alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**EXHIBIT 3.25**

 

**CERTIFICATE OF ADMENDMENT**

**OF**

**CERTIFICATE OF INCORPORATION**

**OF**

**NE RESTAURANT COMPANY, INC.**

 

 

NE Restaurant Company, Inc.,a corporation organized and existing under and by virtue of the****General Corporation Law of the State ofDelaware,

 

DOESHEREBY CERTIFY:

 

FIRST:  That the Board of Directors of saidcorporation, at a meeting duly held, adopted a resolution proposing anddeclaring advisable the following amendment to the Certificate of Incorporationof said corporation:

 

RESOLVED,to change the Corporation’s name to Bertucci’s Corporation and to amend ArticleFirst of the Certificate of Incorporation of the Corporation to effect theforegoing name change.

 

SECOND:  That in lieu of a meeting and vote ofstockholders, the stockholders have given written consent to said amendment inaccordance with the provisions of Section 228 of the General Corporation Law ofthe State of Delaware.

 

THIRD:  That the aforesaid amendment was dulyadopted in accordance with the applicable provisions of Sections 242 and 228 ofthe General Corporation Law ofthe State of Delaware.

 

  IN WITNESS WHEREOF, said NE Restaurant Company, Inc.has caused this certificate to be signed by Raymond P. Barbrick, its EVP, this2nd day of August, 2001.

 

 

 
|   | NE RESTAURANT COMPANY, INC. |
|--------|-----------------------------|
|   |                        |
|   | By:                         |  /s/  Raymond P. Barbrick |   |
|   |                        |
|   |                        | Raymond P. Barbrick, Executive VP |

 

 

*STATE OF DELAWARE*

*SECRETARY OF STATE*

*DIVISION/OF CORPORATIONS*

*FIELD 05:00 PM 08/16/2001*

*010404784 - 2371641*

 

----
Exhibit 32.1



CERTIFICATION OF

PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE
OFFICER

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 Arch Chemicals, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
Report), I, Michael E. Campbell, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:



| | (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/    Michael E. Campbell                              
|                                                        
|Michael E. Campbell Chief Executive
Officer  May 7, 2004



A signed original of this written
statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Arch Chemicals, Inc. and will be retained by Arch Chemicals, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### § 323.2 Definitions.

As used in this part:

*Certificated carrier* means a direct air carrier holding authority to provide air transportation granted by the Department in the form of a certificate of public convenience and necessity under 49 U.S.C. 41102 (Transportation) or an all-cargo air transportation certificate to perform all-cargo air transportation under 49 U.S.C. 41103.

*Eligible place* means a place in the United States that meets the specified criteria outlined in 49 U.S.C. Chapter 417.

*Essential air service* is that air transportation which the Department has found to be essential under Subchapter II of Chapter 417 of 49 U.S.C. Subtitle VII.

*FAA-designated hub* means any airport serving a small, medium, or large air traffic hub listed in the Department of Transportation publication, *Airport Activity Statistics of Certificated Route Carriers.*

*United States* includes the several States, the District of Columbia, and the several territories and possessions of the United States. *State* includes any of the individual entities comprising the United States.

[Doc. No. 82, 50 FR 2430, Jan. 16, 1985, as amended by Doc. No. OST-96-1269, 61 FR 19165, May 1, 1996; Doc. No. DOT-OST-2014-0140, 84 FR 15938, Apr. 16, 2019]
Exhibit 24.7


                              KEYSPAN CORPORATION

                                POWER OF ATTORNEY



     WHEREAS,  KeySpan  Corporation,  a New York  corporation  (the  "Company"),
intends to file with the Securities and Exchange Commission under the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, an Annual Report on Form 10-K as prescribed by
said Commission  pursuant to said Act and the rules and regulations  promulgated
thereunder.

     NOW,  THEREFORE,  in my capacity as a director of the Company,  I do hereby
appoint GERALD LUTERMAN, JOHN J. BISHAR, JR. and MICHAEL J. TAUNTON, and each of
them  severally,  as my  attorneys-in-fact  with power to execute in my name and
place, and in my capacity as a director of KeySpan Corporation, said Report, any
amendment  to said  Report  and  any  other  documents  required  in  connection
therewith, and to file the same with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have executed this power of attorney this 22nd day of
February, 2006.





