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

                                                                    Exhibit 10.9

                               SECOND AMENDMENT TO
                               -------------------

                       ADVANCED ENGINE TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
                       ----------------------------------

                            2000 STOCK INCENTIVE PLAN
                            -------------------------

     Pursuant to the resolutions adopted by the Board of Directors of Advanced
Engine Technologies, Inc. at a meeting of the Board of Directors held on October
12, 2001, the Advanced Engine Technologies, Inc. 2000 Stock Incentive Plan is
amended as follows:

     1.   Section 2 is amended to add the following definition:

          ""Family Member" means any child, stepchild, grandchild, parent,
     stepparent, grandparent, spouse, former spouse, sibling, niece, nephew,
     mother-in-law, father-in-law, son-in-law, daughter-in-law, brother-in-law,
     or sister-in-law, including adoptive relationships, any person sharing the
     Optionee's household (other than a tenant or employee), a trust in which
     these persons (or the Optionee) control the management of assets, and any
     other entity in which these persons (or the Optionee) own more than fifty
     percent of the voting interests."

     2.   Section 10(a) is amended and restated in its entirety to read as
          follows:

          "(a) An Option may not be sold, pledged, assigned, hypothecated,
     transferred, or disposed of in any manner other than by will or by the laws
     of descent or distribution and may be exercised, during the lifetime of the
     Optionee, only by the Optionee. Notwithstanding the foregoing, to the
     extent that the Administrator so authorizes at the time an Option is
     granted or amended, (i) such Option may be assigned pursuant to a qualified
     domestic relations order as defined by the Code, and exercised by the
     spouse of the Optionee who obtained such Option pursuant to such qualified
     domestic relations order, and (ii) such Option may be assigned, in whole or
     in part, during the Optionee's lifetime to one or more Family Members of
     the Optionee. Rights under the assigned portion may be exercised by the
     Family Member(s) who acquire a proprietary interest in such Option pursuant
     to the assignment. The terms applicable to the assigned portion shall be
     the same as those in effect for the Option immediately before such
     assignment and shall be set forth in such documents issued to the assignee
     as the Administrator deems appropriate."

     This Second Amendment to the 2000 Stock Incentive Plan of Advanced Engine
Technologies, Inc. is made and shall be effective as of April 27, 2001.

                                      -48-
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-6951

DONALD DEVAN EDWARDS,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

PATRICIA R. STANSBERRY, Warden, LSCI Butner,

NC,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard,

District Judge. (CA-05-267-5)

Submitted: January 19, 2006 Decided: January 24, 2006

Before WILKINSON, TRAXLER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Donald Devan Edwards, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Donald Devan Edwards, a federal prisoner, appeals the

district court’s order denying relief on his petition filed under

28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2000). We have reviewed the record and find no

reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by

the district court. See Edwards v. Stansberry, No. CA-05-267-5

(E.D.N.C. June 16, 2005). We dispense with oral argument because

the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the

materials before the court and argument would not aid the

decisional process.

AFFIRMED
```

[Congressional Record Volume 154, Number 160 (Thursday, October 2, 2008)]
[House]
[Page H10648]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

 AUTHORIZING THE SPEAKER TO ENTERTAIN MOTIONS TO SUSPEND THE RULES ON 
                                 TODAY

  Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent 
that the Speaker be authorized to entertain motions to suspend the 
rules on the legislative day of Thursday, October 2, 2008, relating to 
the following measures: S. 3197; S. 3641; and H.R. 7221.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from California?
  There was no objection.

                          ____________________
```
Exhibit 32



CERTIFICATION OF CEO AND CFO 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 on Form 10-K/A of Dectron Internationale (the "Company") for the year ended January 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), Ness Lakdawala, as President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company and Mauro Parissi, as Chief Financial Officer of the Company, each hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of his knowledge:



(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 represents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of the operations of the Company.



|                                                                                                                                                                                                                  
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|By:
/s/
Ness Lakdawala
Name:   Ness Lakdawala
Title:  Chief Executive Officer and President

Date: May 23, 2006



By:
/s/
Mauro Parissi
Name:   Mauro Parissi
Title:  Chief Financial Officer

Date: May 23, 2006





This certification accompanies the Report pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of ss. 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
---

Exhibit 13.2

Certification of Chief Financial Officer
Pursuant to
18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
As Enacted Pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002



Cream Minerals Ltd. (the Company) is filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, its annual report on Form 20-F for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2007 (the Report).



