alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**Exhibit 31.2**

**CERTIFICATIONS**

I, Thomas L. Gruber, certify that:

1.  I have reviewed this report on Form 10-K of nStor Technologies, Inc.;

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 suchstatements 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 theregistrant 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)) for the registrantand we 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 theregistrant, 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) Intentionally omitted.

     c) 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 andprocedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

     d) 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 materiallyaffected, 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 ofregistrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function):

     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’sability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

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

|                      |
|----------------------|
| Date: March 26, 2004 |        | By: /s/ Thomas L. Gruber |
|                      |  |  |
|                      |  | Thomas L. Gruber*  Chief Financial Officer* |
EXHIBIT 10.5

TO: The Purchasers of ON2 Technologies, Inc. Series D Convertible Preferred
Stock and Warrants

Gentlemen:

      This letter will confirm my agreement to vote all shares of ON2
Technologies, Inc., a Nevada corporation (the "Company") voting stock over which
I have voting control in favor of any resolution presented to the shareholders
of the Company to approve the issuance, in the aggregate, more than 19.999% of
the number of shares of common stock of the Company outstanding on the date of
closing of the pursuant to that certain Securities Purchase Agreement, dated
October 27, 2004, among the Company and the purchasers signatory thereto (the
"Purchase Agreement") and the other agreements entered into in connection
therewith or as otherwise may be required by the applicable rules and
regulations of the American Stock Exchange (or any successor entity). This
agreement is given in consideration of, and as a condition to enter into such
Securities Purchase Agreement and is not revocable by me.


                                      ------------------------
                                      Name:
                                      Percentage Beneficial Ownership:
# C_2022031EN.01000601.xml

| 21.1.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 31/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.1.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 31/6

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.10535 – GIP / APG / AUSTRALIANSUPER / PEEL GROUP / PEEL PORTS)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2022/C 31/04)

On 17 January 2022, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the internal market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1). 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 policy’ 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 policy’ 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/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32022M10535. EUR-Lex is the online point of access to European Union law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32022M10535. EUR-Lex is the online point of access to European Union law.

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.

---
# C_2022459EN.01000101.xml

| 2.12.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 459/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.12.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 459/1

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.10543 – BISCUIT HOLDING / CONTINENTAL BAKERIES HOLDING)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2022/C 459/01)

On 11 March 2022, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the internal market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1). 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 policy’ 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 policy’ 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/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32022M10543. EUR-Lex is the online point of access to European Union law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32022M10543. EUR-Lex is the online point of access to European Union law.

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.

---
1 In The



### Court of Appeals

Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

____________________

NO

. 09

- 1 4

- 00 215

- C V



### ____________________

IN THE INTEREST OF D.C.

_______________________________________________________ ______________

On A ppeal from the 359th District Court

Montgomery County, Texas

Trial Cause No

. 11

- 04

- 03639 CV

________________________________________________________ _____________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

The appellant filed a notice of appeal but failed to file a brief. We notified

the parties that the brief of the appellant had not been filed and warned the

appellant that his failure to file a brief could result in a dismissal of the appeal for

want of prosecution. See Tex. R. App. P. 38.8(a)( 1 ). W e notified the parties tha t

the appeal would be submitted to the Court without oral argument. See Tex. R.

App. P. 39.8. Appellan t did not respond to this Court’ s notices.

“A court of appeal s may not reverse a trial court’ s judgment in the absence

of properly assigned error.” San Jacinto River Auth. v. Duke , 783 S.W.2d 209, 2 102 (Tex. 1990). In the absence of a brief assigning error for appellate review, we

dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution. Tex. R. App. P. 42.3 (b)

.

APPEAL DISMISS ED.