                                                     /s/Stephen W. McKessy
#### § 298.4 Requests for statement of authority.

In any instance where an air taxi operator or commuter air carrier is required by a foreign government to produce evidence of its authority to engage in foreign air transportation under the laws of the United States, the Director, Office of Aviation Analysis (X-50), Office of the Secretary, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, will, upon request, furnish the carrier with a written statement, outlining its general operating privileges under this part for presentation to the proper authorities of the foreign government.
#### Conlew, Inc., Appellant, *v.*Irving Nash et al., Respondents, Impleaded with Another.

(Argued October 9, 1936;

decided October 23, 1936.)

*596
      *Robert E. Shortall*and *Leonard G. Bisco*for appellant.

*Herbert S. Greenberg*for respondents.

Judgment affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

Concur: Crane, Ch. J., Lehman, O’Brien, Hubbs, Crouch, Loughran and Finch, JJ.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, *v.*Abraham Wolfe, Appellant.

(Argued October 14, 1936;

decided November 17, 1936.)

*Jac M. Wolff*for appellant.

*Paul Windels, Corporation Counsel (William S. Gaud,, Jr.,*and *Paxton Blair*of counsel), for respondent.

Judgment affirmed; no opinion.

Concur: Crane, Ch. J., Lehman, O’Brien, Hubbs, Loughran and Finch, JJ.; Crouch, J., taking no part.
#### Peter, a Slave, *v.*The State.

The statute of this state authorizing the parties to select a member of the bar to set its , civil cases, when the presiding judge has been interested in the cause, does not apply to criminal prosecutions.

IN ERROR from the circuit court of the county of Franklin.

Peter, a slave, was indicted and convicted at the May term 1841, of said court, of the murder of Samuel Harvey.

The presiding judge of the court having formerly been interested in the case as counsel, by consent of the counsel for the prisoner and for the state, C. McClure, Esq. was selected, under the statutes of 1840 and 1841, to preside at the trial of the cause, which is now assigned as error, and it is insisted that the statute applies only to civil suits.

Yannerson and Webber, for plaintiff in error.

Attorney General, contra.

Opinion of the court by

Turner, Justice.

This case will be disposed of on the ground of the incompetency of the person who presided as a judge at the trial of the plaintiff in error. The attorney general, in argument, admitted that in capital cases ho such substitution can take place, as was done in this case, and this court is of that opinion. A circuit judge, regularly elected and qualified, is the only person competent to preside as a judge in criminal cases. The constitution and laws of the state have made ample provision for the trial of all cases. Where a circuit judge is rendered incompetent to preside in any particular case, a judge from another circuit can be called in.

*327The constitutional modes of appointment must be observed strictly; and we do not consider that the legislature, by the act of 1841, p. 217, in prescribing that the provisions of the act of 1840, made in relation to the chancery court, which has jurisdiction only in civil causes, intended to apply the provisions of that act to criminal cases: and jurisdiction in capital cases cannot be taken or exercised by mere inference or analogy.

If this point was seriously controverted, it might be proper for the court to give a more full and detailed opinion.

The judgment is reversed, and the prisoner remanded to Franklin county, and a venire de novo awarded.
WILLIAM PERMENTER

,

Petitioner,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA

,

Respondent.

___________________________/ IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FIL ED

CASE NO. 1D 16

- 1892

Opinion filed May 18, 2016.

Petition Alleging Ineffective Assistance of Appellate Counsel

-- Original

Jurisdiction

.

William Permenter, pro se , Petitioner.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee , for Respondent.

PER CURIAM.

The petition alleging ineffective assistance of appellate counsel is denied on the

merits.

