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


                                                                     EXHIBIT 4.2

                            CERTIFICATE OF AMENDMENT

                                       OF

                          CERTIFICATE OF INCORPORATION

                              OF TEGAL CORPORATION


It is hereby certified that:

1. The name of the Corporation  (hereinafter  called the "Corporation") is Tegal
Corporation.

2. The Certificate of  Incorporation is hereby amended by striking out the first
sentence of Article FOURTH thereof and by  substituting in lieu of said sentence
the following new sentence:

                  "FOURTH:  The total number of shares of all classes of capital
                  stock which the  Corporation  shall have authority to issue is
                  One Hundred  Five  Million  shares,  comprised  of One Hundred
                  Million (100,000,000) shares of Common Stock, with a par value
                  of  One  Cent  (U.S.   $0.01)  per  share,  and  Five  Million
                  (5,000,000) shares of Preferred Stock, with a par value of One
                  Cent (U.S. $0.01) per share.

3. The  amendment of the  Certificate  of  Incorporation  herein  certified  was
submitted to the  stockholders  of the  Corporation and was duly approved by the
required  vote  of  stockholders  of the  Corporation  in  accordance  with  the
provisions of Sections 222 and 242 of the General  Corporation  Law of the State
of Delaware.  The total number of outstanding shares entitled to vote or consent
to this  Amendment  was  16,099,949  shares of Common  Stock.  A majority of the
outstanding shares of Common Stock,  voting together as a single class, voted in
favor of this Certificate of Amendment.  The vote required was a majority of the
outstanding shares of Common Stock, voting together as a single class.

     IN WITNESS  WHEREOF,  Tegal  Corporation  has caused  this  Certificate  of
Amendment to be signed by its Chief Executive Officer as of September 9, 2003.

                                        /s/ Michael L. Parodi
                                        ------------------------------------
                                        Michael L. Parodi
                                        President and Chief Executive Officer
From: FISHER, JARROD

To: Adams, Lucy H.

Subject: Indiana Chrome Sources

Date: Thursday, February 03, 2011 12:02:49 PM

Attachments: Chrome.xlsx

Lucy,

Attached is a spreadsheet that has most of the chrome electroplating sources in Indiana. It’s been

a while since I updated this list, so some of the information may be a bit dated. You can verify a

source’s operational status by looking through our issued permits to verify that a source is still in

operation and that they still have the same equipment that is included in this spreadsheet.

Here is the link to IDEM’s website:

http://www.in.gov/idem/

On the right hand side of the homepage is a link called Virtual File Cabinet. You will need to

register, but once you have access, you will be able to search for stack test reports based on the

source ID #. Let me know if you need assistance with the virtual file cabinet, or if you have any

specific questions about any sources.

Jarrod Fisher

IDEM/Office of Air Quality

317-233-2723
BASF Corporation

26 Davis Drive

PO Box 13528

Research Triangle Park, NC 27709-3528

Tel: (919) 547-2889 Fax: (919) 547-2850

Mobile: (919) 930-1898

Email: chris.hofelt@basf.com

U. S. Environmental Protection Agency

Office of Pesticide Programs

Document Processing Desk 7504P

Room S-4900,

One Potomac Yard (South Building)

2777 South Crystal Drive

Arlington, VA 22202-4501

Attn: Ms. Jolene Trujillo, Biologist/Chemical Review Manager (PRD)

Subject: BASF’s Agnique® MMF-GR EPA Registration Number 7969-334

Dear Ms. Trujillo: 

 

I am requesting the voluntary cancellation of Agnique® MMF-GR (EPA Registration Number 7969-334)

with an existing stocks provision allowing my company’s continued sale and distribution of that product until 

April 16, 2017, which is 18 months measured from the date of this letter. 

 

I understand that notification of receipt of my request will be published in the Federal Register, as required by 

Section 6(f) of FIFRA. 

 

I further understand that such notifications may allow a 180-day period after publication during which EPA 

may not approve or reject the request, but that the registrant may request that the 180-day period be waived. 

