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

                                                                 EXHIBIT 10.5(c)

                                 AMENDMENT NO. 2
                           TO OPTIMARK HOLDINGS, INC.
                                1999 STOCK PLAN


                                 MARCH 27, 2001



         1. Section 2(e) of the OptiMark Holdings, Inc. 1999 Stock Plan (the
"Plan") is hereby amended by deleting Section 2(e) in its entirety and replacing
it with the following:

         "(e) "Cause" means (i) any act of personal dishonesty taken by the
         Optionee in connection with Optionee's responsibilities with the
         Company and intended to result in substantial personal enrichment of
         the Optionee, (ii) Optionee's conviction of or plea of nolo contendere
         to a felony, (iii) a willful act by the Optionee which constitutes
         gross misconduct and which is injurious to the Company, and (iv)
         following delivery to the Optionee of a written demand for performance
         from the Company which describes the basis for the Company's belief
         that the Optionee has not substantially performed his duties, continued
         violations by the Optionee of the Optionee's obligations to the Company
         which are demonstrably willful and deliberate on the Optionee's part."

         2. Except as provided in paragraph 1 above, the Plan shall remain
unchanged and in full force and effect.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Small Business Administration

          - [License No. 01/71-0372] 

Notice is hereby given that Zero Stage Capital VI, LP, 101 Main Street, Cambridge, MA 02142, a Federal Licensee under the Small Business Investment Act of 1958, as amended (“the Act”), in connection the financing of a small concern, has sought an exemption under section 312 of the Act and section 107.730, Financings which Constitute Conflicts of Interest of the Small Business Administration (“SBA”) rules and regulations (13 CFR 107.730 (2000)). Zero Stage Capital VI proposes to provide equity financing to t-Breeders, Inc. (“t-Breeders”), One Innovation Drive, Worcester, Massachusetts 01605. The financing is contemplated for funding growth. 

The financing is brought within the purview of Sec. 107.730(a)(1) of the Regulations because Zero Stage Capital V, LP, an Associate of the Zero Stage Capital VI, currently owns greater than 10 percent of t-Breeders, Inc. and therefore t-Breeders, Inc. is considered an Associate of Zero Stage Capital VI as defined in Sec. 107.50 of the regulations. 

Notice is hereby given that any interested person may submit written comments on the transaction to the Associate Administrator for Investment, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 Third Street, SW, Washington, DC 20416. 

Dated: April 26, 2000. 

Don A. Christensen, 

Associate Administrator for Investment. 

[FR Doc. 00-11495 Filed 5-8-00; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 8025-01-P
#### GOWAN, ET AL. v. WYNN.

(Decided November 18, 1915.)

Appeal from Chilton Circuit Court.

Heard before Hon. W. W. Pearson.

Curry & Walker, for appellant. J. W. Strother, for appellee.

Per Curiam.

Affirmed on certificate.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM 3QFY99:
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET, INCOME STATEMENT, CASH FLOW STATEMENT, STATEMENT OF
CHANGES IN STOCKHOLDERS EQUITY AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO
SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUL-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             FEB-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               APR-30-1999
<CASH>                                          27,494
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  154,223
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    139,336
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               452,551
<PP&E>                                       1,372,599
<DEPRECIATION>                               (185,579)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               6,021,090
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          730,962
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                      4,051
<COMMON>                                        16,180
<OTHER-SE>                                   4,534,432
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 6,021,031
<SALES>                                        260,478
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               260,478
<CGS>                                          213,669
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  467,810
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               6,968
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (421,031)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (421,031)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (421,031)
<EPS-BASIC>                                  (0.026)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (0.021)


</TABLE>
#### § 25.994 Fuel system components.

Fuel system components in an engine nacelle or in the fuselage must be protected from damage that could result in spillage of enough fuel to constitute a fire hazard as a result of a wheels-up landing on a paved runway under each of the conditions prescribed in § 25.721(b).

[Amdt. 25-139, 79 FR 59430, Oct. 2, 2014]
| KPMG LLP600 de Maisonneuve Blvd. WestSuite 1500Tour KPMGMontréal, Québec  H3A 0A3 | Telephone      (514) 840-2100Fax                 (514) 840-2187Internet          www.kpmg.ca |
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| ·   | our Independent Auditors’ Report of Registered Public Accounting Firm dated December 3, 2014 on the consolidated statement of financial position as at October 5, 2014 and September 29, 2013, the consolidated statements of earnings and comprehensive income, changes in equity and cash flows for the years ended October 5, 2014 and September 29, 2013, and notes, comprising a summary of significant accounting policies and other explanatory information; |
|--------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| ·   | our Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm dated December 3, 2014 on the effectiveness of the Company’s internal control over financial reporting as at October 5, 2014; |
|--------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | KPMG LLP is a Canadian limited liability partnership and a member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative (“KPMG International”), a Swiss entity. KPMG Canada provides services to KPMG LLP. |   |   |
|--------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|--------|
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 Stanley Furniture Company, Inc. (the "Company") Quarterly
Report on form 10-Q for the period ended June 26, 2004 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Jeffrey
R. Scheffer, Chief Executive Officer of the Company certify pursuant to 18
U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge:

