alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>   1
                                                                     EXHIBIT 10B
                                                                     -----------


                                 Amendment No. 1

                                     to the

                       AMERICAN PRECISION INDUSTRIES INC.
                        1995 DIRECTORS STOCK OPTION PLAN
                                   as Restated



                  WHEREAS, American Precision Industries Inc. (the "Company")
adopted the American Precision Industries Inc. 1995 Directors Stock Option Plan
(the "Plan") effective July 1, 1995, amended the Plan effective February 25,
1997, and amended and restated the Plan effective February 20, 1998, and

                  WHEREAS, Section 10.3 of the Plan authorizes the Board of
Directors of the Company (the "Board") to amend the Plan in its discretion,
except to the extent approval of the Company's shareholders would be required by
law, and

                  WHEREAS, on July 24, 1998, the Board approved and authorized
the amendment to the Plan set out below,

                  NOW, THEREFORE, the Plan is amended as follows:

                  1. A new Section 10.3A is added to the Plan to read as
                     follows:

                                    10.3A Restrictions on Amendments and Grants.
                         Notwithstanding any contradictory provisions of the
                         Plan, and except as provided in Section 9.1 or as
                         approved by the Company's shareholders, an Option may
                         not be amended to reduce the exercise price or
                         cancelled and replaced with another Option having a
                         lower exercise price.

                  2. This amendment is effective July 24, 1998.

                  IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this document is executed this 27th day of
October, 1998, pursuant to the authorization of the Board of Directors.


                                   AMERICAN PRECISION INDUSTRIES INC.


                                   By /s/ James R. Schwinger
                                      ----------------------------------
                                      Vice President - Human Resources



                                       22
{"agency":"CNCS","generated":"2020-08-03 11:28:39","items":[{"id":"1","parent":null,"text":"Reporting Quarter","due":null,"due_date":"2012\/10\/15","fields":[{"type":"select","name":"2-1-year","label":"Reporting Year","options":[{"label":"2011","value":"2011"},{"label":"2012","value":"2012"},{"label":"2013","value":"2013"},{"label":"2014","value":"2014"},{"label":"2015","value":"2015"},{"label":"2016","value":"2016"},{"label":"2017","value":"2017"},{"label":"2018","value":"2018"},{"label":"2019","value":"2019"},{"label":"2020","value":"2020"}],"value":"2020"},{"type":"select","name":"2-1-quarter","label":"Reporting Quarter","options":[{"label":"Q1","value":"Q1"},{"label":"Q2","value":"Q2"},{"label":"Q3","value":"Q3"},{"label":"Q4","value":"Q4"}],"value":"Q3"}],"multiple":false},{"id":"1-1","parent":"1","text":"Ten Oldest Requests","due":null,"due_date":"2012\/10\/15","fields":[{"type":"select","name":"2-1-1-oldest","label":"Ten Oldest","options":[{"label":"0","value":"0"},{"label":"1","value":"1"},{"label":"2","value":"2"},{"label":"3","value":"3"},{"label":"4","value":"4"},{"label":"5","value":"5"},{"label":"6","value":"6"},{"label":"7","value":"7"},{"label":"8","value":"8"},{"label":"9","value":"9"},{"label":"10","value":"10"}],"value":"8"}],"multiple":false},{"id":"1-3","parent":"1","text":"","due":null,"due_date":"2012\/10\/15","fields":[{"type":"select","name":"2-1-3-closed","label":"Ten Oldest Closed","options":[{"label":"0","value":"0"},{"label":"1","value":"1"},{"label":"2","value":"2"},{"label":"3","value":"3"},{"label":"4","value":"4"},{"label":"5","value":"5"},{"label":"6","value":"6"},{"label":"7","value":"7"},{"label":"8","value":"8"},{"label":"9","value":"9"},{"label":"10","value":"10"}],"value":"8"}],"multiple":false},{"id":"1-2","parent":"1","text":"FOIA Requests Information","due":null,"due_date":"2012\/08\/21","fields":[{"type":"text","name":"2-1-2-component","label":"Component","options":[],"value":["CNCS"]},{"type":"text","name":"2-1-2-received","label":"Received","options":[],"value":["12"]},{"type":"text","name":"2-1-2-processed","label":"Processed","options":[],"value":["13"]},{"type":"text","name":"2-1-2-backlog","label":"Backlog","options":[],"value":["1"]}],"multiple":true}],"year":"2020","quarter":"Q3"}
I

106TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 706

To extend for 6 additional months the period for which chapter 12 of title

11 of the United States Code is reenacted.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

FEBRUARY 11, 1999

Mr. SMITH of Michigan introduced the following bill; which was referred to

the Committee on the Judiciary

A BILL

To extend for 6 additional months the period for which

chapter 12 of title 11 of the United States Code is reenacted.

