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

                                                                   Exhibit 10.11


                                SECOND AMENDMENT
                                     TO THE
            FACTORY CARD & PARTY OUTLET CORP. 2002 STOCK OPTION PLAN

          The Factory Card & Party Outlet Corp. 2002 Stock Option Plan as
amended (the "Plan"), is hereby amended, effective April 23, 2002, as follows:

                                       I.

          Section 2(f) is amended by deleting "[__________, 2002]" and by adding
the following in lieu thereof: "April 23, 2002."

                                       II.

          Section 3(b)(iii) is amended by deleting the words "or other amount"
after "Shares".

                                      III.

          Section 4(a) is amended by deleting "Section 12(h)" in the first line
thereof and by adding the following in lieu thereof: "Section 11(h)".

                                       IV.

          Section 6(g)(iii) is amended by adding the words "the Optionee" after
the word "by" in the fourth line thereof.

                                       V.

          Section 6(h) is amended and restated to read as follows:

          "h) Form of Settlement. In its sole discretion, the Committee may
provide, at the time of grant, that the Shares to be issued upon an Option's
exercise shall be subject to such restrictions relating to the voting and/or
disposition of the Shares as the Committee may deem appropriate."

                                       VI.

          Section 7(d) is amended by adding the word "or" after "Employment," in
the sixth line thereof, by replacing the comma in the seventh line thereof with
a period and by deleting all of the remaining words in this Section following
this period.

                                      VII.

          Section 9 is amended by deleting subsection (c) thereof in its
entirety.

                                      VIII.

          Section 10(b) is amended by deleting the words "subsection 9(c)" in
the fourth line thereof.

<PAGE>

                                       IX.

          In all other respects the Plan shall remain in full force and effect.

          The undersigned certifies that he is the duly elected and acting
Secretary of Factory Card & Party Outlet Corp. and that the foregoing Second
Amendment to the Factory Card & Party Outlet Corp. 2002 Stock Option Plan was
duly adopted by the Board of Directors of Factory Card & Party Outlet Corp.

Dated: June 12, 2002                       /s/ Gary W. Rada
                                           ----------------
                                           Gary W. Rada
                                           President and Chief Operating Officer

                                      -2-
Exhibit 32.2
 Certification Pursuant To 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 By The Chief Financial Officer,
As Adopted Pursuant To Section 906 Of The Sarbanes-Oxley Act Of 2002.
  1.
    
    The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Toys R Us, Inc. (the Company) for the
quarterly period ended August 2, 2008 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements
of Section 13(a) and 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (15 U.S.C.
78m); and2.
    
    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
  /s/ F. Clay Creasey, Jr.
F. Clay Creasey, Jr.Executive Vice President -Chief Financial Officer(Principal Financial Officer)
#### IN RE: Warren Charles BODEKER, Roxsanna Ryan, the personal representative of the Estate of Warren Charles Bodeker, Debtor-Appellant, v. Christy L. Brandon, Trustee-Appellee.

No. 15-35212

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Argued and Submitted April 5, 2017 Seattle, Washington

Filed April 25, 2017

Kevin E. Vainio, Vainio Law Office, Butte, MT, for Debtor-Appellant

Robert K. Baldwin, Attorney, Kyle W. Nelson, Goetz, Baldwin & Geddes, P.C., Bozeman, MT, for Trustee-Appellee

Before: KOZINSKI and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges, and TUNHEIM, Chief District Judge.*

*

 The Honorable John R. Tunheim, Chief United States District Judge for the District of Minnesota, sitting by designation.

MEMORANDUM **

Appellant Roxsanna Ryan appeals the district court’s reversal of the bankruptcy court order granting Debtor Warren Charles Bodeker’s motion to rescind his waiver of a homestead exemption which Bodeker agreed to as part of a stipulation. We affirm.

