, or the failure of a company having control of an FDIC-supervised institution to fulfill a guarantee of a capital restoration plan made pursuant to section 38(e)(2) of the FDI Act shall subject the FDIC-supervised institution to the assessment of civil money penalties pursuant to section 8(i)(2)(A) of the FDI Act.
( c ) *Other enforcement action.* In addition to the actions described in paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section, the FDIC may seek enforcement of the provisions of section 38 or subpart H of part 324 of this chapter through any other judicial or administrative proceeding authorized by law.
§ 370.6 Implementation. ( a ) *Initial compliance.* A covered institution must satisfy the information technology system and recordkeeping requirements set forth in this part before the compliance date.
( b ) *Extension.* ( 1 ) A covered institution may submit a request to the FDIC for an extension of its compliance date. The request shall state the amount of additional time needed to meet the requirements of this part, the reason(s) for which such additional time is needed, and the total number and dollar value of accounts for which deposit insurance coverage could not be calculated using the covered institution's information technology system were the covered institution to fail as of the date of the request. The FDIC's grant of a covered institution's request for extension may be conditional or time-limited.
( 2 ) An insured depository institution that became a covered institution on April 1, 2017, may extend its compliance date for up to one year upon written notice to the FDIC prior to April 1, 2020. Such notice shall state the total number of, and dollar amount of deposits in, deposit accounts for which the covered institution's information technology system cannot calculate deposit insurance coverage as of April 1, 2020.
§ 44.21 Termination of activities or investments; penalties for violations. ( a ) Any banking entity that engages in an activity or makes an investment in violation of section 13 of the BHC Act or this part, or acts in a manner that functions as an evasion of the requirements of section 13 of the BHC Act or this part, including through an abuse of any activity or investment permitted under subparts B or C, or otherwise violates the restrictions and requirements of section 13 of the BHC Act or this part, shall, upon discovery, promptly terminate the activity and, as relevant, dispose of the investment.
( b ) Whenever the OCC finds reasonable cause to believe any banking entity has engaged in an activity or made an investment in violation of section 13 of the BHC Act or this part, or engaged in any activity or made any investment that functions as an evasion of the requirements of section 13 of the BHC Act or this part, the OCC may take any action permitted by law to enforce compliance with section 13 of the BHC Act and this part, including directing the banking entity to restrict, limit, or terminate any or all activities under this part and dispose of any investment.
# C_2022404EN.01003601.xml

| 20.10.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 404/36 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.10.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 404/36

---

Notice of open Competition

(2022/C 404/08)

The European Personnel Selection Office (EPSO) is organising the following open competition:

EPSO/AD/401/22 Administrators (AD 6) in the fields of energy, climate and environment

The competition notice is published in 24 languages in
  Official Journal of the European Union C 404 A of 20 October 2022.

Further information can be found on the EPSO website: https://epso.europa.eu/

---
1 UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

NATIONAL VEHICLE AND FUEL EMISSIONS LABORATORY

2000 TRAVERWOOD DRIVE ANN ARBOR, MI 48105-2498

OFFICE OF AIR AND RADIATION August 27, 2012

MEMORANDUM SUBJECT: Meeting with BMW on April 25, 2012 to dis cuss the EPA/NHTSA Joint Proposed Rulemaking for Greenhouse Gas and CAFE Standards fo r Model Year 2017-2025 Light-Duty Vehicles FROM: William Charmley, US EPA
TO: EPA Docket # EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0799
This memo documents a meeting between representativ es of BMW and EPA to discuss the EPA/NHTSA Joint Notice of Proposed Rulemaking for G reenhouse Gas and CAFE Standards for Model Year 2017-2025 Light-Duty Vehicles. This meeting was held at BMW offices in Munich, Germany on April 25, 2012. Representatives from BMW included: Peter Langen, President of of Powertrain Chritoph Huss, VP Development Abroad Dr. Cosmas Asam, VP Dr. Christian Cozzarini, Vehicle Regulations and P roduct Certification Dr. Maik Boeres, Corporate Strategy and Planning, Environment Glenn Schmidt, Head of Steering, Government Affair s Geert Schmitz, Total Vehicle Architecture Thomas King, Development Strategy Representatives from EPA included Margo Oge, Chet F rance, Bill Charmley, and Matt Spears.
BMW provided EPA with a detailed technical updated on the companies future vehicle product plans. The majority of this information included c onfidential business information. BMW provided specific information regarding the NPR M, with respect to the topic of upstream emissions for electric vehicles. Attached is the s lide which BMW presented on this topic.2



## EPA QUESTION ON “0-G/MI“ FOR ELECTRIC VEHICLES. BMW PREFERES COMPANY BASED CAP.

EPA Visit, 25.04.2012 Page 1 Proposed per company cap:

 Zero gram Cap for all vehicles between 2017 and 202 1.