I hereby request that the 180-day period be waived, as allowed by Section 6(f)(1)(C)(ii) of FIFRA. I 

understand that the notification will incorporate a 30-day period after publication in which the public may 

comment on the request for voluntary cancellation. I also understand that it is the Agency’s policy to consider 

comments received during the public comment period before making its final determination on such a 

request. 

Please e-mail me at chris.hofelt@basf.com or call me at (919)-547-2889 if further clarification is needed.

Sincerely,

Chris Hofelt, Ph.D. DABT

Crop Protection

150 years

October 16, 2015
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REGION 10 1200 Sixth Avenue. Suite 900 Seattle, WA 98101-3140
OFFICE OF AIR, WASTE AND TOXles 

### FEB 18 Z010

Martin Bauer, Administrator Air Quality Division Idaho Department ofEnvironmental Quality • 1410 N. Hilton Boise, Idaho 83706 Dear Mr. Bauer: At yourrequest, EPARegion 10**ha~** completed and enclosed a copy ofour analysis of TASCO's claim that itcannot afford BART and Idaho's initial BARTdetermination identified in the "Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART) Determination Analysis: Riley Boiler". dated February 6, 2009, for the TASCO NampaFacility. This analysis contains data and information provided by TASCO that TASCO claims as 'Confidential Business Information (CBI). Thus we treat this report as containing CBI. We have determined that TASCO can afford BART as identified in the initial BART determination made by IDEQ. Ifyou have additional questions or would like to discuss this analysis. please contacteithermyselfat 206-553-6985 or

### Mr. Steve Body at 206-553-0782. Sincerely

Mahbubul Islam, Manager State & Tribal Air Programs Unit Enclosure
EXHIBIT 10.8
                                                                    ------------


                         PLASTIC PALLET PRODUCTION, INC.



                                September 8, 2003





1607 Commerce Limited Partnership
1607 West Commerce
Dallas, Texas 75208
Attn: Paul A. Kruger


Dear Paul:

         The purpose of this letter is to confirm our agreement that,
notwithstanding the language of that certain Asset Purchase Agreement (the
"Agreement") between Plastic Pallet Production, Inc. as "Seller" and 1607
Commerce Limited Partnership as "Buyer" dated September 8, 2003, the sale of
assets to Buyer pursuant to the Agreement will not include the equipment
described on Exhibit A attached hereto. Such equipment will be retained by PPP
and will be subject to the security interest granted in that certain Security
Agreement among PalWeb Corporation, Plastic Pallet Production, Inc., Greystone
Manufacturing, LLC and 1607 Commerce Limited Partnership dated as of September
8, 2003.

         If you are in agreement with the matters stated in this letter, please
execute the acceptance block provided below and return one fully-executed copy
of this letter to the undersigned.

                                           Very truly yours,

                                           PLASTIC PALLET PRODUCTION, INC.


                                           By: /s/ Warren F. Kruger
                                               Warren F. Kruger, President



Agreed and accepted this
8th day of September, 2003.

1607 COMMERCE LIMITED
PARTNERSHIP

By:______________________

All annexes to this agreement are omitted from this Exhibit. The registrant will
furnish supplementally a copy of any omitted annex to the Commission upon
request.
IV

106TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. CON. RES. 51

Expressing the sense of the Congress that Dr. Doan Viet Hoat is to be

praised and honored for his commitment to fight for democratic change

in Vietnam.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MARCH 10, 1999

Ms. SANCHEZ (for herself, Ms. LOFGREN, Mr. SMITH of New Jersey, and Mr.

DAVIS of Virginia) submitted the following concurrent resolution; which

was referred to the Committee on International Relations

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Expressing the sense of the Congress that Dr. Doan Viet

Hoat is to be praised and honored for his commitment

to fight for democratic change in Vietnam.

