alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 32
 
  1.
    
    The quarterly report of the Company for the period ended March 31, 2009
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on this date (the Report)
fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934; and
 2.
    
    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
 /s/
Walter E. Standish, IIIWalter E. Standish, IIIChief Executive OfficerMay 14, 2009/s/
Gary S. AustinGary S. AustinChief Financial OfficerMay 14, 2009
EXHIBIT 99.1




                            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 Annual Report of LumaLite  Holdings,  Inc. on Form 10-KSB
for the period  ending  December  31,  2002,  as filed with the  Securities  and
Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report"),  I, Dale A.  Rorabaugh,
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 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.



/s/ Dale A. Rorabaugh
Dale A. Rorabaugh
Chief Executive Officer
March 19, 2003
OPINIONS OF THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 

 

 **** SUBJECT TO FURTHER EDITING **** 

 The full texts of the opinions of the Supreme Court of 

Ohio are being transmitted electronically beginning May 27, 

1992, pursuant to a pilot project implemented by Chief Justice 

Thomas J. Moyer. 

 Please call any errors to the attention of the Reporter's 

Office of the Supreme Court of Ohio. Attention: Walter S. 

Kobalka, Reporter, or Deborah J. Barrett, Administrative 

Assistant. Tel.: (614) 466-4961; in Ohio 1-800-826-9010. 

Your comments on this pilot project are also welcome. 

 NOTE: Corrections may be made by the Supreme Court to the 

full texts of the opinions after they have been released 

electronically to the public. The reader is therefore advised 

to check the bound volumes of Ohio St.3d published by West 

Publishing Company for the final versions of these opinions. 

The advance sheets to Ohio St.3d will also contain the volume 

and page numbers where the opinions will be found in the bound 

volumes of the Ohio Official Reports. 

 

Reed et al., Appellants, v. City of Miamisburg, Appellee. 

[Cite as Reed v. Miamisburg (1994), Ohio St.3d .] 

Appeal dismissed as improvidently allowed. 

 (No. 93-1910 -- Submitted November 29, 1994 -- Decided 

December 30, 1994.) 

 Appeal from the Court of Appeals for Montgomery County, 

No. 13446. 

 

 Susco, Hecht & Derose Co., L.P.A., and David P. Hecht, for 

appellants. 

 Jenks, Surdky & Cowdrey Co., L.P.A., Robert F. Cowdrey and 

Arden Lynn Achenberg, for appellee. 

 The cause is dismissed, sua sponte, as having been 

improvidently allowed. 

 Moyer, C.J., A.W. Sweeney, Douglas, Wright, Resnick and 

F.E. Sweeney, JJ., concur. 

 Pfeifer, J., dissents. 

 Pfeifer, J., dissenting. I would not have dismissed this 

case as having been improvidently allowed, but would have heard 

the case on its merits. I would then have applied to this case 

my analysis of sovereign immunity as discussed in my 

concurrence in Garrett v. Sandusky (1994), 68 Ohio St.3d 139, 

141, 624 N.E.2d 704, 706.
<PAGE>   1
                                                                     EXHIBIT 3.3


                           CERTIFICATE OF AMENDMENT OF
              AMENDED AND RESTATED CERTIFICATE OF INCORPORATION OF
                                     AVIRON

     C. BOYD CLARKE hereby certifies as follows:

     FIRST: The original name of this corporation is Aviron Merger Corporation
(the "Corporation") and the date on which the Certificate of Incorporation of
the Corporation was originally filed with the Secretary of State of the State of
Delaware was March 7, 1996.

     SECOND: That he is the duly elected and acting President and Chief
Executive Officer of Aviron, a Delaware corporation.

     THIRD: The Certificate of Incorporation of the Corporation was amended and
restated by that certain Amended and Restated Certificate of Incorporation filed
with the Secretary of State of the State of Delaware on November 22, 1996.