THOMAS, WINOKUR, and JAY, JJ., CONCUR.
II 

116TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 4165 

To repeal section 692 of the Post-Katrina Emergency Management Reform 

Act of 2006. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JULY 2, 2020 

Mr. JOHNSON introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs 

A BILL 

To repeal section 692 of the Post-Katrina Emergency 

Management Reform Act of 2006. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. REPEAL. 

4 Section 692 of the Post-Katrina Emergency Manage5 ment Reform Act of 2006 (6 U.S.C. 792) is repealed. 

Æ 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
#### § 25.495 Turning.

In the static position, in accordance with figure 7 of appendix A, the airplane is assumed to execute a steady turn by nose gear steering, or by application of sufficient differential power, so that the limit load factors applied at the center of gravity are 1.0 vertically and 0.5 laterally. The side ground reaction of each wheel must be 0.5 of the vertical reaction.
#### § 271.6 Profit element.

The reasonable return for a carrier for providing essential air service at an eligible place generally will be set at a flat percentage, typically 5 percent of that carrier's projected operating costs as established under § 271.4, plus any applicable interest expenses on flight equipment.

[ER-1398, 49 FR 49846, Dec. 24, 1984, as amended at 60 FR 43524, 43525, Aug. 22, 1995]
Exhibit 32.1



CERTIFICATION OF STEVEN N. MOORE PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the annual report of WatchGuard Technologies, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2003, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), I, Steven N. Moore, 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.
|--- |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Date: March 12, 2004



|                                                      |  | 
|----------------------------------------------------- |  | 
|/s/    STEVEN N. MOORE                               
|Steven N. Moore President and Chief
Executive Officer
§ 25.697 Lift and drag devices, controls. ( a ) Each lift device control must be designed so that the pilots can place the device in any takeoff, en route, approach, or landing position established under § 25.101(d). Lift and drag devices must maintain the selected positions, except for movement produced by an automatic positioning or load limiting device, without further attention by the pilots.
( b ) Each lift and drag device control must be designed and located to make inadvertent operation improbable. Lift and drag devices intended for ground operation only must have means to prevent the inadvertant operation of their controls in flight if that operation could be hazardous.
( c ) The rate of motion of the surfaces in response to the operation of the control and the characteristics of the automatic positioning or load limiting device must give satisfactory flight and performance characteristics under steady or changing conditions of airspeed, engine power, and airplane attitude.
( d ) The lift device control must be designed to retract the surfaces from the fully extended position, during steady flight at maximum continuous engine power at any speed below *V* *F* + 9.0 (knots).
[Amdt. 25-23, 35 FR 5675, Apr. 8, 1970, as amended by Amdt. 25-46, 43 FR 50595, Oct. 30, 1978; Amdt. 25-57, 49 FR 6848, Feb. 23, 1984]
## In the

Court of Appeals

Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth

No. 02

- 19

- 00418

- CR

J ASON N EAL M C B URNETT

, Appellant

V

.

T HE S TATE OF T EXAS §

§

§

§

§ On A pp eal from the 297th District Court

of Tarrant County ( 1505402D )

May 6, 2021

Opinion by Justice Walker

(p)

JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that there

was no reversible error in the trial court’s judgmen t. It is ord ered that the judgment

of the trial court is affirmed.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

By /s/ Brian Wa lker

Justice Brian Walker
Editorial Note on Part 380
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 380 appear at 84 FR 15940, Apr. 16, 2019.

§ 380.33a Operator's option plan. ( a ) For the purposes of this part, an operator's option plan contract that states alternative dates for the outbound or return flights, or alternative origin or destination cities for any flight leg.
( b ) Operator's option plan contracts shall state, in addition to the information required by § 380.32, that the selection of the actual dates or cities, as applicable, is at the charter operator's option and will not entitle the participant to a refund, and that the operator will notify the participant of the actual dates or cities at least 10 days before the earliest of any alternative dates for the outbound flight.
( c ) Contract forms for all operator's option plan contracts shall be labeled “OPERATOR'S OPTION PLAN” in bold-faced capital letters at least 1 ⁄ 4 inch high. The statement required by paragraph (b) of this section and the statement of alternative dates (§ 380.32(c)) or alternative cities (§ 380.32(d)), as applicable, shall be printed so as to contrast with the rest of the contract, as set forth in § 380.31(f).
( d ) Any solicitation material that states a price per passenger for an operator's option plan contract shall clearly and conspicuously— ( 1 ) Identify that price as being for the operator's option plan,
( 2 ) Name all the possible dates or cities, as applicable, and
( 3 ) State that the selection of the actual dates or cities is at the charter operator's option.
( e ) Charter operators and their agents shall not misrepresent to prospective participants, orally, in solicitation materials, or otherwise, the probability that any particular city or date will be selected from among the alternatives named in an operator's option plan contract.
( f ) The charter operator shall notify all participants with operator's option plan contracts of the actual dates or cities, as applicable, as required by contracts.
<PAGE>

