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

                                                         Exhibit 3 (a)
                                                         -------------



                             AMENDED AND RESTATED
                           ARTICLES OF INCORPORATION
                                      OF
                            C-OR ELECTRONICS, INC.

          The Articles of Incorporation of C-COR Electronics, Inc., as
heretofore amended or supplemented, are hereby amended and restated in their
entirety as follows:

          1.     The name of the corporation is:

                         C-COR Electronics, Inc.

          2.     The location and post office address of the registered office
of the corporation is:

                         60 Decibel Road
                         State College, Pa. 16801

          3.     The corporation has been incorporated for the following
purposes:

                         To have unlimited power to engage in and to do any
                         lawful act concerning any and all lawful business for
                         which corporations may be incorporated under the
                         Business Corporation Law, including, but not limited
                         to, design, manufacture, repair and provision of
                         service with respect to electronics components used
                         with cable television and other broadband
                         communications systems.

          4.     The term for which the corporation is to exist is:

                         Perpetual.

          5.(a). The aggregate number of shares which the corporation should
have authority to issue is:

                         Eight Million (8,000,000) shares of Common Stock having
                         a par value of $.10 (ten cents) per share and Two
                         Million (2,000,000) shares of Preferred Stock, no par
                         value per share.

          5.(b)  The Board of directors may issue in one or more series, up to
2,000,000 shares of Preferred Stock, no par value, with full, limited, multiple,
fractional or no voting rights, and with such designations, preferences,
qualifications, privileges, limitations, restrictions, options, conversion
rights, and other special or relative rights as shall be fixed from time to time
by resolution of the Board of Directors.

                       Manner and Basis of Reclassifying Outstanding
                         Shares of Common Stock of the Corporation
                         -----------------------------------------

          Upon the effectiveness of these Amended and Restated Articles of
Incorporation, each outstanding share of Common Stock, no par value, shall be
reclassified into 28 shares of Common Stock, $.10 par value.
Document

EXHIBIT 10.4

AMENDMENT TO INCENTIVE UNIT AGREEMENT, dated as of February 18, 2022 (“Amendment”), by and between Steel Partners Holdings L.P., a Delaware limited partnership (the “Company”), and SPH SPV-I LLC, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company (“SPH SPV-I”).
WHEREAS, the Company and SPH SPV-I are parties to that certain Incentive Unit Agreement, dated as of May 11, 2012 (the “Agreement”);
WHEREAS, the Company and SPH SPV-I desire to amend the Agreement as further described herein.
NOW, THEREFORE, the parties hereto hereby agree as follows:
1.Section 2(a)(x) of the Agreement shall be amended and restated in its entirety as follows:
A copy of the computations made by the Manager to calculate such Annual Incentive Number shall promptly be delivered to the General Partner for informational purposes only.  Upon delivery of the computation of the Annual Incentive Number, the number of Class C Common Units shown by such computation, if any, shall be classified with respect to the Incentive Units, effective as of the prior Incentive Calculation Date, no later than the first day of the next calendar month following the calendar month in which the Annual Incentive Number computation was delivered to the Partnership; provided, however, if in connection with the classification of the Class C Common Units, the Company or SPH SPV-I is required to make any filings under the Hart-Scott-Rodino Antitrust Improvements Act of 1976, as amended (the “HSR Act”), such Class C Common Units shall be classified no later than four (4) business days following the later of (i) the expiration or termination of the applicable waiting period under the HSR Act and (ii) the receipt of any applicable antitrust approvals required in connection with such filing under the HSR Act.


2.Except as expressly provided in this Amendment, all of the terms and provisions of the Agreement shall remain in full force and effect.
3.This Amendment may be executed in any number of counterparts and each of such counterparts shall for all purposes be deemed to be an original, and all such counterparts shall together constitute one and the same instrument. A signature to this Amendment executed and/or transmitted electronically shall have the same authority, effect and enforceability as an original signature.
 [Remainder of page intentionally left blank.]









IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed and delivered this Amendment as of the date first set forth above.
												
	 	STEEL PARTNERS HOLDINGS L.P.
		
	 	By:	/s/ Jason Wong
	 	 	Name:	Jason Wong
	 	 	Title:	Chief Financial Officer


 
												
	 	SPH SPV-I LLC
	 	 
	 	By:	/s/ Warren Lichtenstein
	 	 	Name:	Warren Lichtenstein
	 	 	Title:	Class A Member
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1388 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1388

 To manage supply chain risk through counterintelligence training, and 
                          for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                              May 9, 2019

Mr. Peters (for himself and Mr. Johnson) introduced the following bill; 
which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security 
                        and Governmental Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To manage supply chain risk through counterintelligence training, and 
                          for other purposes.