     FOURTH: The Board of Directors of the Corporation, acting in accordance
with the provisions of Sections 141 and 242 of the General Corporation Law of
the State of Delaware, adopted resolutions amending its Amended and Restated
Certificate of Incorporation as follows:

          Article IV, Paragraph 1, shall be amended and restated to read in its
 entirety as follows:

               "This corporation is authorized to issue two classes of stock to
          be designated, respectively, "Common Stock" and "Preferred Stock." The
          total number of shares which the corporation is authorized to issued
          is One Hundred Five Million (105,000,000) shares. One Hundred Million
          (100,000,000) shares shall be Common Stock, each having a par value of
          one tenth of one cent ($.001). Five Million (5,000,000) shares shall
          be Preferred Stock, each having a par value of one tenth of one cent
          ($.001)."

     FIFTH: Thereafter pursuant to a resolution of the Board of Directors, this
Certificate of Amendment was submitted to the stockholders of the Corporation
for their approval, and was duly adopted in accordance with the provisions of
Section 242 of the General Corporation Law of the State of Delaware.

<PAGE>   2


     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Aviron has caused this Certificate of Amendment to be
signed by its President and Chief Executive Officer and attested to by its
Secretary this 5th day of July, 2000.

                                       AVIRON


                                       By: /s/  C. Boyd Clarke
                                          --------------------------------------
                                          C. Boyd Clarke
                                          President and Chief Executive Officer

ATTEST:


/s/ Charlene A. Friedman
---------------------------
Charlene A. Friedman
Secretary
# C_2012033EN.01000401.xml

| 7.2.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 33/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.2.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 33/4

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.6464 — Sony/Sony Ericsson)

(Text with EEA relevance)

2012/C 33/04

On 26 January 2012, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/index.htm) under document number 32012M6464. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/index.htm) under document number 32012M6464. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law.

---
#### Edmund S. WHITSON, Jr., Appellant, v. O. Ernest ELLISON, Jr., as Auditor General, et al., Appellees.

No. 42978.

Supreme Court of Florida.

June 13, 1973.

PER CURIAM.

It appearing to the Court that by virtue of the opinion in the District School Board of Lee County, Florida et al. v. Askew, as Governor of the State of Florida et al. Fla., 278 So.2d 272 (Opinion filed April 4, 1973), and Senate Concurrent Resolution No. 481 (filed in the Office of Secretary of State on April 25, 1973), appointing O. Ernest Ellison, Jr., as the auditor required by Fla.Const. art. III, § 2, F.S.A., the issues presented in this appeal are now moot and it is therefore,

Ordered that this appeal be and is hereby dismissed *ex mero motu.*

CARLTON, C. J., and ROBERTS, ADKINS, McCAIN and DEKLE, JJ., concur.

ERVIN, J., concurs specially with Opinion.

BOYD, J., concurs specially and agrees with ERVIN, J.

ERVIN, Justice

(concurring specially):

I am unwilling to resolve the issue of the validity of the legislative appointment of O. Ernest Ellison, Jr., as Auditor General solely on the ground of mootness because the Legislature after the institution of these proceedings passed a concurrent resolution reappointing Mr. Ellison to the office of Auditor General. To let the matter rest on that basis leaves open questions of the validity of prior official actions of Mr. Ellison and whether his “reappointment” has retroactive operation. It also leaves unsettled questions of legislative prerogatives as to methods it may adopt for exercise of its constitutional powers.

I think Mr. Ellison was validly appointed by the Legislature pursuant to Sections F.S., 11.41 and 11.42, F.S.A., in conformity with Section 2, Article III of the State Constitution. The manner or method selected by the Legislature for appointing its Auditor General (a noncommissioned employee, as distinguished from an elected or appointed public officer in the executive branch) lies within its unfettered discretion and prerogative. The means provided for the appointment by statute through delegated legislative committee action is solely within high legislative prerogative and is beyond challenge in the judiciary. Moreover, the doctrine of separation of powers would appear to indicate to the judiciary that a fitting deference be accorded the Legislature in its exercise of its internal authority in selecting the method for making an appointment of an employee. We should not subject the exercise of this appointive power to extraneous provisions of the Constitution which, e. g., provide the mechanics for enactment of bills or the appointment of public officials by the Governor. Nor should we conclude the method selected is an invalid delegation of authority-

BOYD, J., concurs.
#### Charles Eugene WOLFE, a/k/a Gene Wolfe, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. L-12.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. First District.