                                  EXHIBIT 99.3

                    LETTER OF ARTHUR ANDERSEN REPRESENTATION


To the Securities and Exchange Commission:

         The Company has received a letter from Arthur Andersen, dated
April 11, 2002, representing that the audit was subject to their quality
control systems for the U.S. accounting and auditing practice to provide
reasonable assurance that the engagement was conducted in compliance with
professional standards, that there was appropriate continuity of Arthur Andersen
personnel working on the audit, that there was availability of national office
consultation and availability of personnel at foreign affiliates of Arthur
Andersen to conduct the relevant portions of the audit.



                By /s/ Eric H. Schless
-----------------------------------------------------------
                    Eric H. Schless
acting Chief Financial Officer and Executive Vice President


                                       82
§ 27.321 General. ( a ) The flight load factor must be assumed to act normal to the longitudinal axis of the rotorcraft, and to be equal in magnitude and opposite in direction to the rotorcraft inertia load factor at the center of gravity.
( b ) Compliance with the flight load requirements of this subpart must be shown— ( 1 ) At each weight from the design minimum weight to the design maximum weight; and
( 2 ) With any practical distribution of disposable load within the operating limitations in the Rotorcraft Flight Manual.
[Doc. No. 5074, 29 FR 15695, Nov. 24, 1964, as amended by Amdt. 27-11, 41 FR 55468, Dec. 20, 1976]
# Official Journal C 155A/2010

| | ISSN 1725-2423
  doi:10.3000/17252423.CA2010.155.eng |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 155A |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 5315 June 2010 |

ISSN 1725-2423

doi:10.3000/17252423.CA2010.155.eng

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 155A

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 5315 June 2010

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | V   Announcements |
| | ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES |
| | European Commission |
| 2010/C 155A/01 | DG Climate Action — Publication of a vacancy for a Principal Adviser (grade AD 14) (Article 29(2) of the Staff Regulations) — COM/2010/10271 | 1 |
| 2010/C 155A/02 | DG ECFIN — Publication of a vacancy for a Director function (grade AD 14) — Directorate-General ECFIN-EFC.EPC (Economic and Financial Committee-Economic Policy Committee) (Article 29(2) of the Staff Regulations) — COM/2010/10272 | 6 |

Notice No

Contents

page

V   Announcements

ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES

European Commission

2010/C 155A/01

DG Climate Action — Publication of a vacancy for a Principal Adviser (grade AD 14) (Article 29(2) of the Staff Regulations) — COM/2010/10271

1

2010/C 155A/02

DG ECFIN — Publication of a vacancy for a Director function (grade AD 14) — Directorate-General ECFIN-EFC.EPC (Economic and Financial Committee-Economic Policy Committee) (Article 29(2) of the Staff Regulations) — COM/2010/10272

6

---

REVIEW OF COMPETITION C A OJs

Please find below the list of C A published during the present year.