I, Shannon M. Ross, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350, as enacted pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:



(iii)

the Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and



(iv)

the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.







/s/ Shannon Ross

Shannon M. Ross

Chief Financial Officer



September 27, 2007
II

106TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 647

To provide for the appointment of additional Federal district judges in the

State of Florida, and for other purposes.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

MARCH 17, 1999

Mr. MACK (for himself and Mr. GRAHAM) introduced the following bill; which

was read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

A BILL

To provide for the appointment of additional Federal district

judges in the State of Florida, and for other purposes.

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 ‘‘Florida Federal Judge5 ship Act of 1999’’.

6 SEC. 2. DISTRICT JUDGES FOR THE FLORIDA DISTRICT

7 COURTS.

8 (a) IN GENERAL.—The President shall appoint, by

9 and with the advice and consent of the Senate—
2

•S 647 IS

1 (1) 5 additional district judges for the middle

2 district of Florida; and

3 (2) 2 additional district judges for the southern

4 district of Florida.

5 (b) TABLES.—In order that the table contained in

6 section 133 of title 28, United States Code, will reflect

7 the changes in the total number of permanent district

8 judgeships authorized as a result of subsection (a) of this

9 section, the item relating to Florida in such table is

10 amended to read as follows:

‘‘Florida:

Northern ........................................................................................... 4

Middle ............................................................................................... 16

Southern ............................................................................................ 18.’’.

11 SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

12 There are authorized to be appropriated such sums

13 as may be necessary to carry out the provisions of this

14 Act, including such sums as may be necessary to provide

15 appropriate space and facilities for the judicial positions

16 created by this Act.

17 SEC. 4. EFFECTIVE DATE.

18 This Act shall take effect on the date of enactment

19 of this Act.

Æ
### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED FEBRUARY 8, 2023

NO. 03

- 22

- 00024

- CR

Carter Cole Bomer , Appellant

v.

The State of Texas , Appellee

APPEAL FROM THE 207TH DISTRICT COURT OF COMAL COUNTY
BEFORE JUSTICES BAKER, KEL LY, AND THEOFANIS

AFFIRMED

-- OPINION BY JUSTICE THEOFANIS

This is an appeal from the judgment of conviction entered by the trial court. Having reviewed

the record and th e parties’ arguments, the Court holds that there was no reversible error in the

trial court’s judgment of conviction

. Therefore, the Court affirms the trial court’s judgment of

conviction

. Bec ause appellant is indigent and u nable to pay costs, no adjudica t i on of costs

is made.
Exhibit 32.1 - 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



In connection with the
quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Advant-e Corporation (the Company) for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the report), the undersigned, Jason
K. Wadzinski, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 that:



(1) The report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;



(2) The information contained in the report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



|                      |  |     |  |                        
|--------------------- |  | --- |  | -----------------------
|Dated: August 6, 2004 |  | By: |  | /s/ Jason K. Wadzinski 
|                      |  |     |  | Jason K. Wadzinski     
|                      |  |     |  | Chief Executive Officer
P.1 

OAR Box 1105 

Prepped by Candice Davis 

Document Number: 

113) ll-B-01 

Docket Number: 

A-79-33 

Printed 4/14/2008 3:11:59 PM Sheet 113 of 131 
P.2 

Collier, Shannon, Rill & Scott, PLLC 

Attorneys-at-Law 

305 0 K Street, N.W. 