First, *Law v. Siegel*is not a subsequent change in the law applicable to this case because no court equitably surcharged Bo-deker’s homestead. *See*— U.S. -, 134 S.Ct. 1188, 188 L.Ed.2d 146, 1194-97 (2014). Even if *Siegel*applied, a subsequent change in law generally does not *880provide a basis for a party to rescind a stipulation. *In re Marriage of Grace,*198 Mont. 97, 643 P.2d 1188, 1191-92 (1982); *see also Jeff D. v. Andrus,*899 F.2d 753, 759 (9th Cir. 1989) (holding that “enforcement of settlement agreements [is] governed by principles of local law”).

Second, 11 U.S.C. § 522(e) only applies to the waiver of an exemption in favor of a creditor with an “unsecured claim.” Trustee-Appellee Christy L. Brandon is neither an unsecured creditor nor holds an unsecured claim. Any incidental benefit to Bo-deker’s creditors as a result of the stipulation does not render § 522(e) applicable to this case.

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
WILLIAM PHARES,

Appellant,

v.

THE SCHOOL DISTRICT OF 

LEE COUNTY and JOHNS 

EASTERN COMPANY,

Appellees.

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO 

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND 

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D16-5500

_____________________________/

Opinion filed June 21, 2017.

An appeal from an order of Judge of Compensation Claims.

Jack A. Weiss, Judge.

Date of Accident: May 5, 2011.

Mark L. Zientz of Law Office of Mark L. Zientz, P.A., Miami, for Appellant.

William H. Rogner and Jonathan L. Cooley, Winter Park, for Appellees.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

ROBERTS, C.J., OSTERHAUS, and M.K. THOMAS, JJ., CONCUR.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE  CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL  INFORMATION  EXTRACTED FROM THE MARCH
31, 1998 FINANCIAL  STATEMENTS OF SMARTSERV ONLINE, INC. AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                         0001005698
<NAME>                        SMARTSERV ONLINE, INC.
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                       9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>              JUN-30-1998
<PERIOD-START>                 JUL-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                   MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                            394,088
<SECURITIES>                            0
<RECEIVABLES>                     184,100
<ALLOWANCES>                        6,000
<INVENTORY>                             0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                  710,176
<PP&E>                            975,798
<DEPRECIATION>                    323,104
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                  1,433,307
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>           1,454,209
<BONDS>                            99,254
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                   0
<PREFERRED>                             0
<COMMON>                           39,583
<OTHER-SE>                       (159,739)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>    1,433,307
<SALES>                           613,096
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                  613,096
<CGS>                           1,688,696
<TOTAL-COSTS>                   1,688,696
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                1,913,728
<LOSS-PROVISION>                        0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                857,169
<INCOME-PRETAX>                (3,812,983)
<INCOME-TAX>                            0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>            (3,812,983)
<DISCONTINUED>                          0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                         0
<CHANGES>                               0
<NET-INCOME>                   (3,812,983)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                       (0.95)
<EPS-DILUTED>                       (0.95)
        



</TABLE>
**Exhibit 23.01****CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**We consent to the incorporation by reference in the following Registration Statements: (1) on Form S-8 pertaining to the 1999 Stock Incentive Plan (Nos. 333-123299,333-132398 and 333-141115), the iPlace, Inc. 2001 Equity Incentive Plan, iPlace 2000Stock Option Plan, ConsumerInfo.com, Inc. 1999 Stock Option Plan, eNeighborhoods, Inc.1998 Stock Option Plan, QSpace, Inc. 1999 Stock Option Plan (No. 333-72192), theHomeWrite Incorporated 2000 Equity Incentive Plan (No. 333-58510), the Move.com, Inc.2000 Stock Incentive Plan (No. 333-55828), the Homestore.com, Inc. 1999 Employee StockPurchase Plan and Homestore.com, Inc. 1999 Stock Incentive Plan (Nos. 333-54886,333-46252, 333-89170, 333-113662), the Hessel Group, Inc. 2000 Stock Option Plan OptionsGranted Under the Hessel Group, Inc. 2000 Stock Option and Assumed by Homestore.com,Inc. (No. 333-48582), the Homestore.com 1999 Employee Stock Purchase Plan, Homestore.com1999 Equity Incentive Plan, NetSelect 1999 Stock Incentive Plan, SpringStreet 1997 StockIncentive Plan, NetSelect 1996 Stock Incentive Plan (No. 333-84545), Homestore.com, Inc.2002 Stock Incentive Plan (No. 333-89172);  (2) on Form S-3 filings Nos. 333-107963, 333-72746 and 333-61410; and  (3) on Form S-1 filing No. 333-80419of our reports dated February 28 2008, with respect to the consolidated financial statements andfinancial statement schedule of Move, Inc., and the effectiveness of internal control overfinancial reporting of Move, Inc., included in its Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year endedDecember 31, 2007./s/ Ernst & Young LLPLos Angeles, California
Prepared by R.R. Donnelley Financial -- Consent of KPMG LLP