________________________________ LEANNE JOHNSON

Justice

Submitted on October 15, 2014

Opinion Delivered October 16, 2014

Before McKeithen, C.J., Horton and Johnson, J J.
NO. 07-05-0356-CR

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AT AMARILLO

PANEL C

MARCH 29, 2007

______________________________

BOBBY LADELL DORSEY, APPELLANT

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE

_________________________________

FROM THE 31 DISTRICT COURT OF GRAY COUNTY; ST

NO. 6696; HONORABLE STEVEN R. EMMERT, JUDGE

_______________________________

Before QUINN, C.J., and HANCOCK and PIRTLE, JJ.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant was placed on deferred adjudication for a period of 10 years after entering

a plea of guilty, pursuant to a plea bargain, to the offense of delivery of a controlled

substance in a drug free zone, enhanced by one prior conviction. The State subsequently

filed a motion to proceed with adjudication alleging that appellant committed four violations

of his community supervision. The trial court conducted a hearing and found that appellant

had violated all four of the terms and conditions of community supervision as alleged and,

after receiving evidence regarding punishment, assessed appellant’s punishment at
 Appellant has filed five motions for extension of time to file a response to the 1

Anders brief. The first four motions were granted and the final motion was denied on July

19, 2006.

2

confinement in the Institutional Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice for a

period of 10 years and ordered a fine of $2,500. We affirm.

Appellant’s attorney has filed an Anders brief and a motion to withdraw. Anders v.

California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed. 2d 498 (1967). In support of his motion

to withdraw, counsel certifies that he has diligently reviewed the record, and in his opinion,

the record reflects no reversible error upon which an appeal can be predicated. Id. at 744-

45. In compliance with High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 813 (Tex.Crim.App. 1978), counsel

has candidly discussed why, under the controlling authorities, there is no error in the trial

court’s judgment. Additionally, counsel has certified that he has provided appellant a copy

of the Anders brief and motion to withdraw and appropriately advised appellant of his right

to file a pro se response in this matter. Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 510

(Tex.Crim.App. 1991). The court has also advised appellant of his right to file a pro se

response. Appellant has not filed a response. 

1

By his Anders brief, counsel raises grounds that could possibly support an appeal,

but concludes the appeal is frivolous. We have reviewed these grounds and made an

independent review of the entire record to determine whether there are any arguable

grounds which might support an appeal. See Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 109 S.Ct. 346,

102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988); Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824 (Tex.Crim.App. 2005). We

have found no such arguable grounds and agree with counsel that the appeal is frivolous.
3

Accordingly, counsel’s motion to withdraw is hereby granted and the trial court’s

judgment is affirmed.

Mackey K. Hancock

 Justice

Do not publish.
# C_2022464EN.01000101.xml

| 6.12.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 464/1 |
| --------- | -- | -------------------------------------- | ------- |

---

Withdrawal of notification of a concentration (Case M.10325 – KRONOSPAN / PFLEIDERER POLSKA) (Text with EEA relevance) (2022/C 464/01) On 15 February 2022, the European Commission received notification ( 1 ) of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 ( 2 ) (‘Merger Regulation’). On 5 April 2022, the Commission decided to initiate proceedings ( 3 ) under Article 6(1)(c) of the Merger Regulation. On 29 November 2022, the notifying party informed the Commission that it withdrew its notification and demonstrated that it abandoned the concentration. ( 1 )  OJ C 87, 23.2.2022, p. 13. ( 2 )  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1. ( 3 )  OJ C 159, 12.4.2022, p. 5.

---
STATE OF TENNESSEE 

DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND CONSERVATION 

Division of Air Pollution Control 

gth Floor, L&C Annex 

401 Church Street 

Nashville, TN 37243-1531 

CERTIFIED MAIL # 7007 3020 0002 5010 1554 

RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED 

February 19,2010 

A. Stanley Meiburg, Acting Regional Administrator 

U. S. EPA Region 4 

Atlanta Federal Center, 12th Floor 

61 Forsyth Street, SW 

Atlanta, GA 30303-3104 

Re: Knoxville, Tennessee Ozone Nonattainment Area 

Dear Mr. Meiburg: 

The Knoxville, Tennessee ozone nonattainment area includes Anderson, Blount, Jefferson, Knox, Loudon and Sevier Counties 

in their entirety, as well as the portion of Cocke County that falls within the boundaries of the Great Smoky Mountains National 

Park. Between 1999 and 2003, air quality monitoring at several sites within this region indicated that the highest 8-hour 

average ozone concentrations exceeded the 0.08 parts per million National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS), and EPA 

designated the area as nonattainment for the 8-hour ozone NAAQS, effective June 15, 2004. More recently, air quality 

monitoring data for 2007 through 2009 indicates declining ozone concentrations in the Knoxville area, and the design value at 

the controlling monitor shows attainment of the NAAQS. 