Whereas Doan Viet Hoat spent his life fighting for democratic change in Vietnam and has spent 19 of the last 21

years in Vietnamese prisons for his efforts to bring democracy to his homeland;

Whereas Doan Viet Hoat, an educator, received a doctorate

in Education and College Administration from Florida

State University in 1971 and was Assistant to the Chancellor of Van Hanh University in Saigon from 1971 to

1975;
2

•HCON 51 IH

Whereas Doan Viet Hoat was denounced for his relationship

with the United States and sentenced in 1976 to 12

years in Chi Hoa Prison without a trial, where he continued to write essays calling for democracy, human rights,

and free elections for Vietnam;

Whereas after his release from prison, Doan Viet Hoat

founded the Dien Dan To Do (Freedom Forum) newsletter and continued to publish prodemocracy articles;

Whereas in 1990, the Vietnamese authorities sentenced him

to a 20-year prison sentence for attempting to overthrow

the government by establishing a political organization

and using the publication as an instrument to mobilize

the public;

Whereas Doan Viet Hoat received the Robert F. Kennedy

Human Rights Award and the Golden Pen of Freedom

Award of the World Association of Newspapers for his

contributions to the cause of freedom;

Whereas for nearly 20 years as a political prisoner, Doan

Viet Hoat has been an example of great moral strength

and courage for other political prisoners, refusing offers

of freedom in exchange for a renunciation of his personal

and political beliefs;

Whereas Doan Viet Hoat was released on August 29, 1998,

from prison in Vietnam, and was admitted to the United

States as a refugee after considerable pressure was exerted upon the Vietnamese Government to release prisoners of conscience;

Whereas Doan Viet Hoat called for the abolishment of the directive on ‘‘administrative detainment’’ which allows security forces to detain dissidents for up to 2 years without trial; and
3

•HCON 51 IH

Whereas Dr. Doan Viet Hoat has dedicated his entire life to

the cause of freedom and democracy for his fellow Vietnamese, at the price of his own freedom: Now, therefore,

be it

1 Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate

2 concurring), That it is the sense of the Congress that

3 Doan Viet Hoat is to be praised and honored for his con4 tributions to the cause of democracy in Vietnam.

Æ
**EXHIBIT 32.2**

 

CERTIFICATION OF THE CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER OF TUESDAY MORNING CORPORATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. §1350

 

I, Stephanie Bowman, the Chief Financial Officer of Tuesday Morning Corporation, hereby certify that:

 

1.             The quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Tuesday Morning Corporation for the period ended March 31, 2011 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 above-mentioned report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Tuesday Morning Corporation.

 

 
| Date:   April 29, 2011 | By:    | /s/ STEPHANIE BOWMAN      |
|-----------------------------|--------|---------------------------|
|                        |   | Stephanie   Bowman        |
|                        |   | Chief   Financial Officer |

 

----
```

[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 250 (Monday, December 31, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 77078]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-31376]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

EXPORT-IMPORT BANK

Economic Impact Policy

    This notice is to inform the public that the Export-Import Bank of 
the United States has received an application for a $448 million loan 
guarantee to support the export of approximately $542 million in U.S. 
semiconductor manufacturing equipment and services to a (non-DRAM) 
semiconductor manufacturing facility in Singapore. The U.S. exports 
will enable the foreign buyer to manufacture about 80,000 wafers of 
300mm NAND Flash memory semiconductors per month. Available information 
indicates that this new foreign production will be consumed globally. 
Interested parties may submit comments on this transaction by email to 
economic.impact@exim.gov or by mail to 811 Vermont Avenue NW., Room 
442, Washington, DC 20571, within 14 days of the date this notice 
appears in the Federal Register.

Angela Mariana Freyre,
Senior Vice President and General Counsel.
[FR Doc. 2012-31376 Filed 12-28-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6690-01-P
```
No. 62352.

#### F. B. Wilcon Co. *v.*United States,

protest 322541-K (Boston).

Opinion by

Wilson, J.

The protest was dismissed.
No. 56232.

protests 135576-K, etc. (New York).

#### Cathay Crafts Corp. et al. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Oliver, C. J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
Case No. 13,619.

