alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
##### 



Exhibit 10.12

Third Amendment
to the
Associate Stock Purchase Plan
(Amended and Restated
as of December 31,1997)

RESOLVED, that the Associate Stock Ownership Plan (amended and restated as
of December 31, 1997), (thePlan) is hereby amended effective June 29, 2002 by
deleting the first and second sentences in Section 8 Termination or Amendment
of the Plan and replacing it with the following:

The Plan shall automatically terminate on the date that the maximum number
of shares, as specified in Section 12 Maximum Number of
Shares of the Plan have
been issued. The Company, by action of the Board or the Committee, may
terminate the Plan at any time prior to the issuance of the maximum number of
shares authorized under the Plan, in which case notice of such termination
shall be given to all participants, but any failure to give such notice shall
not impair the effectiveness of the termination.
Document

Exhibit 10.10
AMENDMENT NO. 1
TO THE
BENTLEY SYSTEMS, INCORPORATED
2020 OMNIBUS INCENTIVE PLAN
WHEREAS, Bentley Systems, Incorporated (the “Company”) maintains the Bentley Systems, Incorporated 2020 Omnibus Incentive Plan (the “Plan”);
WHEREAS, the Company desires to amend the Plan to remove the automatic increase to the Absolute Share Limit (as defined in the Plan) set forth in Section 5(b) of the Plan; and
WHEREAS, Section 12(a) of the Plan provides that, subject to certain inapplicable limitations, the Board may amend the Plan from time to time;
NOW, THEREFORE, effective as of December 31, 2021, Section 5(b) of the Plan is hereby amended and restated in its entirety to read as follows: 
“Share Reserve and Limits. Awards granted under the Plan shall be subject to the following limitations: (i) subject to Section 11 of the Plan, no more than 25,000,000 shares of Class B Common Stock (the “Absolute Share Limit”) shall be available for Awards under the Plan; (ii) subject to Section 11 of the Plan, no more than the number of shares of Class B Common Stock equal to 25,000,000 may be issued in the aggregate pursuant to the exercise of Incentive Stock Options granted under the Plan; and (iii) during a single fiscal year, each Non-Employee Director shall be granted a number of shares of Class B Common Stock subject to Awards, taken together with any cash fees paid to such Non-Employee Director during such fiscal year, equal to (A) a total value of $1,000,000 (calculating the value of any such Awards based on the grant date fair value of such Awards for financial reporting purposes) or (B) such lower amount as determined by the Board prior to the Date of Grant, either as part of the Company’s Non-Employee Director compensation program or as otherwise determined by the Board in the event of any change to such Non-Employee Director’s compensation program or for any particular period of service. To the extent the Board makes a determination pursuant to clause (iii)(B) above with respect to any year of service, such determination shall in no event be applicable to any subsequent year of service without a further determination by the Board in respect of such subsequent year of service.” 
    IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company has caused this Amendment No. 1 to be executed this 31st day of December, 2021.
            BENTLEY SYSTEMS, INCORPORATED

By: /s/ David Shaman            
    David Shaman
    Chief Legal Officer
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 21-0202

STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee,

v.

SEIDEL PINE,

Defendant and Appellant.

ORDER

Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, and 

good cause appearing,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension 

of time to and including December 29, 2021, within which to prepare, 

file, and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

November 24 2021

11/24/2021

Case Number: DA 21-0202
#### Patrick Butler *vs.*Thomas Fitzpatrick.

Oct. 3, 1874.

Order Refusing New Trial Affirmed, — Order refusing new trial affirmed, there-being evidence reasonably tending to sustain the verdict, and it not appearing that all the testimony received below is contained in the return.

*60Appeal by defendant from an order of tbe court of common pleas for Ramsey county, *Hall,*J. presiding, refusing a new trial.

*R. B. Qalusha,*for appellant.

*Davis, O’Brien & Wilson,*for respondent.

Berry, J.

