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

                                 Amendment No. 1

                                     to the

                       AMERICAN PRECISION INDUSTRIES INC.
                        1998 EMPLOYEES STOCK OPTION PLAN



                  WHEREAS, American Precision Industries Inc. (the "Company")
adopted the American Precision Industries Inc. 1998 Employees Stock Option Plan
(the "Plan") effective February 20, 1998, and

                  WHEREAS, Section 8.3 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 April 24, 1998, the Board approved and authorized
the amendment to the Plan set out below,

                  NOW, THEREFORE, the Plan is amended as follows:

                  1. Section 3.3 of the Plan is renumbered as Section 3.4 and a
new Section 3.3 is added to the Plan to read as follows:

                             3.3     Delegation of Authority.
                                     ------------------------

                                     (a) Except as provided in Section 3.3(b),
                  the Committee may delegate its authority and discretion under
                  Section 3.2, Article V, Article VI, and Section 8.2 of the
                  Plan to a second committee composed of the Chief Executive
                  Officer, the Chief Financial Officer, and the
                  Vice-President-Human Resources of the Company.

                                     (b) The Committee shall not delegate its
                  authority and discretion with respect to matters relating to
                  Options granted or to be granted to officers of the Company or
                  a Subsidiary who are subject to Section 16 under the
                  Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.


<PAGE>   2



                  2. This amendment is effective April 24, 1998.

                  IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this document is executed this 24th day
of July, 1998, pursuant to the authorization of the Board of Directors.




                                    AMERICAN PRECISION INDUSTRIES INC.



                                    By  /s/ John M. Murray
                                    ---------------------------------
                                    Vice President-Finance and Treasuer


                                       2
Exhibit 13.1



CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT
OF 2002



I, Patrick Evans, Chief Executive
Officer of Mountain Province Diamonds Inc. (the “Company”), hereby 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 Annual Report on Form 20-F of the Company for the year ended December 31, 2011 (the “Annual 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 Annual Report fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results
of operations of the Company.
| | -- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | By:    | /s/ Patrick Evans      
| | ------ | -----------------------
| |        |                        
| | Name:  | Patrick Evans          
| | Title: | Chief Executive Officer
| | Date:  | March 29, 2012         



This written statement is being furnished
to the Securities and Exchange Commission as an exhibit to the Company’s Annual Report on Form 20-F. A signed original of
this statement has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission or its staff upon request.



This certification accompanies this
Annual Report on Form 20-F pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required
by such Act, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the
"Exchange Act"). Such certification will not be deemed to be incorporated by reference into any filing under the Securities
Act of 1933, as amended, or the Exchange Act, except to the extent that the Company specifically incorporates it by reference.
§ 60-40.8 Facilities and procedures for disclosure. ( a ) [Reserved]
( b ) Procedures relating to the avaliability of records shall be governed by the Department of Labor regulations, 29 CFR 70.35 to 70.64.
§ 51-11.8 Processing demands or requests. ( a ) After service of a demand or request, the General Counsel will review the demand or request and, in accordance with the provisions of this part, determine whether, or under what conditions, to authorize an employee to testify on matters relating to Committee records and/or produce records.
( b ) The Committee will process requests in the order in which they are received. Absent exigent or unusual circumstances, the Committee will respond within 45 calendar days from the date of receipt. The time for response will depend upon the scope of the request.
( c ) The General Counsel may grant a waiver of any procedure described by this part where a waiver is considered necessary to promote a significant interest of the Committee or the United States or for other good cause.
#### § 301-11.303 What is the maximum amount that I may be reimbursed under actual expense?

The maximum amount that you may be reimbursed under actual expense is limited to 300 percent (rounded to the next higher dollar) of the applicable maximum per diem rate. However, subject to your agency's policy, a lesser amount may be authorized.
#### § 105-53.130-3 Office of the Executive Secretariat.