#### The SUNNYSIDE.

[5 Ben. 162.] 3

District Court, E. D. New York.

May, 1871.

Costs — Witness’ Fees.

A witness, subpoenaed at the place of trial on the day on which he is required by the subpoena to attend in court, is not entitled to travel fees to and from his place of residence. If not so subpoenaed, he is entitled to such travel fee.

In admiralty.

BENEDICT, District Judge.

The only question raised by the appeal, which is taken from the clerk’s taxation of costs, is whether the amount paid the witnesses was a necessary payment in order to compel their attendance.

This question cannot be determined upon the affidavits, as there is an omission to state when and where the witnesses were subpoenaed. The affidavit may be amended, however, and the bill thereupon retaxed by the clerk, who will allow the sums actually paid each witness as travel fee, at the rate of five cents per mile from his place of residence and five cents per mile for returning thereto, and not exceeding one hundred miles, unless it appears that the witness was subpoenaed at the place of trial on the day on which he was required by the subpoena to attend in court. A witness, so subpoenaed, is not entitled to receive a travel fee for coming to the court.
Form of Purchase Order Terms and Conditions from NTL



 EXHIBIT 10.13 
  

	

	SHIP TO:    (Lessee)	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	  	
	  	 SUPPLIER OF EQUIPMENT:    (Seller)
  
 Biolase Technology, Inc.
 981 Calle
Amanecer
 San Clemente, California 92673
  
  
  

	



	 EQUIPMENT DESCRIPTION
  
  
  
  
  
  
	  	PRICE
	


 PURCHASE ORDER TERMS AND CONDITIONS – READ CAREFULLY 
  
 THIS PURCHASE ORDER IS ONLY ACCEPTED BY SELLER SUBJECT TO THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF
SELLERS’ SALES ORDERS. TITLE, AND ALL RISKS AND REWARDS OF OWNERSHIP SHALL TRANSFER TO BUYER UPON SHIPMENT OF THE EQUIPMENT 
  

	1.	 	Seller warrants that Seller has good and marketable title to the Equipment and that the Equipment will be (a) free of any claim by any third party and any security interest retained
by Seller, (b) new unless otherwise stated. 

  

	2.	 	Lessee is authorized to receive delivery of the Equipment as Buyer’s agent. All warranties and service normally accompanying the Equipment shall be extended by Seller directly
to Lessee. 

  

	3.	 	Seller will ship the Equipment to Lessee at the address indicated hereon within sixty (60) days of the Date of Purchase Order. Seller must promptly mail its invoice for the
Equipment to Buyer at the Bill To address set forth above. The Purchase Order Number should be clearly referenced on all invoices submitted to Buyer. 

  

	4.	 	Invoices shall be paid by Buyer, to Seller, within thirty (30) days or less, of the invoice date, unless otherwise stated and approved by Seller. 

  

	5.	 	Seller agrees to comply with the applicable provisions of any federal, state, or local law or ordinance and all lawful orders, rules, and regulations issued thereunder, as
reasonably requested by Buyer. 

  

	6.	 	All benefits and rewards, risks of loss of ownership and title to the Equipment shall pass to Buyer upon shipment. Seller has satisfied all of it’s obligations to Buyer upon
shipment of described equipment. 

  

	7.	 	This purchase order shall be governed and construed under the laws of the state of California, seller and buyer waive all rights to a jury trial. 

  

	8.	 	This purchase order shall expire sixty (60) days from the date of the purchase order and may be canceled prior thereto by buyer upon written notice from buyer to seller.


  
 Buyer acknowledges, that in the event there are any conflicting
terms between the standard terms and conditions of sale by Seller and those stated above by Buyer, then Sellers terms and conditions prevail. 
  