The purpose of this letter is to inform you that the Knoxville, Tennessee, nonattainment area has attained the 1997 ozone 

NAAQS. This determination is based upon three years of complete quality assured, quality controlled, and certified ambient 

air monitoring data showing that this area has monitored attainment of the 1997 ozone NAAQS for the years of 2007 through 

2009. 

Tennessee requests that EPA determine that the Knoxville, Tennessee ozone nonattainment area has attained the 1997 ozone 

NAAQS, pursuant to the Agency's clean data policy. If the requested determination is made final, the requirement for 

Tennessee to submit an attainment demonstration and associated reasonably available control measures (RACM), a 

reasonable further progress (RFP) plan, contingency measures, and other planning State Implementation Plans (SIPS) related 

to attainment of the standard for the Knoxville, Tennessee, ozone nonattainment area, would be suspended. This requirement 

would remain suspended as long as this area continues to meet the 1997 ozone NAAQS. 

If you have any questions or require additional information, please contact us at (615) 532-0554. 

Sincerelv. qTbf?$$Ad 

B ry . Stephens, . E. 

~irector, ~i;ision of Air Pollution Control 

CC: Dick Schutt, EPA Region 4 

Doug Neeley, EPA Region 4 

Twunjala Bradley, EPA Region 4 

Green File 

JLW 

MMC
xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?


C\_2022414EN.01004301.xml


| | | | |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 28.10.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 414/43 |

---

Prior notification of a concentration

(Case M.10925 – BNP PARIBAS / TERBERG BUSINESS LEASE GROUP)

Candidate case for simplified procedure

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2022/C 414/06)

1.

On 20 October 2022, the Commission received notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 [(1)](#ntr1-C_2022414EN.01004301-E0001).

This notification concerns the following undertakings:

| | |
| --- | --- |
| — | Arval B.V. (‘Arval’, the Netherlands), controlled by BNP Paribas S.A. (‘BNP Paribas’, France), |

| | |
| --- | --- |
| — | Terberg Business Lease Group B.V. (‘TBLG’, the Netherlands). |

Arval will acquire within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation sole control of the whole of TBLG.

The concentration is accomplished by way of purchase of shares.

2.

The business activities of the undertakings concerned are the following:

| | |
| --- | --- |
| — | Arval: leasing of vehichles to companies and individuals. To a limited extent, Arval also offers ancillary mobility solution activities. Arval is controlled by BNP Paribas (France), active worldwide in banking businesses, |

| | |
| --- | --- |
| — | TBLG: leasing of vehichles to companies and individuals in the Netherlands. |

3.

On preliminary examination, the Commission finds that the notified transaction could fall within the scope of the Merger Regulation. However, the final decision on this point is reserved.

Pursuant to the Commission Notice on a simplified procedure for treatment of certain concentrations under Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 [(2)](#ntr2-C_2022414EN.01004301-E0002) it should be noted that this case is a candidate for treatment under the procedure set out in the Notice.

4.

The Commission invites interested third parties to submit their possible observations on the proposed operation to the Commission.

Observations must reach the Commission not later than 10 days following the date of this publication. The following reference should always be specified:

M.10925 – BNP PARIBAS / TERBERG BUSINESS LEASE GROUP

Observations can be sent to the Commission by email, by fax, or by post. Please use the contact details below:

Email: COMP-MERGER-REGISTRY@ec.europa.eu

Fax +32 22964301

Postal address:

| |
| --- |
| European Commission |
| Directorate-General for Competition |
| Merger Registry |
| 1049 Bruxelles/Brussel |
| BELGIQUE/BELGIË |

---

[(1)](#ntc1-C_2022414EN.01004301-E0001)  [OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1](http://publications.europa.eu/resource/oj/JOL_2004_024_R_TOC) (the ‘Merger Regulation’).