Unless otherwise indicated, OJs are published in all language versions.

| 5 | (FR) |
| --- | --- |
| 9 | |
| 19 | (FR) |
| 23 | (DE/ES/PT) |
| 28 | |
| 48 | |
| 53 | |
| 56 | |
| 57 | |
| 60 | |
| 61 | (DE/EN/FR) |
| 62 | |
| 64 | |
| 66 | (BG/RO) |
| 67 | (ES) |
| 70 | (PT) |
| 73 | (FI) |
| 74 | (SV) |
| 91 | |
| 95 | |
| 104 | |
| 110 | |
| 116 | (ET) |
| 119 | |
| 129 | (EL) |
| 137 | (LT/LV/MT) |
| 138 | (BG/CS/LT/PL/RO/SK) |
| 143 | (DE/EN/FR) |
| 144 | (DE/EN/FR) |
| 146 | (DA/FI/MT) |
| 147 | (FI) |
| 149 | (IT) |
| 150 | (BG/CS/LT/PL/RO/SK) |
| 151 | |
| 155 | |

5

(FR)

9

19

(FR)

23

(DE/ES/PT)

28

48

53

56

57

60

61

(DE/EN/FR)

62

64

66

(BG/RO)

67

(ES)

70

(PT)

73

(FI)

74

(SV)

91

95

104

110

116

(ET)

119

129

(EL)

137

(LT/LV/MT)

138

(BG/CS/LT/PL/RO/SK)

143

(DE/EN/FR)

144

(DE/EN/FR)

146

(DA/FI/MT)

147

(FI)

149

(IT)

150

(BG/CS/LT/PL/RO/SK)

151

155

| EN | |
| --- | --- |

EN
#### MOTHERSHED v. THE STATE.

(Decided April 22, 1915.)

Appeal from Jefferson Criminal Court.

Heard before Hon. H. P. Heflin.

No counsel marked for appellant. W. L. Martin, Attorney General, for the State.

Per curiam.

Abated by death of appellant.
Order entered November 6, 2013

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-13-01007-CV

IN RE J.C. PENNEY COMPANY INC., ET AL, Relators

On Appeal from the 193rd Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. DC-12-00735

ORDER

The Court has received the parties’ November 4, 2013, joint status report. The Court 

STAYS this proceeding until DECEMBER 6, 2013. The Court ORDERS the parties to submit, 

on or before that date, either a joint motion to dismiss this proceeding or a joint status report 

explaining why the trial court’s judgment is not final.

/s/ DAVID EVANS 

JUSTICE
#### Frank Messina, Respondent, *v.*Continental Purchasing Co., Inc., Appellant.

(Argued September 28, 1936;

decided November 24, 1936.)

*Adolph M. Newman*for appellant.

*126
      *Gaylord Riggs*for respondent.

*Per Curiam.*

The plaintiff, an employee of a railroad company, prior to July 1, 1934, entered into a written agreement with the defendant whereby a judgment against him owned by the defendant was compromised for one hundred dollars upon his promise to pay thereon a small weekly sum. As security for performance, the plaintiff assigned to the defendant all wages earned or to be earned with authority to collect by any legal means. Following a default by the plaintiff, the defendant lodged the assignment with plaintiff’s employer which thereupon promptly dismissed the plaintiff. A subsequent request by the plaintiff to withdraw the assignment so that he might be re-employed was refused by the defendant. Thereupon this action was brought to recover damages as for a tortious interference with plaintiff’s employment. The complaint, attacked for insufficiency, has been sustained below. The question has been certified to this court.

We think the order should be reversed and the question certified answered in the negative. The assignment, when made, fell within none of the exceptions to section 41, subdivision 1, of the Personal Property Law (Cons. Laws, ch. 41). The plaintiff was then employed; there was no statute so far as we can ascertain forbidding or regulating such assignment; and we cannot see that it contravened any public policy. There is no charge of fraud or overreaching in the procurement of the assignment, or of *127malice in lodging it with the employer, even if the existence of malice would be of avail. An assignment would be of little value without notice to the employer. Section 46 of the Personal Property Law, in effect since July 1, 1934, regulating wage assignments, requires a filing with the employer as a condition precedent. In short, we perceive no tort.

The orders should be reversed and the motion granted, with costs in all courts. The question certified should be answered in the negative.

Crane, Ch. J., Lehman, O’Brien, Hubbs, Crouch, Loughran and Finch, JJ., concur.

Orders reversed, etc.