 EXHIBIT 10.1 
  
 INDEPENDENT AUDITORS’ CONSENT 
  
 The Board of Directors

 BakBone Software Incorporated: 
  
 We consent to the inclusion of our report dated June 5, 2002, with respect to the consolidated balance sheets of BakBone Software Incorporated as of March 31, 2002 and 2001, and the related
consolidated statements of operations, shareholders’ equity, and cash flows for the year ended March 31, 2002, the eleven months ended March 31, 2001, and the year ended April 30, 2000, which report appears in the annual report on Form 20-F of
BakBone Software Incorporated. 
  
 KPMG LLP 
  

San Diego, California 
 June 14, 2002
#### Jennafer YELLOWHORSE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. KAYENTA UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT; et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 17-15688

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted November 15, 2017 *

NOVEMBER 20, 2017

Jennafer Yellowhorse, Kayenta, AZ, pro se.

Before: CANBY, TROTT, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument, See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2),

MEMORANDUM **

Jennafer Yellowhorse appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing for failure to state a claim her action alleging various federal claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). *Barren v. Harrington,*152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir. 1998) (order). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Yellowhorse’s action because Yellowhorse failed to allege facts sufficient to state any plausible claims. *See Ashcroft v. Iqbal,*556 U.S. 662, 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009) (“[A] complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)),

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**Exhibit
      32**





**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 Alyst Acquisition Corp. (the “Company”) on
      Form 10-KSB for the period ended June 30, 2008 as filed with the Securities
      and
      Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), each of the undersigned,
      in the capacities and on the dates indicated below, hereby 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; and




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





Date:
                September 25, 2008
            
            /s/
                Dr. William WekselName:
            Dr.
                William WekselTitle:
            Chief
                Executive Officer(Principal
                Executive Officer)Date:
                September 25, 2008
            
            /s/
                Michael E. WekselName:
            Michael
                E. WekselTitle:
            Chief
                Operating Officer and Chief Financial Officer(Principal
                Financial and Accounting
                Officer)
#### CHRISTY, INC., Appellant v. BLACK & DECKER (U.S.), INC., Stanley Black & Decker, Inc., Appellees

2016-2498

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

September 7, 2017

Scott R. Rowland, GableGotwals, Tulsa, OK, argued for appellant. Also represented by Amella A. Fogleman, Frank J. Cata-lano, Alicia Edwards, Paul Rossler.

Bryan Patrick Collins, Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP, McLean, VA, argued for appellees. Also represented by Jack S. Barufka, Michael Karl Heins.

(Dyk, Moore, and Taranto, Circuit Judges).

JUDGMENT

Per Curiam

This Cause having been heard and considered, it is Ordered and Adjudged:

AFFIRMED. *See*Fed. Cir. R. 36.
# Water



# PVC Resin Stripping 3

- Phase System 2 Mass Transfer Ops

Steam VCM diffusion from polymer matrix to water Rate = ƒ(time, temp, porosity) Porosity = ƒ(pore dia, n) VCM transfer from water to vapor Rate = ƒ(Henry’ Law, concentration) Traditional stripping operation (i.e. Henry’s law approximations).