No questions of any difficulty or importance arise in this case, except of fact. These have been determined in favor of the plaintiff, by a jury whose verdict the court before which the trial was had, has refused to set aside. We shall not disturb the order of refusal, for two reasons : *first,*because the testimony as reported is conflicting, and though it is not very satisfactory, there is-certainly some evidence in the case having a reasonable tendency to establish the plaintiff’s ownership and right to possession of the doors in controversy ; and *second,*because it does not appear that all the testimony upon which the verdict was founded, is contained in the return filed in this court.

Order affirmed.
#### JOAN R. MARTIN and JOSEPH DeMAURO, Individually; and JOAN R. MARTIN, as Executrix of the Estate of NICOLA DeMAURO, Appellants, v. DeMAURO CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION, aka DeMAURO CORPORATION, aka DeMAURO CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, MICHAEL DeMAURO, YOSHIKA MAJA DeMAURO, and DAVID DeMAURO, Respondents.

No. 18433

September 21, 1988

761 P.2d 848

[Rehearing denied December 8, 1988]

*McDonald, Carano, Wilson, Bergin, Frankovich and Hicks, Lenard T. Ormsby,*Reno, for Appellants.

*507
      *Woodburn, Wedge, Blakey & Jeppson, W. Chris Wicker,*Reno, for Respondents.

OPINION

*Per Curiam:*

In this appeal we reverse the order of the district court which dismissed this action on the ground that Hong Kong was the proper forum for this litigation, and not Nevada.

Since Joan Martin, appellant and plaintiff below, was not a party to the agreements which contain forum selection language, we decline to consider the applicability of these contractual provisions and deal here only with the trial court’s ruling as based upon the doctrine of *forum non conveniens.*

At issue here is entitlement to share certificate number five of DeMauro Construction Company. Appellant Martin, as executrix of the will of Nicola DeMauro, seeks judicial affirmation in Nevada of her proposed distribution of the stock in this Nevada corporation.

Respondents do not contest the authenticity of the stock certificate. Martin has never been an officer, director or shareholder of the corporation. Insufficient showing has been made that convenience of the parties or availability of witnesses requires annulment of the Nevada forum chosen by Martin. Of five witnesses identified by respondents, three are parties. There is no showing of why parties or witnesses must go to Hong Kong in order to resolve the rather narrow issue of stock ownership and distribution. The trial court erred in dismissing this action on grounds of forum convenience. *See*Swisco, Inc. v. District Court, 79 Nev. 414, 385 P.2d 772 (1963); Eaton v. District Court, 96 Nev. 773, 616 P.2d 400 (1980).

The order of dismissal is reversed and the action is reinstated in the district court.
#### COUNTRY DEVELOPMENT CORP., a Nevada corporation, Appellant, v. VIRGINIA C. ELDER, Respondent.

No. 7899

October 30, 1975

541 P.2d 1097

[Rehearing denied December 5, 1975]

*Eli Grubic,*of Reno, and *Lionel Sawyer Collins & Wart-man,*of Las Vegas, for Appellant.

*Vargas, Bartlett & Dixon,*and *Frederic R. Starich,*of Reno, for Respondent.

*685OPINION

*Per Curiam:*

The district court entered judgment compelling Country Development Corp. to specifically perform an agreement made on its behalf by its president, Edward R. Kertz, with Virginia C. Elder to issue to Virginia C. Elder 50 percent of the authorized capital stock of the corporation and vesting her with all rights and incidents of stock ownership.

We perceive no legal errors. Trial issues concerning the agreement, the consideration therefor, the authority of Kertz to make it, or its ratification by the corporation, were issues of fact which the court resolved in favor of the respondent on conflicting evidence.

Affirmed.
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5526 Introduced in House (IH)]

111th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 5526

 To amend the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act to make technical corrections 
       to the segment designations for the Chetco River, Oregon.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             June 15, 2010

 Mr. DeFazio (for himself, Mr. Blumenauer, and Mr. Wu) introduced the 
    following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Natural 
                               Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act to make technical corrections 
       to the segment designations for the Chetco River, Oregon.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Chetco River Protection Act''.