The Office of the Executive Secretariat, headed by the Director of the Executive Secretariat, is responsible for policy coordination, correspondence control, and various administrative tasks in support of the Administrator and Deputy Administrator.
§ 0.186 Emergency Relocation Board. ( a ) As specified in the Commission's Continuity of Operations Plan and consistent with the exercise of the War Emergency Powers of the President as set forth in section 706 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, if the full Commission or a quorum thereof is unable to act, an Emergency Relocation Board will be convened at the Commission's Headquarters or other relocation site designated to serve as Primary FCC Staff to perform the functions of the Commission. Relocation may be required to accommodate a variety of emergency scenarios. Examples include scenarios in which FCC headquarters is unavailable or uninhabitable; or many, if not all, agencies must evacuate the immediate Washington, DC, area. The FCC's Continuity of Operations Plan (COOP) includes the deliberate and pre-planned movement of selected key principals and supporting staff to a relocation facility. As an example, a sudden emergency, such as a fire or hazardous materials incident, may require the evacuation of FCC headquarters with little or no advance notice, but for only a short duration. Alternatively, an emergency so severe that FCC headquarters is rendered unusable and likely will be for a period long enough to significantly impact normal operations, may require COOP implementation. Nothing in this subsection shall be construed to diminish the authority of the Commission or its staff to perform functions of the Commission at the Commission's headquarters or other relocation site using existing authority provided for elsewhere in this Chapter.
( b ) The Board shall comprise such Commissioners as may be present (including Commissioners available through electronic communications or telephone) and able to act. In the absence of the Chairperson, the Commissioner present with the longest seniority in office will serve as acting Chairperson. If no Commissioner is present and able to act, the person designated as next most senior official in the Commission's Continuity of Operations Plan will head the Board.
[69 FR 30234, May 27, 2004, as amended at 88 FR 21429, Apr. 10, 2023]
I

103D CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 4352

To require each Federal agency to use stationary on which is printed the

telephone number of the agency.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MAY 5, 1994

Mr. DUNCAN introduced the following bill; which was referred to the

Committee on Government Operations

A BILL

To require each Federal agency to use stationary on which

is printed the telephone number of the agency.

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Federal Agency Access

5 Act of 1994’’.

6 SEC. 2. FEDERAL AGENCIES REQUIRED TO USE STATION7 ARY WITH TELEPHONE NUMBER.

8 The head of each Federal agency shall require, in the

9 most cost effective manner practicable for the agency, that

10 all written correspondence of the agency appear on sta-
2

•HR 4352 IH

1 tionary on which is printed the telephone number of the

2 agency.

3 SEC. 3. REPORT.

4 Not later than 90 days after the date of the enact5 ment of this Act, the head of each Federal agency shall

6 report to the Congress a plan for complying with this Act.

Æ
### TEXA S COU RT O F AP PEAL S, THIR D DISTRIC T, AT AU STIN NO. 03-00-00802-CV Wanda Kubers ki, Appel lant v. City of Temple, Texas Appel lee
FROM THE DISTRICT CO URT OF BELL COUNTY, 169TH JUDICIAL DIS TRICT NO. 169,795-C, HONORABLE GORDON G. ADAMS, JUDGE PRESIDING The parti es f

i l ed a j oin

t motion to di sm

i ss, s t at ing t ha t t he y had r es o lve d t he ir dif feren ces and a gr eed t o d ismi ss t heir claims o n app eal. We gr ant t he i rmo t io n a nd dis miss t his ap pe al.

Mack Ki dd, Justice Be f ore J us ti ce s K i dd, B. A . Sm

i th, an d Pa tters on Di sm i ss ed on J oi nt M oti on File d: October 25, 2001 Do No t Publis

h
No. 11-9518.

#### Tessmer *v.*United States.

C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.
* Local Rule 47.5 provides: "The publication of opinions

that have no precedential value and merely decide particular cases on the basis of well-settled principles of law imposes needless expense on the public and burdens on the legal profession." Pursuant to that Rule, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

__________________ No. 95-50334 Summary Calendar

__________________ RODOLFO RIVERA MUNOZ, Appellant, NEPHTALI DE LEON, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus SAN ANTONIO INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT; VICTOR RODRIGUEZ, Dr., In His Individual and Official Capacity As Superintendent of The San Antonio Independent School District; MARY ESTHER BERNAL, In Her Individual and Official Capacity As Director of Arts and Languages; RAQUEL BEECHNER, In Her Individual and Official Capacity As Curriculum Specialist; THE TEXAS COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION, Defendants-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. A-94-CV-178