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

3 SECTION 1. AMENDMENTS.

4 Section 149 of title I of division C of Public Law

5 105–277 is amended—

6 (1) by striking ‘‘April 1, 1999’’ each place it

7 appears and inserting ‘‘October 1, 1999’’,

8 (2) in subsection (a)—

9 (A) by striking ‘‘September 30, 1998’’ and

10 inserting ‘‘March 31, 1999’’, and
2

•HR 706 IH

1 (B) by striking ‘‘October 1, 1998’’ and in2 serting ‘‘April 1, 1999’’, and

3 (3) by striking subsection (c).

4 SEC. 2. EFFECTIVE DATE.

5 The amendments made by section 1 shall take effect

6 on April 1, 1999.

Æ
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

 v. 

DANIEL AARON MILLER, 

Defendant-Appellant.

No. 21-10117 

D.C. No.

4:09-cr-02292-RM-BGM-1 

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Arizona

Rosemary Márquez, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted November 8, 2021**

Before: CANBY, TASHIMA, and MILLER, Circuit Judges. 

Daniel Aaron Miller appeals from the district court’s judgment and 

challenges seven conditions of supervised release imposed on revocation of 

supervised release. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We vacate the 

district court’s judgment and remand for it to reconsider special condition 6, and to 

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision 

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

FILED

NOV 15 2021

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 21-10117 

correct the judgment with respect to special conditions 1, 3, 5, 7, 9 and 10. 

Special condition 6, which restricts Miller from having contact with minor 

children without prior approval, is subject to heightened procedural requirements 

because it implicates Miller’s right to associate with his minor child. See United 

States v. Wolf Child, 699 F.3d 1082, 1090 (9th Cir. 2012). As the government 

concedes, the district court plainly erred by failing to provide sufficient

justification for the condition. See id. at 1092 (“[T]he sentencing court, at the time 

it imposes the restrictive condition on the exercise of a particularly significant 

liberty interest, must itself point to the evidence in the record on which it relies and 

explain how on the basis of that evidence the particular restriction is justified.”). 

Accordingly, we vacate special condition 6 and remand to allow the district court 

to provide the required explanation for why the condition should apply to Miller’s 

son or to exempt his son from the condition. 

Miller also challenges special conditions of supervised release 1, 3, 5, 7, 9, 

and 10. As the government concedes, the court’s oral pronouncement of these 

conditions conflicts with the written judgment. We, therefore, remand to the 

district court to enter a corrected written judgment consistent with the court’s oral 

pronouncement of the sentence. See United States v. Hernandez, 795 F.3d 1159, 

1169 (9th Cir. 2015).

In light of this disposition, Miller’s motion for summary reversal and 
3 21-10117 

remand is denied as moot. 

VACATED and REMANDED.
<PAGE>

                                  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 on Form 10-Q of Allis-Chalmers
Corporation. (the "Company") for the period ended March 31, 2004, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the
undersigned hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, 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 the operations of the Company.



DATE: AUGUST 16, 2005      BY: /S/ MUNAWAR H. HIDAYATALLAH

                             ----------------------------------
                             MUNAWAR H. HIDAYATALLAH
                             CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER



DATE: AUGUST 16, 2005      BY: /S/ VICTOR M. PEREZ

                             ----------------------------------
                             VICTOR M. PEREZ
                            CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER


                                       29
#### § 51-9.304 Fees.
#### § 301-70.903 What are our responsibilities for ensuring that Government aircraft are the most cost-effective alternative for travel?

To help ensure that Government aircraft are the most cost-effective alternative for travel, your aircraft management office must calculate the cost of a trip on your aircraft, whether Federal aircraft or CAS aircraft, and submit that information to the traveler's designated travel-approving official upon request. The designated travel-approving official must use that information to compare the cost of using Government aircraft with the cost of scheduled commercial airline service and the cost of using other available modes of transportation. When you operate a Government aircraft to fulfill a non-travel related governmental function or for required use travel, using any space available for passengers on official travel is presumed to result in cost savings. For guidance on how and when to calculate the cost of a trip on a Government aircraft, see the “U.S. Government Aircraft Cost Accounting Guide,” published by the General Services Administration, Office of Government-wide Policy. To obtain a copy of the guide, please contact *aviationpolicy@gsa.gov.*