SEC. 2. TECHNICAL CORRECTIONS TO THE WILD AND SCENIC RIVERS ACT.

    Section 3(a)(69) of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act (16 U.S.C. 
1274(a)(69)) is amended--
            (1) by inserting before the ``The 44.5-mile'' the 
        following:
                    ``(A) Designations.--''.
            (2) by redesignating subparagraphs (A), (B), and (C) as 
        clauses (i), (ii), and (iii), respectively;
            (3) in clause (i), as redesignated--
                    (A) by striking ``25.5-mile'' and inserting ``27.5-
                mile''; and
                    (B) by striking ``Boulder Creek at the Kalmiopsis 
                Wilderness boundary'' and inserting ``Mislatnah 
                Creek'';
            (4) in clause (ii), as redesignated--
                    (A) by striking ``8'' and inserting ``7.5'';
                    (B) by striking ``Boulder Creek'' and inserting 
                ``Mislatnah Creek''; and
                    (C) by striking ``Steel Bridge'' and inserting 
                ``Eagle Creek'';
            (5) in clause (iii), as redesignated--
                    (A) by striking ``11'' and inserting ``9.5''; and
                    (B) by striking ``Steel Bridge'' and inserting 
                ``Eagle Creek''; and
            (6) by adding at the end the following:
                    ``(B) Withdrawal.--Subject to valid rights, the 
                Federal land within the boundaries of the river 
                segments designated by subparagraph (A), is withdrawn 
                from all forms of--
                            ``(i) entry, appropriation, or disposal 
                        under the public land laws;
                            ``(ii) location, entry, and patent under 
                        the mining laws; and
                            ``(iii) disposition under all laws 
                        pertaining to mineral and geothermal leasing or 
                        mineral materials.''.
                                 <all>
```
#### Pedro M. MAPA, Petitioner, v. OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT, Respondent.

No. 05-3109.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

April 1, 2005.

ORDER

Order Vacated, See 126 FedAppx. 968.

The petitioner having failed to file the required Statement Concerning Discrimination, it is

*1009ORDERED that the petition for review be, and the same hereby is, DISMISSED, for failure to prosecute in accordance with the rules.
# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

JUDG MENT

No. 04

- 14

- 00386

- CV

Arturo Rene ANAYA

, Appellant

v.

Juliana CASTILLO

, Appellee

From the 111th Judicial District Court, Webb County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2013

- CVG

- 00820

- D2

Honorable Monica Z. Notzon, Judge Presiding

BEFORE JUSTICE MARION

, JUSTICE BARNARD , AND JUSTICE MARTINEZ

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, this appeal is DISMISSED. Costs of appeal are assessed against appellant.

SIGNED August 6 , 2014.

_________________________________ Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice
Opinion issued October 31, 2017

In The

Court of Appeals 

For The 

First District of Texas 

————————————

NO. 01-17-00743-CR

———————————

IN RE CONNIE HARRISON, Relator

Original Proceeding on Petition for Writ of Mandamus

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Connie Harrison, the complainant in an alleged assault against a family 