Sept. 18, 1969.

Rehearing Denied Oct. 16, 1969.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

2
# C_2012041EN.01001101.xml

| 14.2.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 41/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.2.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 41/11

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

1

13 February 2012

2012/C 41/04

1 euro =

1 euro =

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,3254 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 102,86 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4329 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,83885 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 8,8098 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,2090 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 7,5710 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 25,045 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 290,45 |
| LTL | Lithuanian litas | 3,4528 |
| LVL | Latvian lats | 0,6988 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 4,1942 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 4,3458 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 2,3312 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,2326 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,3222 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 10,2782 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,5867 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 1,6622 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 485,49 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 10,1629 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 8,3386 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,5870 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 11 926,83 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,0116 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 56,280 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 39,5760 |
| THB | Thai baht | 40,836 |
| BRL | Brazilian real | 2,2757 |
| MXN | Mexican peso | 16,8404 |
| INR | Indian rupee | 65,1430 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,3254

JPY

Japanese yen

102,86

DKK

Danish krone

7,4329

GBP

Pound sterling

0,83885

SEK

Swedish krona

8,8098

CHF

Swiss franc

1,2090

ISK

Iceland króna

NOK

Norwegian krone

7,5710

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CZK

Czech koruna

25,045

HUF

Hungarian forint

290,45

LTL

Lithuanian litas

3,4528

LVL

Latvian lats

0,6988

PLN

Polish zloty

4,1942

RON

Romanian leu

4,3458

TRY

Turkish lira

2,3312

AUD

Australian dollar

1,2326

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,3222

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

10,2782

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,5867

SGD

Singapore dollar

1,6622

KRW

South Korean won

1 485,49

ZAR

South African rand

10,1629

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

8,3386

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,5870

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

11 926,83

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,0116

PHP

Philippine peso

56,280

RUB

Russian rouble

39,5760

THB

Thai baht

40,836

BRL

Brazilian real

2,2757

MXN

Mexican peso

16,8404

INR

Indian rupee

65,1430

---

(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.

1

Source

---
# C_2012138EN.01000101.xml

| 12.5.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 138/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.5.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 138/1

---

(2012/C 138/01)

Last publication of the Court of Justice of the European Union in the Official Journal of the European Union

OJ C 133, 5.5.2012

Past publications

OJ C 126, 28.4.2012

OJ C 118, 21.4.2012

OJ C 109, 14.4.2012

OJ C 89, 24.3.2012

OJ C 80, 17.3.2012

OJ C 73, 10.3.2012

These texts are available on:

EUR-Lex: http://eur-lex.europa.eu

---
July 1, 2015

Mr. Kyle Goldstein

3630 Pinnacle Drive

San Antonio, TX 78261

Dear Mr. Goldstein:

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

Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR). It explains why we cannot process your 

request and what you should do in the next 30 days.

Why We Cannot Process Your Request

We entered your exemption request into the public docket (No. FAA−2015−1311), 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.

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.
2

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,

Brenda Robeson

Program Analyst, Aircraft and 

 Airport Rules Division

Enclosure
Document

AMENDMENT NO. 2 TO THE
AVANTOR, INC. 2019 
EMPLOYEE STOCK PURCHASE PLAN


1.Definitions.  Capitalized terms used but not defined in this Amendment shall have the meanings assigned to them in the Avantor, Inc. 2019 Employee Stock Purchase Plan, as amended (the “Plan”).