    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 ``Supply Chain Counterintelligence 
Training Act of 2019''.

SEC. 2. COUNTERINTELLIGENCE TRAINING PROGRAM TO MANAGE SUPPLY CHAIN 
              RISK.

    Not later than 180 days after the date of the enactment of this 
Act, the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, in 
coordination with the Director of National Intelligence, the Secretary 
of Homeland Security, and the Administrator of General Services, shall 
establish and implement a counterintelligence training program for 
officials with supply chain risk management responsibilities at 
executive agencies (including programmatic, information communications 
technology, and acquisition officials). The program shall be designed 
to prepare such personnel to identify and mitigate counterintelligence 
threats that arise during the acquisition and use throughout the 
lifecycle of information and communications technology.

SEC. 3. REPORTS ON IMPLEMENTATION OF PROGRAM.

    Not later than 180 days after the date of the enactment of this 
Act, and every 180 days for the next three years, the Director of the 
Office of Management and Budget, in consultation with the Director of 
National Intelligence, the Secretary of Homeland Security, and the 
Administrator of General Services, shall submit to the appropriate 
congressional committees and leadership a report on implementation of 
the program required under section 2.

SEC. 4. DEFINITIONS.

    In this Act:
            (1) Appropriate congressional committees and leadership; 
        information and communications technology.--The terms 
        ``appropriate congressional committees and leadership'' and 
        ``information and communications technology'' have the meanings 
        given the terms in section 4713(k) of title 41, United States 
        Code.
            (2) Executive agency.--The term ``executive agency'' has 
        the meaning given the term in section 133 of title 41, United 
        States Code.
                                 <all>
```
Exhibit 99.1

                     Report of Ernst & Young LLP

We have audited the balance sheets of IMC-Agrico Company (a
Partnership) as of December 31, 1996, 1995 and 1994, and June 30, 1996
and 1995 and the related statements of earnings, changes in partners'
capital and cash flows for the six-month periods ended December 31,
1996, 1995 and 1994, and the years ended June 30, 1996 and 1995 (not
presented separately herein).  These financial statements are the
responsibility of IMC-Agrico Company's management.  Our responsibility
is to express an opinion on these financial statements based on our
audits.

We conducted our audits in accordance with generally accepted auditing
standards.  Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit
to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements
are free of material misstatement.  An audit includes examining, on a
test basis, evidence supporting the amounts and disclosures in the
financial statements.  An audit also includes assessing the accounting
principles used and significant estimates made by management, as well
as evaluating the overall financial statement presentation.  We
believe that our audits provide a reasonable basis for our opinion.

In our opinion, the financial statements referred to above present
fairly, in all material respects, the financial position of IMC-Agrico
Company as of December 31, 1996, 1995 and 1994, and June 30, 1996 and
1995 and the results of its operations and its cash flows for the six-
month periods ended December 31, 1996, 1995 and 1994 and the years
ended June 30, 1996 and 1995 in accordance with generally accepted
accounting principles.



                                                  /s/ ERNST & YOUNG LLP
                                                  -------------------
                                                  ERNST & YOUNG LLP



Chicago, Illinois
January 15, 1997
Exhibit (99) Item 99 - Section 906 Certification

KANSAS CITY LIFE
INSURANCE COMPANY

SECTION 906
CERTIFICATION
                                                          Second Quarter 2003

The undersigned certify
that the registrants Form 10-Q report fully complies with the requirements
of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C.
78m(a) or 78o(d) and that information contained in the report fairly represents,
in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
the registrant.

`/s/R. Philip Bixby           
R. Philip Bixby
President, Chief Executive Officer,
and Vice Chairman of the Board




/s/Tracy W. Knapp            
Tracy W. Knapp
Senior Vice President, Finance`

Date:  August 8, 2003

A signed original of
this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Kansas City
Life Insurance Company and will be retained by Kansas City Life Insurance
Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff
upon request.
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 220 (Wednesday, November 16, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Page 69566]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-22745]


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

FEDERAL MARITIME COMMISSION


Ocean Transportation Intermediary License Applicants

    Notice is hereby given that the following applicants have filed 
with the Federal Maritime Commission an application for license as a 
Non-Vessel--Operating Common Carrier and Ocean Freight Forwarder--Ocean 
Transportation Intermediary pursuant to section 19 of the Shipping Act 