- - - - - - - - - - (August 22, 1995) Before GARWOOD, STEWART, and PARKER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *No. 95-50334 -2- IT IS ORDERED that Nephtali De Leon's and Attorney Rodolfo Munoz's applications for leave to proceed in forma pauperis are DENIED, because their appeals lack arguable merit and are therefore frivolous. Despite the appellants' assertions regarding "a formal policy of genocide against the American Aborigine by the European Immigrants," the appellants have failed to show a nonfrivolous appellate issue regarding the district court's disposition of De Leon's claims regarding his employment or the district court's imposition of sanctions. See McAfee v. 5th Circuit Judges , 884 F.2d 221, 222 (5th Cir. 1989), cert. denied , 493 U.S. 1083 (1990). Because the appeals are frivolous, IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the appeals are dismissed. See 5th Cir. R. 42.2; Van Cleave v. United States , 854 F.2d 82, 85 (5th Cir. 1988). IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that De Leon's and Munoz's applications for preparation of the trial transcript at government expense are DENIED.
```

[House Report 106-13]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

106th Congress                                                   Report
  1st Session           HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES                 106-13

=======================================================================

 
    PROVIDING FOR THE CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 391, THE SMALL BUSINESS 
               PAPERWORK REDUCTION ACT AMENDMENTS OF 1999

                                _______
                                

  February 9, 1999.--Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be 
                                printed

                                _______

   Mr. Reynolds, from the Committee on Rules, submitted the following

                              R E P O R T

                       [To accompany H. Res. 42]

    The Committee on Rules, having had under consideration 
House Resolution 42, by a nonrecord vote, report the same to 
the House with the recommendation that the resolution be 
adopted.

               brief summary of provisions of resolution

    The resolution provides for the consideration of H.R. 391, 
the ``Small Business Paperwork Reduction Act Amendments of 
1999,'' under an open rule. The rule provides one hour of 
general debate divided equally between the chairman and ranking 
minority member of the Committee on Government Reform.
    The rule waives section 303 of the Congressional Budget Act 
(prohibiting consideration of legislation providing new budget 
authority or contract authority for a fiscal year until the 
budget resolution for that fiscal year has been agreed to) 
against the consideration of the bill. The rule also provides 
that the bill will be considered as read.
    Members who have pre-printed their amendments in the 
Congressional Record  prior to their consideration will be 
given priority in recognition to offer their amendments if 
otherwise consistent with House rules. The rule allows for the 
Chairman of the Committee of the Whole to postpone votes during 
consideration of the bill, and to reduce votes to five minutes 
on a postponed question if the vote follows a fifteen minute 
vote. Finally, the rule provides for one motion to recommit, 
with or without instructions.
    The waiver of section 303 of the Budget Act is necessary 
because there is no FY 1999 budget resolution and Budget 
Committee Chairman Kasich has not yet published in the 
Congressional Record budget allocations pursuant to House 
Resolution 5.

                                

```
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

CRESTWOOD CAPITAL 

CORPORATION, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

 v. 

ANDES INDUSTRIES, INC., 

Defendant-Appellant.

No. 17-17219 

D.C. No. 2:15-cv-00600-NVW 

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Arizona

Neil V. Wake, District Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted May 14, 2019

San Francisco, California

Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, and McKEOWN and GOULD, Circuit Judges.

Andes Industries, Inc. (“Andes”) appeals the district court’s entry of 

summary judgment in favor of Crestwood Capital Corporation (“Crestwood”), 

ordering Andes to pay Crestwood the amount due on a note. We have jurisdiction 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review the district court’s grant of summary 

judgment de novo, Chemehuevi Indian Tribe v. Newsom, 919 F.3d 1148, 1150–51 

 

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

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

FILED

MAY 29 2019

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 

(9th Cir. 2019), and we affirm. Because the parties are familiar with the facts, we 

omit them. 

Andes argues that summary judgment was inappropriate because it has 

outstanding claims that could be used to support a setoff defense. Even if this were 

once true, we affirmed the dismissal of the claims Andes bases its setoff defense on 

in Andes Industries, Inc. v. Cheng Sun Lan, No. 17-17059, 2019 WL 2152825 (9th 

Cir. May 16, 2019). A potential setoff defense is therefore no barrier to the entry 

of summary judgment.

Andes also argues that summary judgment was inappropriate because it has 

a viable fraud defense to the enforcement of the note. However, the district court 

did not err in holding that this defense had been waived because Andes failed to 

plead it in its answer. See Enlow v. Salem-Keizer Yellow Cab Co., Inc., 389 F.3d 

802, 819 (9th Cir. 2004) (“Failure to plead an affirmative defense . . . results in a 

waiver of that defense.”).

Because these two arguments were the only grounds for reversing the district 

court Andes asserts, we affirm the district court’s grant of summary judgment.

AFFIRMED.
#### § 301-11.301 Who in my agency can authorize/approve my request for actual expense?

Any official designated by the head of your agency (see § 301-70.201 for when an agency can issue a blanket actual expense authorization).

[FTR Amdt. 70, 63 FR 15961, Apr. 1, 1998, as amended by FTR Amdt. 2011-03, 76 FR 55275, Sept. 7, 2011]
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

** **

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO**

**18 U.S.C. ss.1350,**

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906 OF THESARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

** **

**In connection with the AnnualReport of Elixir Gaming Technologies, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Kfor the period ended December 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), we, Clarence Chung andAndy Tsui, the Chief Executive Officer and Vice President Finance (PrincipalFinancial Officer) of the Company, respectively, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.§1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of2002, that to my knowledge:**

** **

**1.**     The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

** **

**2.**     The information contained in the Report fairly presents, inall material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of theCompany.