Temperature and Pressure are not independent variables

T = ƒ(P) Higher Pressure Increased VCM Removal Rate Increased Degradation Decreased Color Quality Lower Pressure Decreased VCM Removal Rate Decreased Degradation Increased Color Quality

Porosity & Particle Size Function of voids in particle Higher Porosity Increased VCM Removal Rate Decreased Bulk Density Lower Porosity Decreased VCM Removal Rate Increased Bulk Density
EXHIBIT
32.1











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 Opticon Systems, Inc; (the “Company”) on
Form 10-K for the year ended June 30, 2008, as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Sadruddin Currimbhoy,
Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2001,
that:





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





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







Dated:
October 14, 2008





/s/
Sadruddin
Currimbhoy


Sadruddin
Currimbhoy, Chief Executive Officer
#### Wesley Thomas GALLOP, Jr., Petitioner-Appellant, v. Harold W. CLARKE, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 17-6888

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: November 16, 2017

Decided: November 21, 2017

Wesley Thomas Gallop, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Eugene Paul Murphy, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Ap-pellee.

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and TRAXLER and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

' Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Wesley Thomas Gallop, Jr., seeks to appeal the magistrate judge’s order denying his motion for appointment of counsel and the magistrate judge’s report recommending that Gallop’s 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition be denied. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2012), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (2012); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); *Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp.,*337 U.S. 541, 545-46, 69 S.Ct. 1221, 93 L.Ed. 1528 (1949). The order denying Gallop’s motion for appointment of counsel and the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation are neither final orders nor appealable interlocutory or collateral orders. Accordingly, we deny Gallop’s motion for a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*DISMISSED*
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                       1,570,465
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  663,753
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,637
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             7,462,909
<PP&E>                                       4,009,021
<DEPRECIATION>                                 726,518
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              16,036,005
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,281,597
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        86,544
<OTHER-SE>                                  10,417,864
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                16,036,005
<SALES>                                      1,027,587
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,027,587
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,359,136
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              18,188
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (297,153)
<INCOME-TAX>                                    26,125
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (323,278)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (323,278)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.04)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.04)
        

</TABLE>
II

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 807

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide that individuals

who have attained age 591⁄2 may contribute to individual retirement

accounts without regard to their compensation.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

MAY 16 (legislative day, MAY 15), 1995

Mr. LIEBERMAN introduced the following bill; which was read twice and

referred to the Committee on Finance

A BILL

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide

that individuals who have attained age 591⁄2 may contribute to individual retirement accounts without regard to

their compensation.

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

3 SECTION 1. IRA CONTRIBUTIONS FOR INDIVIDUALS ATTAINING AGE 591 4 ⁄2 DETERMINED WITHOUT

5 REGARD TO COMPENSATION.

6 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 219(b) of the Internal

7 Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to maximum amount of
2

•S 807 IS

1 deduction) is amended by adding at the end the following

2 new paragraph:

3 ‘‘(4) SPECIAL RULE FOR INDIVIDUALS WHO

HAVE ATTAINED AGE 591 4 ⁄2.—In the case of an individual who attains age 591 5 ⁄2 before the close of such

6 individual’s taxable year, paragraphs (1)(B) and

7 (3)(B) shall be applied for such year and each tax8 able year thereafter, by substituting ‘the income’ for

9 ‘the compensation’ or ‘the compensation (as defined

10 in section 415(c)(3))’, respectively.’’

11 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by

12 this section shall apply to taxable years beginning after

13 the date of the enactment of this Act.

Æ
Mr. Lloyd Swenson

P.O. Box 3537

5 Pine Cone Lane

Sunriver, OR 97707

Dear Swenson:

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

part 120 of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR). 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 28, 2013, exemption request into the public docket (No. FAA-2001-

10091), 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. We will consider the docket on your request open until we 

receive this required information from you. 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,

Ida M. Klepper

Manager, Airmen and 

 Airspace Rules Division

Enclosure
3

Project No.: AFS-13-306-E

Project Officer: _______________

ARM-101:KJones:4/3/2013:Doc#35844

ARM-1/100/101:Program Office AFS-800

MR LLOYD SWENSON PO BOX 3537

5 PINE CONE LANE

SUNRIVER OR 97707