2.Amendment of the Plan.  The Plan is hereby amended as follows effective as of July 1, 2022:
a.The second sentence of Section 2.1 of the Plan is hereby deleted in its entirety and replaced with the following:


“Effective as of the start date of any Option Period, each Employee may become a Participant by completing the enrollment procedures prescribed by, or on behalf of, the Committee or the Plan Manager, as revised from time to time.”


b.The first sentence of Section 3.2 of the Plan is hereby deleted in its entirety and replaced with the following:


“On each Exercise Date, the amount in a Participant’s Account shall be charged with the aggregate Option Price of the largest number of whole and fractional shares of Stock that can be purchased with such amount, subject to the limitations imposed by this Plan (including, without limitation, Sections 2.1 and 3.3 hereof).”
1







IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Avantor, Inc. has caused this Amendment No. 2 to be duly executed this 5th day of July, 2022.




       Attest:                                                                     AVANTOR, INC.
**REGULATORY EVALUATION**

**Directorate Identifier:** 2011

- NM

- 210

- AD

**Executive Order 12866:** Could the AD be considered a “significant regulatory action”? YES ( ) explain NO (X) **DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures:** Is the AD significant? YES ( ) explain NO (X) **Regulatory Flexibility Act:** Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities? YES ( ) explain NO (X) **Intrastate Aviation in Alaska:** This AD could affect intrastate aviation in Alaska. I s it appropriate t o include specific requirements for aircraft operated in Alaska, where aviation might be the only mode of transportation? YES ( ) explain NO (X)
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          AUG-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             SEP-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               NOV-30-1999
<CASH>                                       2,053,932
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  946,856
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             3,000,787
<PP&E>                                       1,027,417
<DEPRECIATION>                                  63,916
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               5,670,844
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,353,456
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                  2,500,000
<COMMON>                                        36,116
<OTHER-SE>                                     656,993
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 5,670,844
<SALES>                                      1,505,053
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,505,053
<CGS>                                          403,843
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,467,580
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              26,483
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (10,990)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (10,990)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                  (1,562,466)
<NET-INCOME>                               (1,551,476)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (.05)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.05)


</TABLE>
#### Jule Ernest LIMOLI, Appellant, v. Leona LIMOLI, Appellee.

No. 72-210.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Jan. 15, 1973.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
<PAGE>   1
                                   Exhibit 21

                         Continental Global Group, Inc.

                Subsidiaries of the Registrant at March 15, 2001

<TABLE>
<S>                                       <C>                                     <C>
                                          Jurisdiction of Incorporation or
Subsidiaries (1)                          Organization                            Parent Company

Continental Conveyor & Equipment Company  Delaware                                Continental Global Group, Inc.

Continental Conveyor & Equipment Pty.     Australia                               Continental Conveyor & Equipment
Ltd.                                                                              Company

BCE Holdings Pty. Ltd.                    Australia                               Continental Conveyor & Equipment Pty.
                                                                                  Ltd.

Continental ACE Pty. Ltd.                 Australia                               BCE Holdings Pty. Ltd.

Continental ACE Services Pty. Ltd.        Australia                               BCE Holdings Pty. Ltd.

Continental ACE Conveyor Components       Australia                               BCE Holdings Pty. Ltd.
Pty. Ltd.

A. Crane Pty. Ltd.                        Australia                               BCE Holdings Pty. Ltd.

Continental Control Systems Pty. Ltd.     Australia                               BCE Holdings Pty. Ltd. - 60%
                                                                                  Continental Conveyor & Equipment Pty.
                                                                                  Ltd. - 40%

Continental Conveyor International Inc.   Delaware                                Continental Conveyor & Equipment
                                                                                  Company

Continental FSW Ltd.                      United Kingdom                          Continental Conveyor International
                                                                                  Inc.

Continental Conveyor Ltd.                 United Kingdom                          Continental FSW Ltd.

Continental MECO (Proprietary) Ltd.       South Africa                            Continental Conveyor International
                                                                                  Inc.

MECO McCallum Pty. Ltd.                   Australia                               Continental Conveyor & Equipment Pty.
                                                                                  Ltd.

Goodman Conveyor Company                  Delaware                                Continental Global Group, Inc.
</TABLE>


(1)  Each of the subsidiaries listed is 100% owned by its parent company, except
     for Continental Control Systems Pty. Ltd.