member that was no billed by a grand jury, has filed a petition and amended petition 

for a writ of mandamus challenging the trial court’s denial of her “Amended 

Emergency Motion for Hearing to Recuse the Harris County District Attorney’s 
2

Office, For the Appointment of an Attorney Pro Tem to Present This Matter to the 

178th Grand Jury . . . and To Stay the Statute of Limitation.”1 We deny the petition.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Jennings, Bland, and Brown.

Do not publish. TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).

 

1 The underlying case is Ex Parte Connie Harrison, cause number 1438685 in the 

178th District Court of Harris County, Texas, the Honorable Kelli Johnson 

presiding.
**Exhibit 23.2**

**Consent ofIndependent Registered Public Accounting Firm**

We consent to theincorporation by reference in the registration statement on Form S-8(Nos. 333-108372, 333-114501, and 333-114503) of ZiLOG, Inc.(the Company) of our report dated March 29, 2005, relating to theconsolidated balance sheet of the Company as of December 31, 2004, and therelated consolidated statements of operations, stockholders’ equity, and cashflows for each of the years in the two year period ended December 31,2004, and all related financial statement schedules, which creport appears inthe March 31, 2006, annual report on Form 10-K of the Company.

/s/ KPMG LLP

Mountain View, California

June 26, 2006

----
United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

W.M., Appellant

and

DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS, 

LOMA LINDA VA MEDICAL CENTER, 

Loma Linda, CA, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 21-1217

Issued: October 30, 2023

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Daniel M. Goodkin, Esq., for the appellant

Office of Solicitor, for the Director

ORDER GRANTING FEE PETITION

Before:

PATRICIA H. FITZGERALD, Deputy Chief Judge

JANICE B. ASKIN, Judge

JAMES D. McGINLEY, Alternate Judge

Counsel for appellant filed a fee petition in the amount of $2,301.50.1 The Board notes 

that all petitions for approval of fees for representatives’services are considered under the Board’s 

statutory authority found at section 8127 of the Federal Employees’ Compensation Act2(FECA) 

and under its Rules of Procedure found at 20 C.F.R. § 501.9(e).3

As required by the Board’s regulations, appellant has been afforded written notice of the 

fee requested and provided an opportunity to comment on the fee petition. 4 Attached to the fee 

petition is a signed acknowledgement by appellant consenting to the fee in the amount of 

$2,301.50.

1 FECA (5 U.S.C. § 8127(b)) and its implementing regulations (20 C.F.R. § 501.9) require the Board to review each 

fee petition on its own merits and with regard to the unique facts and issues of each appeal.

2

5 U.S.C. § 8127.

3

20 C.F.R. § 501.9(e).

4

Id.
2

The Board has reviewed the fee petition and finds it is in compliance with the Board’s 

Rules of Procedure.

5

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THATthe fee petition is granted in the amount of $2,301.50.

Issued: October 30, 2023

Washington, DC

Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Deputy Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Janice B. Askin, Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

James D. McGinley, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

5

Id.