[FTR Amdt. 2004-02, 69 FR 34305, June 21, 2004, as amended at 85 FR 39849, July 2, 2020]
§ 50-201.4 Statutory exemptions. Inclusion of the stipulations enumerated in § 50-201.1 is not required in the following instances: ( a ) Where the contracting officer is authorized by the express language of a statute to purchase “in the open market”, or where a purchase of articles, supplies, materials or equipment, either in being or virtually so, is made without advertising for bids under circumstances bringing such purchase within the exception to the General Purchase Statute, R.S. 3709, that is, where immediate delivery is required by the public exigency.
( b ) Where the contract relates to perishables, including dairy, livestock, and nursery products (“perishables” covers products subject to decay or spoilage and not products canned, salted, smoked, or otherwise preserved);
( c ) Where the contract relates to agricultural or farm products processed for first sale by the original producers;
( d ) Where the contract is by the Secretary of Agriculture for the purchase of agricultural commodities or the products thereof;
( e ) Where the contract is with a common carrier for carriage of freight or personnel by vessel, airplane, bus, truck, express, or railway line, where published tariff rates are in effect;
( f ) Where the contract is for the furnishing of service by radio, telephone, telegraph, or cable companies, subject to the Federal Communications Act of 1934 (48 Stat. 1064 as amended; 47 U.S.C. chapter 5).
[Regs. 504, 1 FR 1626, Sept. 19, 1936, as amended at 9 FR 8347, July 22, 1944. Redesignated at 24 FR 10952, Dec. 30, 1959, and further redesignated at 61 FR 40716, Aug. 5, 1996]
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> UT
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
REGISTRANT'S MARCH 31, 1999 AUDITED BALANCE SHEET, INCOME STATEMENT AND
CASH FLOW STATEMENT, AND NOTES THERETO, AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY
BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<BOOK-VALUE>                                  PER-BOOK
<TOTAL-NET-UTILITY-PLANT>                  $14,574,378
<OTHER-PROPERTY-AND-INVEST>                          0
<TOTAL-CURRENT-ASSETS>                       1,687,696
<TOTAL-DEFERRED-CHARGES>                       435,902
<OTHER-ASSETS>                               1,043,995
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              17,741,971
<COMMON>                                     2,471,425
<CAPITAL-SURPLUS-PAID-IN>                            0
<RETAINED-EARNINGS>                          5,266,308
<TOTAL-COMMON-STOCKHOLDERS-EQ>               7,737,733
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-NET>                         4,418,000
<SHORT-TERM-NOTES>                                   0
<LONG-TERM-NOTES-PAYABLE>                            0
<COMMERCIAL-PAPER-OBLIGATIONS>                       0
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-CURRENT-PORT>                   94,000
<PREFERRED-STOCK-CURRENT>                            0
<CAPITAL-LEASE-OBLIGATIONS>                          0
<LEASES-CURRENT>                                     0
<OTHER-ITEMS-CAPITAL-AND-LIAB>               5,492,238
<TOT-CAPITALIZATION-AND-LIAB>               17,741,971
<GROSS-OPERATING-REVENUE>                    1,076,641
<INCOME-TAX-EXPENSE>                            47,735
<OTHER-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                     834,230
<TOTAL-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                     881,965
<OPERATING-INCOME-LOSS>                        194,676
<OTHER-INCOME-NET>                             120,031
<INCOME-BEFORE-INTEREST-EXPEN>                 314,707
<TOTAL-INTEREST-EXPENSE>                       112,802
<NET-INCOME>                                   201,905
<PREFERRED-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                          0
<EARNINGS-AVAILABLE-FOR-COMM>                  201,905
<COMMON-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                       155,472
<TOTAL-INTEREST-ON-BONDS>                            0<F1>
<CASH-FLOW-OPERATIONS>                     (1,635,316)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .13
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .12
<FN>
<F1>Not reported on an interim basis.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
46648.

#### WYATT v. THE STATE.

(378 SE2d 690)

Clarke, Presiding Justice.

George Ponder Wyatt was convicted of trafficking in cocaine in violation of OCGA § 16-13-31. He was sentenced to twenty years imprisonment and fined $100,000. We affirm.

Wyatt asserts that the evidence does not support the verdict and that the statute’s mandatory fine provision violates the Eighth Amendment of the U. S. Constitution and Art. I, Sec. I, Par. XVII of the 1983 Georgia Constitution.

1. Construed in a light most favorable to the verdict, the evidence showed that Wyatt participated in the sale of three ounces of cocaine to an informant for the Drug Enforcement Administration. He was present during the sale and participated in packaging and weighing the cocaine. When there was a shortfall in the amount, he commented, “. . . we’ll make the difference up out of ours.” After the sale, Wyatt was arrested at the scene of the sale and drug paraphernalia was seized. We conclude that this evidence is sufficient to support the jury’s finding Wyatt guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of the crime of trafficking in cocaine. *Jackson v. Virginia,*443 U. S. 307 (99 SC 2781, 61 LE2d 560) (1979).