 In order to expedite payment, reference Purchase Order #         
  
  
  
  

	

	 BILL TO:
 (Buyer)
	 	 	  	 National Technology Leasing Corp.
 126 East
Street
 Auburn, CA 95603
 Phone:        (530) 887-5486
 Facsimile:   (530) 887-8296
	  	 NATIONAL TECHNOLOGY LEASING
  
 By:                                      
                                        
                        
 (Authorized Representative)
  
 Date of Purchase
Order:
[if !vml]>[endif]>

[if !vml]>[endif]>

You have reached the FederalDepository Library Program Electronic Collection (FDLP/EC) Archive. Thisarchive assures ongoing access to publications in the FDLP/EC. Access topublications in the archive is available through GPO's suite of cataloging andlocator services, including the Catalog of U.S. Government Publications(CGP).  Archived copies of publications are retrieved in the event thatpublications are no longer available from the original publishing agency site. 
**Title:****Detailed diagnoses andprocedures, National Hospital Discharge Survey [electronic resource].**
 
1987 | 1988 | 1989 | 1990 | 1991 | 1992 | 1993 | 1994 | 1995 | 1996 | 1997
 
SuDoc Number:HE 20.6209/9:
Item Number:0500-E (online)
CGP systemNumber:000654072
 
January 6, 2020
Exhibit  32.1



CERTIFICATION OF PRESIDENT AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER













CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the Quarterly Report of Par Pharmaceutical Companies, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended October 2, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Scott Tarriff, President and 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 my knowledge:



(1)

The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) 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.











/s/ Scott Tarriff

Scott Tarriff

President and Chief Executive Officer

November 14, 2005







---
May 19, 2015 

 

James Rogalski 

105 Parkview Crescent 

Chapel Hill, NY 27516 

Dear Mr. James Rogalski: 

This letter is to inform you that we are unable to process your request for an exemption. It 

explains why we can not process your request and what you should do in the next 30 days. 

Why We Can Not Process Your Request 

We entered your March 24th, 2015 exemption request on behalf into the public docket 

(No. FAA-2015-0728), but we are unable to process your request any further. The 

information you sent does not comply with the requirements of § 11.81 (copy enclosed). For 

us to consider the request any further, you must send us all of the following: 

 The specific section or sections of 14 CFR from which you seek relief, the extent of the 

relief you seek, and the reason you seek relief. 

 The reasons why granting the request would be in the public interest; that is, how it would 

benefit the public as a whole. 

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

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

seek an exemption. 

 Any additional information, views, or arguments available to support your request. 
2 

 

What You Should Do 

If you want us to process your request any further, you must send the information described 

earlier to reach us within 30 days. Please note that § 11.63(d) requires you to send your 

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

If We Do Not Hear From You 

If we do not hear from you within 30 days, we will close the docket without notifying you 

further. If you have any questions or require additional time, you may call (202) 267-9677. 

Sincerely, 

/s/ 

Brenda Robeson 

Program Analyst, Airmen and 

 Airspace Rules Division

Enclosure
No. 64686.

#### Best Trading, Ltd., and American Customs Brokerage Co. *v.*United States,

protest 59/23758 (Honolulu).

Opinion by

Bao, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of metal stoves similar in all material respects to those the subject of Abstract 63217, the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-6475

JOHNATHAN SEYMORE,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

JOSEPH HALL,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Louise W. Flanagan,

Chief District Judge. (5:10-hc-02169-FL)

Submitted: September 29, 2011 Decided: October 5, 2011

Before KING, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Johnathan Seymore, Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe DelForge, 

III, Assistant Attorney General, Raleigh, North Carolina, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Johnathan Seymore seeks to appeal the district court’s 

order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition. 

The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge 

issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2253(c)(1)(A) (2006). A certificate of appealability will not 

issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a 

constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006). When the 

district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies 

this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would 

find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional 

claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 

484 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 

(2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural 

grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive 

procedural ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a 

debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 

529 U.S. at 484-85. We have independently reviewed the record 

and conclude that Seymore has not made the requisite showing. 

Accordingly, we deny Seymore’s motion for a certificate of 

appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and 

dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the 

facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the 
3

materials before the court and argument would not aid the 

decisional process.

DISMISSED