##### 



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 Each of the undersigned officers of Intelligent Systems Corporation (the Company) hereby
certifies to his or her knowledge that the Companys annual report on Form 10-KSB for the period
ended December 31, 2004 (the Report), as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the
date hereof, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and that the information contained in the Report
fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company. Date: March 30, 2005
    /s/ J. Leland StrangeJ. Leland StrangeChief Executive Officer /s/ Bonnie L. HerronBonnie L. HerronChief Financial Officer Intelligent Systems Corporation
瞭解您的權利

工作場合權利

OFCCP 保障您在工作上免受歧視

1.	 什麼是就業歧視?	

就業歧視通常發生在:僱主僅因為個人的種族、膚

色、宗教、性別、性取向、性別認同、原國籍、身

障或受保護退伍軍人身分而給予求職者或員工不利

待遇。若僱主因討論、揭露或詢問薪資而給予員工

或求職者紀律處分、解職或採取不利的行動,也可

能發生就業歧視。就業歧視的對象可能是單一個人

或一個群體。

2.	 我有哪些權利?

您有權在無歧視環境中工作。任何組織不得因為您

的種族、膚色、宗教、性別、性取向、性別認同、

原國籍、身障或受保護退伍軍人身分而拒絕僱用

您、騷擾您、讓您降級、解僱您、降低您的薪資或

惡劣待您。您也有權討論、揭露或詢問薪資相關問

題、同事的薪資,以及給予求職者的薪資或工作機

會。

3.	 OFCCP 是否會施行反聘雇歧視法?

會。OFCCP 施行第 11246 號行政命令與《康復

法》(Rehabilitation Act) 第 503 條,以及《越戰退

伍軍人輔助法》(Vietnam Era Veterans’ Readjustment 

Assistance Act)。依前述法律綜合規定,與聯邦政府

有業務往來的公司若基於前述受保護基礎歧視員工

和求職者,屬違法行為。因員工或求職者詢問、討

論或揭露薪資而予以歧視,亦在禁止之列。

4.	 OFCCP 保護哪些人?

OFCCP 保障與聯邦政府有業務往來的公司之員工和

求職者的權利,包括銀行、資訊科技公司、肉品包

裝工廠、零售商店、製造廠、會計事務所和建築公

司等機構的員工。

 

5.	 如何得知自己是否遭到歧視?

歧視可能有多種形式,且就算並非蓄意仍屬違法。

一般而言,有兩種歧視類型法律予以禁止:

差別待遇,指相較於處境類似的其他人,僱主給予

某求職者或員工較為不利的待遇,且此不同待遇是

因為此人的種族、膚色、宗教、性別、性取向、性

別認同、原國籍、身障或受保護退伍軍人身分所致

的。

差別影響,指僱主採取看似公平且公平採用,但實

際對特定性別、種族或族裔群體的成員、身障人士

或其他受保護群體有負面影響的政策或實務作法。

6.	 有哪些非法聘雇歧視的範例?

聘雇歧視的範例包括:

• 指派所有西班牙裔員工前往特定工作區

域;

• 男女同工不同酬;

• 奚落講話帶有口音的員工,且並非偶一

為之或單一事件;

• 僅根據性別或種族晉升特定員工;

• 要求接受與工作無關但可篩選掉特定群體

求職者的測驗,如數學測驗或負重規定;

• 拒絕給產後恢復期的女性給薪病假,但給

予膝蓋手術後恢復期的員工給薪病假;以

及

• 因為員工和 同事討論薪資而將其解雇。

7.	 若我認為僱主歧視我,我該怎麼做?

如果您認為自己因為種族、膚色、宗教、性別、

性取向、性別認同、原國籍、身障、受保護退伍

軍人身分或者詢問、討論或揭露自己或他人的薪

資而遭受聘雇歧視,或在求職時遭受歧視,可以

向 OFCCP 提出投訴。就算不確定僱主是否為聯邦

承包商或分包商,亦可提出投訴。 

8.	 如何向 OFCCP 提出投訴?

您可透過以下方式提出歧視投訴:

• 透過 OFCCP 網站填寫並提交線上表格;

• 親自到 OFCCP 辦公室填寫表格;或

• 將填妥的表格郵寄、傳送電子郵件或傳真至負責

據稱存在的歧視發生地點的 OFCCP 辦公室。

您可造訪網站 http://www.dol.gov/ofccp/regs/

compliance/pdf/pdfstart.htm 存取線上表格,或前往

任何 OFCCP 辦公室,索取紙本格式的表格。欲搜尋

您所在地附近的辦公室,請造訪網站:http://www.

dol.gov/ofccp/contacts/ofnation2.htm。 

填妥投訴表後請別忘了簽名。如果忘記簽名,OFCCP

仍會受理您的投訴,但 OFCCP 調查人員會在後續訪談

時要求您補簽。欲投訴因種族、膚色、宗教、性別、性

取向、性別認同或原國籍而遭遇的歧視,必須在據稱存

200 CONSTITUTION AVENUE NW | WASHINGTON, DC 20210 | 電話:1-800-397-6251 | TTY: 1-877-889-5627 | www.dol.gov/ofccp
在的歧視發生日起 180 天內提出,除非因充足理由延

長提起投訴的期限。相同的 180 天期限規定也適用於

聲稱因討論、揭露或詢問薪資而遭遇的歧視。欲投訴

受保護退伍軍人身分或身障歧視,必須在據稱存在的

歧視發生日起 300 天內提出,除非因充足理由延長提

起投訴的期限。

9.	 僱主可否因為我提出投訴而解僱我、降我的

職,或不合理地對待我?

不可以。僱主若因您提出投訴或參與調查而報復您,

即屬違法行為。OFCCP 法規保障您不因主張自身權利

而受到騷擾、恐嚇、威脅、強迫或報復。

10.	我可以同時向	OFCCP	和平等就業機會

委員會	/	Equal	Employment	Opportunity	

Commission	(EEOC)	提出投訴嗎?

可以。如果您同時向 OFCCP 和 EEOC 提出投訴,將

由適當的機構進行調查。在某些情況下,OFCCP 和 

EEOC 可能會決定合作調查您的投訴。 

OFCCP 一般會自行處理聲稱因看似已形成影響某個員

工或求職者群體的歧視模式,而對聯邦承包商提出的

投訴。OFCCP 一般會自行處理聲稱因個人性取向、性

別認同、身障或受保護退伍軍人身份受歧視,而對聯

邦承包商提出的投訴。OFCCP 一般會自行處理聲稱因

討論、透露或詢問薪酬受歧視,而對聯邦承包商提出

的投訴。

11.	如果發現我是就業歧視的受害者,會怎麼樣?

您有權獲得補償,獲得未發生歧視時您本可獲得的職位。

您有權受雇、獲得晉升、復職或重新派任。您也有權獲得

欠發的薪資、未來的薪資賠償、加薪或綜合上述各項的補

償。此外,如果 OFCCP 認為聯邦承包商或分包商違反其

任何法律,OFCCP 可能尋求將該公司列入未來聯邦禁用

承包商名單或從承包商名單中除名,或將該公司的現行合

約或合約變更取消。

如需更多資訊,請洽:

the u.s. department of labor

Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs

200 Constitution Avenue, NW

Washington, D.C. 20210

1-800-397-6251

TTY:1-877-889-5627

www.dol.gov/ofccp

請注意:本資訊表提供的是一般資訊,無法取代文中所述計劃的實際相關法