of 1984 as amended (46 U.S.C. app. 1718 and 46 CFR part 515).
    Persons knowing of any reason why the following applicants should 
not receive a license are requested to contact the Office of 
Transportation Intermediaries, Federal Maritime Commission, Washington, 
DC 20573.

Non-Vessel--Operating Common Carrier Ocean Transportation Intermediary 
Applicants
    Ambiorix Cargo Express, Inc., 1416 Fulton Avenue, Bronx, NY 10456. 
Officers: Victor Rodriguez, President, (Qualifying Individual); 
Ambiorix Rodriguez, Secretary.
    Atlantic Freight Services, Inc., 1068 Road, 28 Ports Zone Pueblo 
Viejo, San Juan, PR 00920. Officer: Ruben A. Rodriguez, President, 
(Qualifying Individual).
Ocean Freight Forwarder--Ocean Transportation Intermediary Applicant
    JK Trading, Inc. dba Envios, 1756 SW 8th Street, Suite 
<greek-i>207, Miami, FL 33135, Officers: Karen Duarte, President, 
(Qualifying Individual); Herbeth F. Duarte, Vice President.

    Dated: November 10, 2005.
Bryant L. VanBrakle,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 05-22745 Filed 11-15-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6730-01-P
### TEXA S C OU R T OF A PPEAL S, THIR D DIST R ICT , AT AU STIN
NO. 03-0 9 -00039 -CR

Ra fae l R odr igu e z , A ppe lla nt

v. The State of Texas, App ellee

F ROM THE DISTRICT CO URT OF B ELL COUNTY , 264TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT NO. 4934 4 , HO NORAB LE MARTH A J. TRUDO , JUDGE PRESIDI NG

M E M O R

A N D U M O P I N I O N Ap pe lla nt’ s c ourt -a

pp ointe d att or

ne y fi le d a br ie f c on c lud ingthat th e a pp e a l is frivolous and without merit. The brief mee ts the require ments of An de rs v . Ca lif or nia , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), by

prese nting a

profe ssional evaluation of t h e record de monstrating why there are
no arguable gr ounds to be advance d. Se e als o Pe ns on v . O hio , 4 88 U. S. 7 5 ( 19 88 ); Hi gh v . S tate , 57 3 S. W.2 d 8 07 (T e x. Cr im. Ap p. 19 78 ); Cur riev . S tate , 516 S.W .2d 684 (Tex. Crim. App. 1974); J ac k so n v . S tate , 48 5 S.W. 2d 55 3 (T e x. Cr im. App . 1 97 2) ; Ga ino us v . S tate , 436 S.W .2d 137 (Tex. Crim. App. 1969)
. Appellant rec eived a copy of counsel’s brief and was advised of his right to examine the appellate r ecor d and to file a pro se br ief. No pr o se brief has bee n filed. We have r eviewe d the re cord a nd counsel’s br ief a

nd ag ree that the a

p p e a l is frivolous
and wi tho ut m e ri t. We fi nd no thi ngin t

he re c or d th a t mi g ht a

rgua bly su pp or t th e a pp e a l.2

Se e Bl e ds oev . S

tate , 17 8 S .W .3 d 8 24 , 8 26 -2 7 ( Te x. Cr im. Ap p. 20 05 ). Couns e l’ s mo tio n to withdraw is g rante d.

The judg ment of convic tion is affirmed.

Diane M. H enson, Jus tice Be fore Chief J ustice Jones, J ustices Pury ear and He nson Affir med Filed: June 18, 2009 Do No t Pu

bli sh
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Heriberto RENDON-SAUCEDA, also known as Alfredo Mata-Pena, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 04-10923.

Conference Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Decided April 20, 2005.

Denise B. Williams, Lubbock, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Before SMITH, CLEMENT, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

*586PER CURIAM: *

Appealing the Judgment in a Criminal Case, Heriberto Rendon-Sauceda raises arguments that are foreclosed by *Almendarez-Torres v. United States,*523 U.S. 224, 235, 118 S.Ct. 1219, 140 L.Ed.2d 350 (1998), which held that a prior conviction is a sentencing factor under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) and not a separate criminal offense. The Government’s motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, and the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
EXHIBIT 31.1
**Certification Required by Rule 13a-14(a) or Rule 15d-14(a)**
I, Ron Hooper, certify that:
1.  I have reviewed this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Permian Basin RoyaltyTrust, for which Bank of America, N.A., acts as Trustee; 2.  Based on my knowledge, this annual report does not contain any untruestatement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make thestatements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made,not misleading with respect to the period covered by this annual report; 3.  Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financialinformation included in this annual report, fairly present in all material respectsthe financial condition, distributable income and changes in trust corpus of theregistrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this annual report; 4.  I am responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls andprocedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)), or for causing such procedures to be established and maintained, for theregistrant and I have:
 a)  designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or causedsuch controls and procedures to be designed, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to me by others within those entities,particularly during the period in which this annual report is being prepared;  b)  evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosurecontrols and procedures and presented in this annual report my conclusionsabout the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of theend of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and  c)  disclosed in this annual report any change in theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred duringthe registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscalquarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or isreasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting;