 Manufacturer selling > 300k units 2019- 2021 -> hav e 600k units with 0g in 2022- 2025

 Manufacturer selling < 300k units 2019 – 2021 -> ha ve 200k units with 0g in 2022- 2025 Pros and Cons:

 „Clear Planning certainty in the whole time period of the regulation“

 „Uncertainty how many vehicles industry-wide would take advantage of 0 grams“ NO difference to a industry-wide cap, because max. figure is fixed, lower numbers are possible

 Better planning certainty will give an additional s timulation for xEV investments
Industry wide cap:

 Comparison (industry-wide) of xEV Sales to manufact urers %wise sales in 2019-2020.

 Same %wise sales will be granted in 2022- 2025 in th e overall volume of 2mio units. Pros and Cons:

 Uncoupled to manufacturers product cycles. Big disa dvantage for those who are at EoP in between 2019 and 2021.

 Big advantage for volume manufacturer. Small ratio of xEV of a manufacturers whole sales could lead to a big ratio in the industry wide cap.

 Possible discrimination of really innovative techn ologies. E.g. conversion vehicles could be in a shorter timeframe than purpose design products.
September 17, 2015

Mr. Jorge Uribe

1430 South Dixie Highway, Suite 110

Coral Gables, FL 33146

Dear Mr. Uribe :

This letter is to inform you that we are unable to process your petition for an exemption from

§ § 61.1 to 61.429 of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR). It explains why we can

not process your request and what you should do in the next 30 days.

Why We Can No t Process Your Request

We received your June 4, 2015 exemp tion request filed in D ocket No

. FAA− 20 15

− 2723 , but

we are unable to process your request any further. Your petition does no t comply with the

requirements of § 11.81 (copy enclosed). For us to consider the request any further, you must

send us all of the following:

 The reasons why the exemption would not adversely affect safety or how the exemption

would provide a level of safety at least equal to that provided by the rule from which you

seek an exemption.

 Any additional information, views, or arguments available to support your request.

For more detailed information relating to submitting petitions for exemption, please visit

http://aes.faa.gov/petition/index.html . This website helps the petitioner to meet Federal

Aviation A dministration (FAA) requirem ent outlines in § 11.81 and helps answer any

questions you may have.

What You Should Do

If you want us to process your request any further, you must submit the requested information

within 30 days. Please note that § 11.63(d) requires you to send your petition for exemption

at least 120 days before the proposed effective date of the exemption.2

If We Do Not Hear From You

If we do not receive the information, we will close the docket without notif ying you further.

If you have any questions you may call the 333 Information Line (202) 267

- 2999.

Sincerely,

/s/

Brittany Newton

Program Analyst, Airmen and

Airspace Rules Division

Enclosure s34
In The Matter Of: 

SERVED: July 1, 2016 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, DC 

Docket No. FAA-2014-1116 

Pacific International Skydiving Center 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Case No. 2014WP130012 

Respondent 

NOTICE OF HEARING 

Pursuant to 14 C.F.R. § 13.205(a)(l) and§ 13.221, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 

1. Location 

a. The hearing will be held at the United States District Court, District of Hawaii, 

300 Ala Moana Blvd., Honolulu, HI 96850. 1 

b. Briefcases, purses, packages, and other items will be subject to search upon entry to 

the building. All individuals must present a valid government-issued I.D. to enter. 

2. Date. 

a. The hearing will begin on December 13, 2016. 

b. The courtroom is reserved through December 16, 2016. 

3. Time 

a. The ·hearing will begin· at 9:00 a.m. local time and end by 4:00 p.m. each day. 

b. The parties shall vacate the courthouse by 5:00 p.m. each day. 

Attachment: Service List 

y~,,___ __ 

DOUGLAS M. RA w ALD A 

Administrative Law Judge 

I As of the date of this notice, a courtroom has not yet been assigned. Parties should check the Court Calendar on 

the day of the hearing for the exact courtroom or check with the Clerk's Office. 
SERVICE LIST - BY U.S. MAIL 

ORIGINAL & ONE COPY 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Washington, DC 20591 

Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2Wl0002 

ONE COPY 

Robert L. Feldman, Respondent's Counsel 

8900 SW 107th A venue, Suite 203 

Miami, FL 33176 

TEL: 305-598-4841 

FAX: 305-598-4842 

Don Bobertz, Complainant's Counsel 

Office of the Regional Counsel, A WP-7 

Federal Aviation Administration 

Western-Pacific Region 

P. 0. Box 92007 

Los Angeles, CA 90009-2007 

TEL: 310-725-3454 

FAX:310-725-6816 

The Honorable Douglas M. Rawald, Administrative Law Judge 

Office of Hearings, M-20 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. (El 1-310) 

Washington, DC 20590 

TEL: 202-366-5121 Staff Assistant 

FAX: 202-366-7536 

DocketNo. FAA-2014-1116 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

2 Service was by U.S. Mail. For service in person or by expedited courier, use the following address: Federal 

Aviation Administration, 600 Independence Avenue, S.W., Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2Wl000, Washington, 

DC 20591; Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430.
#### § 4.81 Purpose.