[(2)](#ntc2-C_2022414EN.01004301-E0002)  [OJ C 366, 14.12.2013, p. 5](http://publications.europa.eu/resource/oj/JOC_2013_366_R_TOC).

---
Description of Fiscal 2005 Management Bonus Arrangements



 Exhibit 10.30 
  
 Corporate Executive Fiscal 2005 Bonus Measurements 
  
 The fiscal 2005 bonus plan for corporate executives will be based on year-over-year improvement in Actuant’s Consolidated Combined
Management Measure (CMM) 
  
 Supporting Definitions: 
 Consolidated CMM = Net earnings before interest, taxes, and amortization less Asset Carrying Charge of 20% of net debt,
shareholders’ equity and accumulated amortization of intangible assets 
  
 Bonus Targets: 
  

									
	 	 	 	  	0%	 	100%
(Target)	 	250%
					
	 Consolidated CMM
	 	 	  	$40.4 million	 	$44.5 million	 	$50.5 million
				
	 Name
	 	Functional Area	  	 	 	Proposed Bonus Payout @ 100%
	Robert Arzbaecher	 	Chief Executive Officer	  	 	 	$536,000	 	 
	Andrew Lampereur	 	Chief Financial Officer	  	 	 	$155,000	 	 

  
 Business Unit & Segment
Leader Fiscal 2005 Bonus Measurements 
  
 The fiscal 2005 bonus plan for
segment leaders will be based on year-over-year improvement in segment CMM (70%) and year-over-year improvement in Actuant’s CMM (30%). The fiscal 2005 bonus plan for the European Electrical business unit leader will be based on year-over-year
improvement in Business Unit CMM (33%), year-over-year improvement in Actuant’s CMM (33%), and a performance based incentive based on projects assigned by the CEO (34%). 
  
 Supporting Definitions: 
 Business Unit & Segment CMM = Operating Profit (before amortization) less Asset Carrying Charge of 20% of Net Assets Employed 
 Net Assets Employed = Net accounts receivable + net inventory + prepaid assets + net fixed assets + other long-term assets (excluding
intangible assets) - accounts payable – accrued current liabilities 
  
 Bonus Targets: 
  

			
		
	 Mark Goldstein; Executive Vice President—
	  	 
		
	 Tools & Supplies CMM
	  	 0% payout: Less than or equal to 100% of prior year.
 100% payout: 10% improvement over prior year
 250% payout: 25% improvement over prior year

		
	 Consolidated CMM
	  	See consolidated CMM scale above.
		
	 Bonus payout at 100%
	  	$170,000
		
	 Bill Blackmore; Executive Vice President—
	  	 
		
	 Engineered Solutions CMM
	  	 0% payout: Less than or equal to 100% of prior year.
 100% payout: 10% improvement over prior year
 250% payout: 25% improvement over prior year

		
	 Consolidated CMM
	  	See consolidated CMM scale above.
		
	 Bonus payout at 100%
	  	$162,500

  









 Exhibit 10.30 
  

			
		
	 Gustav H.P. Boel; Executive Vice President—
	  	 
		
	 European Electrical CMM
	  	 0% payout: Less than or equal to 80% of prior year.
 100% payout: 10% improvement over prior year
 250% payout: 50% improvement over prior year

		
	 Consolidated CMM
	  	See consolidated CMM scale above.
		
	 Bonus payout at 100%
	  	$137,500
Document Headings

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

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Postal Service

# AGENCY:

                        Postal ServiceTM.                    

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.

# DATES:

*Date of required notice:*                         September 19, 2024.                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Sean Robinson, 202-268-8405.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on September 5, 2024, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a                     *USPS Request to Add Priority Mail & USPS Ground Advantage® Contract 330 to Competitive Product List.*                     Documents are available at                     *www.prc.gov,*                     Docket Nos. MC2024-624, CP2024-633.                

Sean Robinson,

Attorney, Corporate and Postal Business Law.

[FR Doc. 2024-21321 Filed 9-18-24; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7710-12-P