5.  I have disclosed, based on my most recent evaluation of internal control overfinancial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors:
 a)  all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in thedesign or operation of internal control over financial reporting which arereasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record,process, summarize and report financial information; and
 

 

 b)  any fraud, whether or not material, that involves managementor other employees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting.
In giving the certifications in paragraphs 4 and 5 above, I have relied to theextent I consider reasonable on information provided to me by Burlington ResourcesOil & Gas Company and Riverhill Energy Corporation.     Date: March 16, 2005 By: /s/ Ron E. Hooper      Ron Hooper  Senior Vice President and Administrator  Bank of America, N.A.,
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-60306

Summary Calendar

Dana Martin

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

Griffin Industries, Inc.

Defendant-Appellee

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Mississippi

(3:06-CV-113)

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, BARKSDALE, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

On March 6, 2008, Judge Henry T. Wingate, Chief District Judge of the

United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi, granted

summary judgment in favor of the defendant-appellee, Griffin Industries, and

dismissed all of the claims of plaintiff-appellant, Dana Martin. Martin timely

appealed, raising three issues, all based on claims brought under Title VII ofthe

Civil Rights Act of 1964: Whether the district court erred in granting summary

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

November 14, 2008

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
No. 08-60306

1 Under 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000(e)-2(a)(1), 2000(e)-3.

2 Bibbs v. Early, 541 F.3d 267, 270 (5th Cir. 2008).

3 Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c).

4 See Evans v. City of Houston, 246 F.3d 344, 350-51 (5th Cir. 2001) (“[Plaintiff] has

produced no substantial evidence to support her contention that the City’s legitimate

nondiscriminatory justification for her demotion was, in fact, a pretext . . . .”).

2

judgment as to her discriminatory discharge claim, as to her disparate treatment

claim, and as to her retaliation claim.1

We review grants of summary judgment de novo.2 Summary judgment is

only appropriate “if the pleadings, the discovery and the disclosure materials on

file, and any affidavits show that there is no genuine issue as to any material

fact and that the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.”3

In the instant case, as the district court noted, Martin has offered no

evidence aside from her conclusory allegations that any aspect of Griffin’s

actions derived from discriminatory animus.4 Griffin has adduced evidence

establishing that it fired Martin not due to discrimination but rather due to her

deficient performance, and that the lack of a severance package (although the

record suggests Martin in fact refused a package that Griffin offered) was not

due to sex discrimination. Martin fails to point to any facts that cast doubt on

Griffin’s proffered reasons. Finally, Martin has failed to demonstrate that there

was any protected activity in which she engaged, suitable to trigger the

protections against retaliation that are included in Title VII. 

Martin’s appeal is without merit. The judgment of the district court is

AFFIRMED.
**Exhibit 10.3.1**

 

**AMENDMENT NO. 1**

**TO THE**

**UNIFIED WESTERN GROCERS, INC.**

**SHELTERED SAVINGS PLAN**

 

Effective as of August 31, 1997, the definition of “Employee” in Section 1.2 of the Unified Western Grocers, Inc. Sheltered Savings Plan (the “Plan”) is amended and restated to read as follows: 

 

“‘Employee’ shall mean every person classified by the Companyas a common law employee of the Company and any Affiliated Company that has adopted the Plan with the permission of the Board of Directors. ‘Employee’ shall not include any person who is (i) employed by or through a leasing, temporary, or similar agency or company, or (ii) classified by the Company as a leased employee (‘LeasedEmployee’) of the Company or any such Affiliated Company. For this purpose, a Leased Employee is a person whose services are performed under primary direction or control by the Company or any Affiliated Company on a substantially full timebasis for a period of at least one year in accordance with Code Section 414(n)(2). If any person described in the preceding sentence is determined to be a common law employee of the Company by court decision or otherwise, such person shallnonetheless continue to be treated as not being an Employee.” 

 

* * * 

 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Unified Western Grocers,Inc. has executed this Amendment this 11 day of June, 2002.
#### HILLSBOROUGH, TOWN OF v. SMITH

No. 55 PC.

Case below: 4 N.C. App. 316.

Petition for writ of *certiorari*to North Carolina Court of Appeals allowed 18 June 1969.
#### STATE v. BROWN

No. 527PA82.

Case below: 58 N.C. App. 606.

Petition by defendant for discretionary review under G.S. 7A-81 allowed 7 December 1982.