** **
| **By:**    | **/s/Clarence  Chung**                                    | ** ** | **Dated:** | **      March 30, 2009** |
|------------|-----------------------------------------------------------|------------|------------|--------------------------------------------------------|
| ** ** | **Clarence  Chung**                                       | ** ** | ** ** | ** **                                             |
| **Title:** | **Chief  Executive Officer, Principal Executive Officer** | ** ** |

 
| **By:**    | **/s/Andy  Tsui**                                        | ** ** | **Dated:** | **      March 30, 2009** |
|------------|----------------------------------------------------------|------------|------------|--------------------------------------------------------|
| ** ** | **Andy  Tsui**                                           | ** ** | ** ** | ** **                                             |
| **Title:** | **Vice  President Finance, Principal Financial Officer** | ** ** |

 

**This certification is made solelyfor the purposes of 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, subject to the knowledge standardcontained therein, and not for any other purpose.**

 

----
#### Robert Geraghty et al., Appellants, v CIGNA Property and Casualty Insurance Company, Respondent.

[627 NYS2d 764]

In an action pursuant to Insurance Law § 3420 (a) (2) to recover an unpaid judgment, the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Floyd, J.), dated February 14, 1994, which granted the defendant’s motion to change venue from Suffolk County to Erie County.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Pursuant to CPLR 503 (a), the venue of an action is proper in a county in which any of the parties resided at the time of commencement. Because the plaintiffs’ choice of venue in the first instance was improper, they forfeited their choice of venue *(see, Quack v Waldbaums,*202 AD2d 562; *Cenziper v Gross,*175 AD2d 226). Accordingly, the Supreme Court did not err in granting the defendant’s motion to transfer the venue of this action to Erie County, where its principal office is located *(see,*CPLR 503 [c]). Bracken, J. P., Rosenblatt, Krausman and Gold-stein, JJ., concur.
###### Editorial Note on Part 1

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 1 appear at 63 FR 54077, Oct. 8, 1998.

#### § 1.12 Notice to attorneys of Commission documents.

In any matter pending before the Commission in which an attorney has appeared for, submitted a document on behalf of or been otherwise designated by a person, any notice or other written communication pertaining to that matter issued by the Commission and which is required or permitted to be furnished to the person will be communicated to the attorney, or to one of such attorneys if more than one is designated. If direct communication with the party is appropriate, a copy of such communication will be mailed to the attorney; or for matters involving Wireless Radio Services, emailed to the attorney instead of mailed.

[85 FR 85527, Dec. 29, 2020]
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

OF TEXAS

NO. WR-90,359-02

EX PARTE AUDIE LEE BABERS, Applicant

ON APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

CAUSE NO. W16-70864-S(B) IN THE 282ND DISTRICT COURT

FROM DALLAS COUNTY

Per curiam.

O R D E R

Pursuant to the provisions of Article 11.07 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, the

clerk of the trial court transmitted to this Court this application for a writ of habeas corpus. Ex parte

Young, 418 S.W.2d 824, 826 (Tex. Crim. App. 1967). Applicant was convicted of aggravated assault

and sentenced to three years’ imprisonment. He did not appeal his conviction.

Applicant contends that he did not receive pre-sentence credit, he was not released to parole,

and trial counsel told him he could not appeal his conviction. Applicant’s pre-sentence claim is

dismissed. Ex parte Ybarra, 149 S.W.3d 147 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004). His remaining claims are

denied. Accordingly, this application is dismissed in part and denied in part. Ex parte Deeringer, 210

S.W.3d 616 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006).
2

Filed: November 27, 2019

Do not publish
103D CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 4204

AN ACT

To designate the Federal building located at 711

Center on Aging’’.the ‘‘Jean Mayer Human Nutrition ResearchWashington Street in Boston, Massachusetts, as
103D CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 4204

AN ACT

To designate the Federal building located at 711 Washington

Street in Boston, Massachusetts, as the ‘‘Jean Mayer

Human Nutrition Research Center on Aging’’.

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

3 SECTION 1. DESIGNATION.

4 The Federal building located at 711 Washington

5 Street in Boston, Massachusetts, shall be known and des6 ignated as the ‘‘Jean Mayer Human Nutrition Research

7 Center on Aging’’.
2

•HR 4204 EH

1 SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

2 Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document,

3 paper, or other record of the United States to the Federal

4 building referred to in section 1 shall be deemed to be

5 a reference to the ‘‘Jean Mayer Human Nutrition Re6 search Center on Aging’’.

Passed the House of Representatives April 26, 1994.

Attest:

Clerk.