2. Under the United States and Georgia Constitutions, a punishment is excessive so as to amount to cruel and unusual punishment if *209it “(1) makes no measurable contribution to accepted goals of punishment and hence is nothing more than the purposeless and needless imposition of pain and suffering; or (2) is grossly out of proportion to the severity of the crime.” *Coker v. Georgia,*433 U. S. 584 (97 SC 2861, 53 LE2d 982) (1977). We hold that the fine imposed under OCGA § 16-13-31 is not out of proportion to the severity of the crime and is not constitutionally infirm either because of its mandatory nature or its amount. See *Hargrove v. State,*253 Ga. 450 (321 SE2d 104) (1984) (a $5,000 mandatory fine for dogfighting is not cruel and unusual punishment); and *Grant v. State,*258 Ga. 299 (368 SE2d 737) (1988) (mandatory life sentence for second conviction for selling cocaine is constitutional).1

Decided May 4, 1989.

*Robert C. Sacks,*for appellant.

*Thomas C. Lawler III, District Attorney, Debra K. Turner, Assistant District Attorney,*for appellee.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*All the Justices concur.*

1

 Wyatt does not challenge the statute on Fourteenth Amendment grounds. This case does not present the problem of incarceration of an indigent for failure or inability to pay a fine. See *Bearden v. Georgia,*461 U. S. 660 (103 SC 2064, 76 LE2d 221) (1983).
§ 301-71.1 What is the purpose of an agency travel accounting system? To: ( a ) Pay authorized and allowable travel expenses of employees;
( b ) Provide standard data necessary for the management of official travel; and
( c ) Ensure adequate accounting for all travel and transportation expenses for official travel.
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATI<jli'E,li,Fl! 

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASIDNGTON, DC 

c ~' 

In the Matter of: 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

FAA DOCKET No. FAA-2015-0205 

James Juaquin Jordan, 

Respondent 

) 

) 

__________________________) 

FAA Case No.2014SW700104 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

FDMS No. 2015-0205 

HON. J.E. Sullivan 

AMENDED JOINT NOTICE OF SETTLEMENT AND REQUEST FOR TERMINATION 

OF THE PROCEEDINGS 

Pursuant to the Court's Request on October 14, 2015, the parties are filing a Joint Notice 

of Settlement and Request for Termination of the Proceedings. 

The parties have reached settlement in the current matter and request that the Court 

terminate the proceedings, with prejudice. 

Submitted this 24th day of November, 2015. 

Respectfully submitted, 

ERIC E. ANDERSON 

Regional Counsel 

Southwest Region 

Attorney 

Federal Aviation Administration 

Southwest Region 

I 0 I 0 I Hill wood Parkway 

Fort Worth, TX76177 

~==~---- Respondent 

130 Cauley Club Ct 

Duluth, Georgia 30097 
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

Re: James Juaquin Jordan, FAA Case No. 2014SW700104 

I hereby certify that on December 3, 2015, I have sent via Federal Express an executed 

original and one copy of the Amended Joint Notice of Settlement and Request for Termination of 

the Proceedings, addressed as follows: 

Federal Aviation Administration 

600 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2Wl 000 

Washington, DC 20591 

Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

I further certifY that on this date, I have sent via Federal Express a true copy of the 

Amended Joint Notice of Settlement and Request for Termination of the Proceedings, addressed 

as follows: 

Hon. J.E. Sullivan, Administrative Law Judge 

Office of Hearings, M-20 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

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

Washington, DC 20590 

Mr. James Juaquin Jordan 

130 Cauley Club Ct. 

Duluth, Georgia 30097 

Rebecca A. Holmes, Agency Attorney 

(817) 222-5064 

Dated: December 3, 2015
Searched for **http://www.ssa.gov/international/Agreement_Pamphlets/france.html**

 

19961997199819992000200120022003200420052006200720082009201020112012201320142015201620172018201920202021202220232024

*Note:* This calendar view maps the number of captures of **http://www.ssa.gov/international/Agreement_Pamphlets/france.html**, *not* how many times the site was actually updated.

Look Up URL in general Internet Archive web collection.
Exhibit 31.1



CERTIFICATION



I, Mikhail Smirnov, Chief Executive Officer of Moscow CableCom Corp., certify that:

1.

I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Moscow CableCom Corp. (the Registrant);

2.

Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material 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 report;

3.

Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this 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 report;

4.

The Registrant's other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the Registrant and have:

a.

designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, 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 report is being prepared;



b.

evaluated the effectiveness of the Registrant's disclosure controls 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 internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the Registrant's most recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the Registrant's internal control over financial reporting; and

5.

The Registrant's other certifying 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 the Registrant's board of directors:

a.

all significant deficiencies and 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 controls over financial reporting.



Date:  November 14, 2005



/s/    Mikhail Smirnov

Mikhail Smirnov

Chief Executive Officer
# Comments on: Adoption of Procedures for the Filing, Service, and Management of Highly Sensitive Documents
# Comments on: 22-2026: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ISSAQUENA COUNTY v. US [OPINION], Nonprecedential