律與法規。

200 CONSTITUTION AVENUE NW | WASHINGTON, DC 20210 | 電話:1-800-397-6251 | TTY: 1-877-889-5627 | www.dol.gov/ofccp 2016 年 9 月修訂
# L_2007065EN.01000901.xml

| 3.3.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 65/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.3.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 65/9

---

COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 233/2007

of 2 March 2007

fixing the import duties applicable to certain husked rice from 3 March 2007

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1785/2003 of 29 September 2003 on the common organisation of the market in rice (1), and in particular Article 1a,

Whereas:

| (1) | Based on the information provided by the competent authorities, the Commission notes that import licences for husked rice falling within CN code 1006 20 excluding import licences for Basmati rice have been issued in respect of 352 809 tonnes for 1 September 2006 to 28 February 2007. The import duty for semi-milled or wholly milled rice falling within CN code 1006 20, other than Basmati rice, must therefore be amended. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

Based on the information provided by the competent authorities, the Commission notes that import licences for husked rice falling within CN code 1006 20 excluding import licences for Basmati rice have been issued in respect of 352 809 tonnes for 1 September 2006 to 28 February 2007. The import duty for semi-milled or wholly milled rice falling within CN code 1006 20, other than Basmati rice, must therefore be amended.

| (2) | As the applicable duty must be fixed no later than ten days from the end of the period referred to above, this Regulation must enter into force immediately, |
| --- | --- |

(2)

As the applicable duty must be fixed no later than ten days from the end of the period referred to above, this Regulation must enter into force immediately,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

The import duty for husked rice falling within CN code 1006 20 shall be EUR 65,00 per tonne.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 2 March 2007.

For the Commission

Jean-Luc DEMARTY

Director-General for Agriculture and Rural Development

---

(1)  
  OJ L 270, 21.10.2003, p. 96. Regulation as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 797/2006 (OJ L 144, 31.5.2006, p. 1).

1

---
Exhibit 99.9


                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



The undersigned, Chairman, President and Treasurer, of Jaco Electronics, Inc.
(the "Company"), hereby certifies, to the best of my knowledge, that: (1) the
Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarterly period ended
December 31, 2002 (the "Periodic Report") accompanying this certification fully
complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and (2) the information
contained in the Periodic Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company. The foregoing
certification is provided solely for purposes of complying with the provisions
of Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and is not intended to be used
for any other purpose.


February 14, 2003
                                          /s/ Joel H. Girsky
                                          ------------------
                                          Joel H. Girsky
                                          Chairman, President and Treasurer
                                          (Principal Executive Officer)