         (1).     The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13
                  (a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
                  amended; 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: July 13, 2004                                By: /s/Jeffrey R. Scheffer
                                                       ----------------------
                                                       Jeffrey R. Scheffer
                                                       Chief Executive Officer
II 

116TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 4197 

To extend the Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism Standards Program of the 

Department of Homeland Security, and for other purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JULY 2, 2020 

Mr. JOHNSON (for himself, Mrs. CAPITO, Mr. LANKFORD, and Mr. INHOFE) 

introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the 

Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs 

A BILL 

To extend the Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism Standards 

Program of the Department of Homeland Security, and 

for other purposes. 

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

3 SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF CHEMICAL FACILITY ANTI-TER4 RORISM STANDARDS PROGRAM OF THE DE5 PARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY. 

6 Section 5 of the Protecting and Securing Chemical 

7 Facilities from Terrorist Attacks Act of 2014 (Public Law 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 4197 IS

1 113–254; 6 U.S.C. 621 note) is amended by striking ‘‘July 

2 23, 2020’’ and inserting ‘‘July 25, 2027’’. 

Æ 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
[NOT FOR PUBLICATION–NOT TO BE CITED AS PRECEDENT]



# United States Court of Appeals

**For the First Circuit**

No. 00-2010 EUGENE B. BOWLER, Plaintiff, Appellant,

v. STATE OF MAINE, Defendant, Appellee.
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF MAINE [Hon. Gene Carter, U.S. District Judge ]
Before Torruella, Chief Judge , Campbell and Cyr, Senior Circuit Judges .
Eugene B. Bowler on brief pro se. Andrew Ketterer , Attorney General, Paul Stern , Deputy Attorney General, Amy M. Sneirson , Assistant Attorney General, and William R. Stokes , Assistant Attorney General, on brief for appellee.
May 21, 2001-2- Per Curiam . The judgment is affirmed substantially for the reasons set forth in the district court's opinion. To clarify one misunderstanding voiced by plaintiff: although the Eleventh Amendment by its terms refers only to suits against a State by citizens of another State, the Supreme Court has "extended the Amendment's applicability to suits by citizens against their own States." Board of Trustees of Univ. of Alabama v. Garrett , 121 S. Ct. 955, 962 (2001); accord , e.g. , Strahan v. Coxe , 127 F.3d 155, 166 (1 st Cir. 1997).

Affirmed. See Loc. R. 27(c).
§ 29.753 Main float design. ( a ) *Bag floats.* Each bag float must be designed to withstand— ( 1 ) The maximum pressure differential that might be developed at the maximum altitude for which certification with that float is requested; and
( 2 ) The vertical loads prescribed in § 29.521(a), distributed along the length of the bag over three-quarters of its projected area.
( b ) *Rigid floats.* Each rigid float must be able to withstand the vertical, horizontal, and side loads prescribed in § 29.521. An appropriate load distribution under critical conditions must be used.
| (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:      May 21, 2010                                    |
|------------------------------------------------------------|
|                                                       |
| /s/      Alton L. Boynton                                  |
| Alton      L. Boynton                                      |
| President      and Chief Executive Officer                 |
| (Principal      Executive Financial and AccountingOfficer) |

----
§ 171.163 Reports. The owner of each facility to which this subpart applies shall make the following reports on forms furnished by the FAA, at the time indicated, to the FAA Regional office for the area in which the facility is located: ( a ) Record of meter readings and adjustments (Form FAA-198). To be filled out by the owner with the equipment adjustments and meter readings as of the time of commissioning, with one copy to be kept in the permanent records of the facility and two copies to the appropriate Regional office of the FAA. The owner shall revise the form after any major repair, modification, or returning, to reflect an accurate record of facility operation and adjustment.
( b ) Facility maintenance log (FAA Form 6030-1). This form is a permanent record of all equipment malfunctioning met in maintaining the facility, including information on the kind of work and adjustments made, equipment failures, causes (if determined), and corrective action taken. The owner shall keep the original of each report at the facility and send a copy to the appropriate Regional Office of the Federal Aviation Administration at the end of the month in which it is prepared.
( c ) Radio equipment operation record (Form FAA-418), containing a complete record of meter readings, recorded on each scheduled visit to the facility. The owner shall keep the original of each month's record at the facility and send a copy of it to the appropriate Regional Office of the Federal Aviation Administration.
[Doc. No. 10116, 35 FR 12715, Aug. 11, 1970, as amended by Amdt. 171-10, 40 FR 36110, Aug. 19, 1975]
#### Manufacturers Trust Company, Respondent, *v.*Moses H. Grossman, Appellant.