Suite 400 

Washington, D.C. 20007 

Che t M. Thompso n 

(202) 342-8815 

Internet: cmt@colshan.com 

Tel.: (202) 342-8400 

Fax: (202) 342-8451 

10 Barrack Street 

Level 12 

Sydney, NSW 2000, Australia 

Tel.: 61-2-262-6700 

Fax: 61-2-262-3263 

(202)342-8815 

October 29, 1999 

Mr. Kevin Cavender 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Metals Group 

Emission Standards Division (MD-13) 

Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711 

Re: NSPS Subparts AA and AAa COM Requirement 

Dear Kevin: 

This is in response to your request last month for clarification on the number of electric arc 

furnace ("EAF") steel facilities subject to New Source Performance Standards ("NSPS") 

subparts AA and AAa and for empirical evidence of the error-band proven to be inherent to 

continuous opacity monitors ("COMs") — an error-band we believe renders COMs incapable of 

accurately measuring compliance with the NSPS' stringent three percent opacity standard. I 

apologize for the delay in responding to your request but it took me some time to address our trade 

associations and to locate pertinent data. 

Over the summer, we conducted an informal survey of Steel Manufacturers Association 

("SMA") and Specialty Steel Industry of North America ("SSINA") member companies. We 

received responses from 27 companies representing 35 different facilities. Of those, 27 reported 

being subject to NSPS subpart AA or AAa and 12 reported using COMs. Frankly, I believe there 

are many more companies using COMs than those that responded. 

Attached for your review are selected Method 9 observation forms prepared by certified 

smoke readers at SMI-Texas, an EAF facility located in Seguin, Texas. SMI has a practice of 

conducting Method 9 readings whenever its COM alarms. The attached forms highlight only a few 

ofthe many instances when SMI's COMs indicated opacity above three percent, but yet Method 9 

readings confirmed opacities of zero. Note that on some days the COM indicated an exceedance for 

periods when the furnace was between heats. 
P.3 

'""Tj 

Collier, Shannon, Rill & Scott, PLLC 

Mr. Kevin Cavender 

October 29,1999 

Page 2 

In the next few days, I will also be sending you data from Bayou Steel. That data will show 

instances where the COM was alarming on days when its furnace was not even running. The data 

are being copied and sent to me now, and I will pass it along as soon as I get them. 

I hope you find this information helpful. We are also anxiously awaiting the opportunity to 

review the draft amendment language to EPA's Performance Specifications 1. Let me know what 

else we can do to assist you. 

Sincerely, 

Chet M. Thompson 

Counsel to SMA and SSINA 

Enclosure 

cc: Mr. Thomas A. Danjczek, SMA 

Mr. Daniel F. Szwed, SSINA
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:*                         October 31, 2024.                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Sean C. 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 October 21, 2024, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a                     *USPS Request to Add Priority Mail Express, Priority Mail & USPS Ground Advantage® Contract 500 to Competitive Product List.*                     Documents are available at                     *www.prc.gov,*                     Docket Nos. MC2025-117, K2025-115.                

Sean C. Robinson,

Attorney, Corporate and Postal Business Law.

[FR Doc. 2024-25253 Filed 10-30-24; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 212 (Friday, November 1, 2024)]
[Notices]
[Pages 87457-87459]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-25502]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

Office of Foreign Assets Control


Notice of OFAC Sanctions Action

AGENCY: Office of Foreign Assets Control, Treasury.

ACTION: Notice.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of the Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets 
Control (OFAC) is publishing the names of one or more persons that have 
been placed on OFAC's Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked 
Persons List (SDN List) based on OFAC's determination that one or more 
applicable legal criteria were satisfied. All property and interests in 
property subject to U.S. jurisdiction of these persons are blocked, and 
U.S. persons are generally prohibited from engaging in transactions 
with them.

DATES: This action was issued on October 17, 2024. See Supplementary 
Information for relevant dates.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: OFAC: Associate Director for Global 
Targeting, 202-622-2420; or Assistant Director for Sanctions 
Compliance, 202-622-2490 or https://ofac.treasury.gov/contact-ofac.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Electronic Availability

    The SDN List and additional information concerning OFAC sanctions 
programs are available on OFAC's website: https://ofac.treasury.gov.