The OCC issues regulations and guidance as part of its supervisory function. This subpart reiterates the distinctions between regulations and guidance, as stated in the Statement Clarifying the Role of Supervisory Guidance (appendix A to this subpart) (Statement).
EXHIBIT 31.2

 

**CERTIFICATION**

 

I, Peter Frugone, certify that:

 

1. I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of ArrowResources Development, Inc.;

 

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untruestatement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstancesunder which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

 

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and otherfinancial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operationsand cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

 

4. The registrant's other certifying officer(s) and I are responsiblefor establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e))for the registrant and we have:

 

a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or causedsuch disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to theregistrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during theperiod in which this report is being prepared;

 

b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosurecontrols and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures,as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

 

c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's internalcontrol over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant's fourth fiscalquarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant'sinternal control over financial reporting; and

 

5. The registrant's other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed,based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committeeof the registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

 

a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in thedesign or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant'sability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

 

(b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves managementor other employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal controls over financial reporting.

 

Date: August 20, 2012
#### § 1408.2 Applicability.

This part applies to all claims of indebtedness due and owing to the United States and collectible under procedures authorized by the Federal Claims Collection Act of 1966, as amended by the Debt Collection Act of 1982. The joint regulations and this part do not apply to conduct in violation of antitrust laws, tax claims, claims between Federal agencies, or to any claim which appears to involve fraud, presentation of a false claim, or misrepresentation on the part of the debtor or any other party having an interest in the claim, unless the Justice Department authorizes the Farm Credit System Insurance Corporation, pursuant to 4 CFR 101.3, to handle the claim in accordance with the provisions of 4 CFR parts 101 through 105. Additionally, this part does not apply to Farm Credit System Insurance Corporation's premiums regulations under part 1410 of this chapter.
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 32.4

                            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 Elephant & Castle Group Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-KA for the period ended December 28, 2003 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Roger Sexton, 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:

    (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/Roger Sexton
                                      -----------------------------
                                      Roger Sexton
                                      Chief Financial Officer

Dated: APRIL 26, 2004



                                      -64-
#### Edward “Pete” RICHARDS *v.*STATE of Arkansas

CR 73-57

498 S.W. 2d 1

Opinion delivered July 2, 1973

[Rehearing denied August 27, 1973.]

*Randell Templeton,*for appellant.

*Jim Guy Tucker,*Atty. Gen., by: *O. H. Hargraves,*Deputy Atty. Gen., for appellee.

*761George Rose Smith, Justice.

The appellant, charged with and convicted of assault with intent to rape, was sentenced to imprisonment for 21 years. He argues two points for reversal.

First, it is contended that the State’s proof did not sufficiently identify Richards as the person who committed the offense. This contention is without merit. Richards’ identity was established not only by the testimony of the prosecutrix but also by a chemical analysis of stains found upon her clothing and upon a handkerchief taken from Richards at the time of his arrest and apparently used in the course of the assault.

Secondly, Richards questions the admissibility of the record of a previous conviction introduced by the State to show that he was a habitual criminal. The record in question, showing a burglary conviction in a Texas state court, was certified by Waymon Wooderson as the Record Clerk of the Texas Department' of Corrections.

Under our holding in *Higgins*v. *State,*255 Ark. 153, 357 S.W. 2d 499 (1962), the record was not certified by the right person. That part of the statute which is pertinent here requires that the conviction be shown by “the certificate of the warden or other chief officer of any penitentiary of this State or any other State.” Ark. Stat. Ann. § 43-2330 (Repl. 1964). In *Higgins*we held that the statute must be strictly construed and that a certificate by an Inspector, Identification Division, did not satisfy the statutory requirement that it be by the chief custodian of the records of the United States Department of Justice. By the same reasoning it cannot be said that the Record Clerk of the Texas Department of Corrections is the warden or chief officer of a Texas penitentiary.

The error, however, does not necessarily call for a new trial. The jury, in accordance with the statute, first returned a verdict of guilty and then, after having heard the proof of the prior conviction, retired a second time to fix the punishment. Section 43-2330.1 (Supp. 1971). Hence the error had no bearing upon the finding of guilty. The minimum penalty for assault with intent to rape is confinement for three years. Ark. Stat. Ann. § 41-607 (Repl. 1964). If the Attorney General, within 17 days, *762elects to consent to a reduction of the sentence to the minimum, the judgment will be affirmed as so modified. Otherwise the judgment must be reversed and the cause remanded for a new trial.