(Argued June 2, 1936;

decided July 8, 1936.)

*472
      *Jay Leo Rothschild*for appellant.

*Leonard G. Bisco*and *William J. Granger*for respondent.

Judgment affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

Concur: Lehman, O’Brien, Hubbs, Crouch, Lough-ran and Finch, JJ.; Crane, Ch. J., taking no part.
**EXHIBIT 31.2**

 

I, Michael Vernon, certify that: 

 

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of aQuantive, Inc.; 

 

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

 

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

 

4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible forestablishing 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 caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under oursupervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this quarterly report is beingprepared; 

 

 

b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusionsabout 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 internal control over financial reporting that occurred during theregistrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting. 

 

5. The registrant’s othercertifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing theequivalent function): 

 

a) All significantdeficiencies or material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information;and 

 

b) Any fraud, whether or not material,that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting. 

 

Date: August 12, 2003
---



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, 
  AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OFTHE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of House of Brussels
  Chocolates Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10- QSB for the period ending January
  31, 2004, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
  (the "Report"), I, Grant Petersen, Acting 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, to the best of my knowledge
  and belief:

| | 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
        result of operations of the Company.

Date: March 15, 2004

| | /s/ Grant Petersen            
| | ------------------------------
| | (Signature)                   
| |                               
| | Acting Chief Financial Officer
| | (Title)                       

---
###### Editorial Note on Part 139

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 139 appear at 69 FR 24069, May 3, 2004.

#### § 139.109 Duration of certificate.

An Airport Operating Certificate issued under this part is effective until the certificate holder surrenders it or the certificate is suspended or revoked by the Administrator.
#### In the Matter of Greenburgh Eleven Union Free School District, Appellant, v Greenburgh No. 11 Federation of Teachers, Local 1532 AFT, AFL-CIO, et al., Respondents.

[697 NYS2d 695]

—In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 75 to stay arbitration, the petitioner appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Nastasi, J.), entered July 28, 1998, which denied the petition, dismissed the proceeding, and directed that “the [arbitration] shall proceed forthwith”.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

If it is determined that an arbitration clause is broad enough to encompass the subject matter of the dispute, “[t]he question of the scope of the substantive provisions of the contract is itself a matter of contract interpretation and application, and *214hence it must be deemed a matter for resolution by the arbitrator” *(Board of Educ. v Barni,*49 NY2d 311, 314; *see, Matter of Board of Educ. [Watertown Educ. Assn.],*93 NY2d 132, 143; *Matter of Board of Educ. v Watertown Educ. Assn.,*74 NY2d 912; *Matter of Board of Educ. v West Babylon Teachers Assn.,*239 AD2d 573).

The petitioner and the respondent Greenburgh No. 11 Federation of Teachers, Local 1532, AFT, AFL-CIO (hereinafter the Union) are parties to a collective bargaining agreement (hereinafter the CBA) which incorporated a Memorandum of Agreement (hereinafter the Agreement). Paragraph 8, Section 2b of the Agreement, governing lateness, provides that after the ninth occasion of lateness of under 20 minutes, a meeting will be held with the employee and a union representative. A second meeting will be held after the tenth such lateness. It is undisputed that the petitioner preferred charges, pursuant to Education Law § 3020-a, against 15 tenured teachers, alleging, *inter alia,*several occasions of lateness, but failed to hold the required meetings in compliance with the progressive disciplinary scheme agreed upon. The Union filed a grievance alleging that the petitioner violated the CBA.

Article VII of the CBA provides for a three-stage grievance process culminating in binding arbitration and further provides that a “ ‘grievance’ shall mean any violation * * * of this Agreement”. Since there is a reasonable relationship between the subject matter of the dispute and the general subject matter of the CBA, the Supreme Court properly ruled the matter to be arbitrable *(see, Matter of Board of Educ. [Watertown Educ. Assn.], supra,*93 NY2d, at 143). Joy, J. P., Friedmann, Goldstein and McGinity, JJ., concur.
#### In the Matter of the Claim of Herbert L. Gross, Respondent, against Davey Tree Expert Company et al., Appellants. State Industrial Board, Respondent.

(Argued November 17, 1936;

decided December 1, 1936.)

*658
      *Frank L. Ward*for appellants.

*John J. Bennett, Jr., Attorney-General (Hector A. Robichon*of counsel), for State Industrial Board, respondent.

Order affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

Concur: Lehman, O’Brien, Htjbbs, Loughran and Finch, JJ. Dissenting: Crane, Ch. J., and Crouch, J.