Notice of OFAC Action

    On October 17, 2024, OFAC determined that the property and 
interests in property subject to U.S. jurisdiction of the following 
persons are blocked under the relevant sanctions authority listed 
below.

[[Page 87458]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN01NO24.001



[[Page 87459]]


Lisa M. Palluconi,
Acting Director, Office of Foreign Assets Control.
[FR Doc. 2024-25502 Filed 10-31-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4810-AL-P
#### STATE v. W. C. TOW.

*Practice in8uj>reme Court*— Appeal *In Forma Pauperis*— The *Code,*§§ 552, 553, 1235.

1. An affidavit, upon which is founded an order allowing a convicted person to appeal, *in forma pauperis,*under *The Code,*§1335, is fatally defective if it does not state that the application is in good faith. Such averment is not required in civil cases under *The Code,*§§ 552, 558.

*2.*If an order is made allowing a defendant to appeal as a pauper, and the affidavit and certificate of counsel are not in the r-ecord sent to the Supreme Court, it will be-presumed that they were in due form; hut if they are sent up, and are not in due form, the appeal will be dismissed on motion of the appellee.

*351This was a MOTION, made in this Court by the Attorney General, to dismiss an appeal *in forma pauperis,*granted by *Clark, J.,*at Fall Term. 1888, of Yancky Superior ('ourt.

The facts are stated in the opinion.

*Attorney General,*for the State.

No counsel for the defendant.

Smith, C. J.

The charge against the defendant is for selling spirituous liquors in the county of Yancey, a territory in which a popular vote has been taken and declared to be in favor of prohibition, according to the provisions of chapter 32 of volume 2 of *The Code.*

After conviction and judgment the defendant obtained leave of the Judge, upon his affidavit of inability, to give secui’ity or make a money deposit, upon an appeal, to take the appeal *in forma pauperis,*and the transcript of the record has been brought to this Court.

Upon examination, the affidavit, which is sent up, is found to be fatally defective, in failing to state “that *the application is in good faith.”*This is essential to its sufficiency to sustain the appeal in criminal causes, under section 1235 of *The Code,*as determined in *State*v. *Payne,*93 N. C., 612; *State*v. *Jones, ibid.,*617.

The motion of the Attorney General to dismiss the appeal must be allowed. Had the record simply stated the allowance of the appeal unaccompanied with the affidavit of the defendant and the certificate of counsel, we should have proceeded to hear, assuming that the leave granted was rightful and proper, based upon sufficient grounds, on the maxim, “ *Omnia rite presumuntur.” State*v. *Jones, supra.*

The counsel for the defendant seems, in preparing the paper to enable him to prosecute his appeal without giving security, to have followed the provisions of sections 552 and *352553, which relate to appeals in civil cases and do not require the averment of good faith, the omission of which is a fatal defect in the affidavit in criminal cases, not adverting -to-section 1235.

Appeal dismissed.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-6276

ANTONIO EUGENE GAYNOR,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

UNNAMED DEFENDANT,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Jerome B. Friedman, District

Judge. (CA-04-668)

Submitted: May 19, 2005 Decided: May 26, 2005

Before LUTTIG, MOTZ, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Antonio Eugene Gaynor, Appellant Pro Se. Denise Colette Anderson,

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See

Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Antonio Eugene Gaynor, a state prisoner, seeks to appeal

the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the

magistrate judge and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000)

petition without prejudice based on his failure to exhaust state

remedies. This order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or

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

§ 2253(c)(1); see Reid v. Angelone, 369 F.3d 363, 368-69, 374 n.7

(4th Cir. 2004). 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) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this

standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that

the district court’s assessment of his constitutional claims is

debatable and that any dispositive procedural findings by the

district court are also debatable or wrong. See Miller-El v.

Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S.

473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir. 2001).

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude

that Gaynor has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we

deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We

dispense with oral argument, because the facts and legal contentions

are adequately presented in the materials before the court and

argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED