alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
CC Filed by Filing Services Canada Inc. 403-717-3898


AMENDMENT NO. 5 TO

NONQUALIFIED STOCK OPTION AGREEMENT




This Amendment No. 5 to Nonqualified Stock Option Agreement (“Amendment”) is entered into as of this 1st day of April 2009 and between Micron Enviro Systems, Inc., a Nevada corporation, and Stephen J. Amdahl under the 2006C Stock Nonqualified Stock Option Plan.




RECITALS:




WHEREAS, the parties entered into the Nonqualified Stock Option Agreement, dated as of February 22, 2006 (“Option Agreement”) and have amended four time subsequently.  Capitalized terms not defined herein shall have the same meaning as set forth in the Option Agreement; and




WHEREAS, the parties desire to amend the Option Agreement as set forth herein.

AGREEMENT:




NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing and for other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the parties intending to be legally bound, agree as follows:




1.  In exchange for Grantee’s promise of continued service in his capacity as a director of the Corporation, Section 1 of the Option Agreement shall be amended to decrease the exercise price to $0.006 per share.




2.  This Amendment may be executed in one or more counterparts, each of which shall constitute an original, and all such counterparts together shall constitute one and the same document.




3. Except as so expressly amended, the Option Agreement is ratified and confirmed by the parties and, as hereby amended, shall be deemed and construed as a single instrument in full force and effect; provided, however, in the case of any conflict or inconsistency between the terms of this Amendment and the terms of the prior Option Agreement, the terms of this Amendment shall control.




IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Amendment No. 5 to Option Agreement as of the date set forth above.







Micron Enviro Systems, Inc.

   Stephen J. Amdahl







By:

/s/ Bradley Rudman

/s/ Stephen J. Amdahl

Name: 

/s/ Bradley Rudman

Title: 

President, Director, CFO
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.                  

###### Department of Justice

###### Antitrust Division

                    Notice is hereby given that, on October 28, 2005, pursuant to section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301*et seq.*                     (“the Act”), VSI Alliance has filed written notifications simultaneously with the Attorney General and the Federal Trade Commission disclosing changes in its membership. The notifications were filed for the purpose of extending the Act's provisions limiting the recovery of antitrust plaintiffs to actual damages under specified circumstances. Specifically, Hefei University of Technology Institute, Hefei, People's Republic of China; Mixel, Inc., San Jose, CA; and Verisity Design, Inc., Mountain View, CA have withdrawn as parties to this venture.                

No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned activity of the group research project. Membership in this group research project remains open, and VSI Alliance intends to file additional written notification disclosing all changes in membership.

                    On November 29, 1996, VSI Alliance filed its original notification pursuant to Section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice published a notice in the                     **Federal Register**                     pursuant to section 6(b) of the Act on March 4, 1997 (62 FR 9812).                

                    The last notification was filed with the Department on July 14, 2005. A notice was published in the                     **Federal Register**                     pursuant to section 6(b) of the Act on August 1, 2005 (70 FR 44118).                

Dorothy B. Fountain,

Deputy Director of Operations, Antitrust Division.

[FR Doc. 05-23318 Filed 11-25-05; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4410-11-M
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.                  

###### Judicial Conference of the United States

# AGENCY:

Judicial Conference of the United States, Advisory Committee on Rules of Civil Procedure. 

# ACTION:

Notice of cancellation of open hearing.

# SUMMARY:

                        The public hearing on proposed amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, scheduled for December 2, 2005, in Washington, DC, has been canceled. [Original notice of hearing appeared in the                         **Federal Register**                         of July 14, 2005.]                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

John K. Rabiej, Chief, Rules Committee Support Office, Administrative Office of the United States Courts, Washington, DC 20544, telephone (202) 502-1820.

Dated: November 21, 2005.

John K. Rabiej,

Chief, Rules Committee Support Office.

[FR Doc. 05-23325 Filed 11-25-05; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 2210-55-M
EXHIBIT 10.4



02 MICRO INTERNATIONAL LIMITED



Certification under Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act



In connection with the periodic report of 02Micro
International Limited (the Company) on Form 20-F for the period ended December 31, 2002 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), I, Perry Kuo, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certify
as of the date hereof, solely for purposes of Title 18, Chapter 63, Section 1350 of the United States Code, that to the best of my knowledge:



(1)  the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, 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 operations of the Company at the dates and for the periods indicated.



This Certification has not been, and shall not be deemed,
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission.



|                 
|-----------------
|Date: May 7, 2003
|                 



---

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act has been provided to the Company and will be
retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Exhibit 32.2

 

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT TO

SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

I, Michael Willoughby, certify that:

 

1. I have reviewed this Amendment No. 1 to Annual Report on Form 10-K of PFSweb, Inc.; and

 

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report.

 

 

 

|        |        |                         |        |
|--------|--------|-------------------------|--------|
|   | By:    | /s/Michael Willoughby   |   |
|   |   | Michael Willoughby      |   |
|   |   | Chief Executive Officer |   |

 

Date: April 30, 2018
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                          37,882
<SECURITIES>                                 1,061,203
<RECEIVABLES>                                  569,730
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    172,233
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,997,743
<PP&E>                                       7,486,380
<DEPRECIATION>                                 620,531
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               9,214,575
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        2,773,630
<BONDS>                                      2,891,998
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                      7,000
<COMMON>                                       224,925
<OTHER-SE>                                   1,033,104
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 9,214,575
<SALES>                                      2,206,240
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             2,206,240
<CGS>                                        1,726,876
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                2,036,364
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             113,833
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 62,218
<INCOME-TAX>                                    23,021
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             39,197
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    39,197
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.98
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.96
        

</TABLE>
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

DA 22-0667

_________________

MONTANA DEMOCRATIC PARTY and MITCH

BOHN, WESTERN NATIVE VOICE, et al.,

MONTANA YOUTH ACTION, et al.,

 Plaintiffs and Appellees,

 v.

CHRISTI JACOBSEN, in her official capacity

as Montana Secretary of State,

 Defendant and Appellant.

O R D E R

_________________

Henry J. Brewster has filed a motion to withdraw as counsel for Appellees Montana 

Democratic Party and Mitch Bohn. Good cause appearing,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Brewster’s motion to withdraw from 

representation of this appeal is GRANTED.

The Clerk is directed to provide a copy of this Order to Henry J. Brewster and all 

counsel of record.

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

July 20 2023

07/20/2023

Case Number: DA 22-0667
In The

Court of Appeals

Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana

No. 06-14-00006-CV

INLINE OPERATING LIMITED D/B/A 

INLINE DIGITAL IMAGE, Appellant

V.

HEALTHMARKETS LEAD MARKETING GROUP, INC. 

AND HEALTHMARKETS, L.L.C., Appellees

On Appeal from the 67th District Court

Tarrant County, Texas

Trial Court No. 067-259145-12

Before Morriss, C.J., Carter and Moseley, JJ.

Memorandum Opinion by Justice Moseley
2

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Inline Operating Limited, d/b/a/ Inline Digital Image, has filed an unopposed motion 

asking this Court to dismiss its appeal with prejudice, with each party to pay its own costs.1

 

Pursuant to Rule 42.1(a)(1) of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, the motion is granted. 

See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.1(a)(1).

We dismiss the appeal.

Bailey C. Moseley

Justice

Date Submitted: July 1, 2014

Date Decided: July 2, 2014

 1

Originally appealed to the Second Court of Appeals, this case was transferred to this Court by the Texas Supreme 

Court pursuant to its docket equalization efforts. See TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. § 73.001 (West 2013). We are 

unaware of any conflict between precedent of the Second Court of Appeals and that of this Court on any relevant 

issue. See TEX. R. APP. P. 41.3.
Exhibit 15.11




[LETTERHEAD OF GAFFNEY, CLINE & ASSOCIATES (CONSULTANTS)PTE LTD.]
 
 YDH/dh/PS-13-2127&PS-13-2128/2014/L0090a
 
 22nd April, 2015
 CNOOC Limited
 No. 25, Chaoyangmenbei Dajie
 Dongcheng District
 Beijing 100010, P.R. China
 
 Dear Sir,





Consent of Independent Consultant




We consent to the reference to our firm in the form and context in which they appear in this Annual Report on Form 20-F, the inclusion of our reports herein, and to the incorporation by the reference in any Registration Statement on Form F-3 and related Prospectus Supplements of CNOOC Limited for the registration of debt securities and guarantees previously filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission.







Yours sincerely,


GAFFNEY,CLINE&ASSOCIATES (CONSULTANTS)PTE LTD






/s/ Stephen M. Lane


Stephen M. Lane


Technical Director
#### Albert J. Hirt, Respondent, *v.*Francis R. Mayer et al., Copartners under the Firm Name of Mayer *&*Carpenter, Appellants.

*Hirt*v. *Mayer,*183 App. Div. 930, affirmed.

(Argued October 7, 1918;

decided October 22, 1918.)

Appeal, by permission, from a judgment entered. May 7, 1918, upon an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the first- judicial department, which unanimously reversed a determination of the Appellate Term reversing a judgment of the City Court of the city of New York in favor of plaintiff entered upon a verdict and affirmed said City Court judgment. The action was to recover for an alleged breach of contract of employment. The principal question was the admissibility of parol evidence offered by the plaintiff to show that the period of employment was for a stated term. Defendants contended that certain letters constituted the entire contract and established an employment at will.

*Charles D. Francis*and *Edward J. Patterson*for appellants.

*Samuel J. Levinson*and *Benjamin Bernstein*for respondent.

Judgment affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

Concur: Hiscock, Ch. J., Collin, Cardozo, Pound and Andrews, JJ. Dissenting: Cuddeback and Crane, JJ.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 7

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<DEBT-HELD-FOR-SALE>                       194,604,358
<DEBT-CARRYING-VALUE>                                0
<DEBT-MARKET-VALUE>                                  0
<EQUITIES>                                   2,577,336
<MORTGAGE>                                  14,674,647
<REAL-ESTATE>                                        0
<TOTAL-INVEST>                             220,634,532
<CASH>                                       5,468,281
<RECOVER-REINSURE>                             373,881
<DEFERRED-ACQUISITION>                      30,141,274
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             297,100,908
<POLICY-LOSSES>                            221,703,744
<UNEARNED-PREMIUMS>                         23,657,239
<POLICY-OTHER>                               1,960,559
<POLICY-HOLDER-FUNDS>                        1,834,935
<NOTES-PAYABLE>                                      0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       857,886
<OTHER-SE>                                  26,895,151
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               297,100,908
<PREMIUMS>                                  35,546,511
<INVESTMENT-INCOME>                         11,273,046
<INVESTMENT-GAINS>                           (177,834)
<OTHER-INCOME>                                 729,026
<BENEFITS>                                  16,918,730
<UNDERWRITING-AMORTIZATION>                (1,455,174)
<UNDERWRITING-OTHER>                        28,298,693
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              3,608,500
<INCOME-TAX>                                 1,176,703
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          2,431,797
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                642,566
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 1,789,231
<EPS-BASIC>                                     2.10
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
<RESERVE-OPEN>                                       0
<PROVISION-CURRENT>                                  0
<PROVISION-PRIOR>                                    0
<PAYMENTS-CURRENT>                                   0
<PAYMENTS-PRIOR>                                     0
<RESERVE-CLOSE>                                      0
<CUMULATIVE-DEFICIENCY>                              0


</TABLE>
#### GUARANTY ASSOC. v. ASSURANCE CO.

No. 60 PC

Case below: 48 NC App 508

Petition by defendant for discretionary review under G.S. 7A-31 denied 2 December 1980. Motion of plaintiff to dismiss appeal for lack of substantial constitutional question allowed 2 December 1980.
#### GREESON v. BYRD

No. 172 PC.

Case below: 54 N.C. App. 681.

Petition by plaintiff for discretionary review under G.S. 7A-31 denied 3 March 1982.
In The 

Court of Appeals 

Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo

No. 07-16-00471-CR 

EX PARTE MARK DEWAYNE HALLCY 

 

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING 

 

December 30, 2016 

 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

 

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

Appearing pro se, applicant Mark Dewayne Hallcy has filed an original 

proceeding in this court seeking a writ of habeas corpus. Hallcy’s filing states he is 

accused of committing the offense of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon and has 

been held in jail for over ninety days without indictment. He seeks a writ compelling his 

release, release on a personal bond, or a bail reduction.1 The filing makes reference to 

a “pending” proceeding in a district court but it gives no indication Hallcy has sought 

from the district court the relief he requests here. 

 

1 See TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 17.151, § 1(1) (West 2015) (providing that 

a defendant detained in jail may be entitled to either a personal-recognizance bond or a 

bail reduction if he is accused of a felony and the State is not ready for trial within ninety 

days from the commencement of detention).
2

An intermediate court of appeals does not have original habeas corpus 

jurisdiction in criminal law matters. See TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. § 22.221(d) (West 2004) 

(original habeas corpus jurisdiction of intermediate courts of appeals limited to civil 

matters); Watson v. State, 96 S.W.3d 497, 500 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 2002, pet. refused) 

(citing Ex parte Hawkins, 885 S.W.2d 586, 588 (Tex. App.—El Paso 1994, no pet.)). 

Instead, habeas jurisdiction in criminal proceedings rests with the Texas Court of 

Criminal Appeals, the district courts, and the county courts. TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC.

ANN. art. 11.05 (West 2015); Watson, 96 S.W.3d at 500. 

Moreover, Hallcy is represented by counsel. Even were we authorized to 

address the merits of his complaint we would not do so because a defendant in a 

criminal law matter, represented by counsel, is not entitled to a hybrid representation. 

See Ex parte Bohannan, 350 S.W.3d 116, 116 n.1 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011) (stating 

because habeas applicant was represented by counsel and not entitled to hybrid 

representation, court would disregard and take no action on the “numerous” 

submissions he filed pro se); In re Foster, No. 14-16-00928-CR, 2016 Tex. App. LEXIS 

12476, at *1 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] Nov. 22, 2016, orig. proceeding) (per 

curiam) (not designated for publication) (“The absence of a right to hybrid 

representation means that a relator’s pro se mandamus petition should be treated as 

presenting nothing for this court’s review”) (citing Gray v. Shipley, 877 S.W.2d 806 (Tex. 

App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1994, orig. proceeding) (per curiam)). 

Because Hallcy seeks relief we have no jurisdiction to grant, his application for 

writ of habeas corpus is dismissed.

Per Curiam

Do not publish.
EXHIBIT 32.2


                            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 Workstream Inc. (the "Company") on
Form 10-K for the period ending May 31, 2005, as filed with the Securities
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Stephen Lerch, the
Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my 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 presents, in all
            material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
            of the Company.



                                                  /s/ Stephen Lerch
                                                  -----------------
                                                  Stephen Lerch
                                                  Chief Financial Officer


                                                  Date: August 15, 2005
Case 1:06-cv-14982-AKH Document 5 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 1 of 1
Case 1:07-cv-03498-AKH Document 7-14 Filed 07/02/2007 Page 1 of 13Case 1:07-cv-03498-AKH Document 7-14 Filed 07/02/2007 Page 2 of 13Case 1:07-cv-03498-AKH Document 7-14 Filed 07/02/2007 Page 3 of 13Case 1:07-cv-03498-AKH Document 7-14 Filed 07/02/2007 Page 4 of 13Case 1:07-cv-03498-AKH Document 7-14 Filed 07/02/2007 Page 5 of 13Case 1:07-cv-03498-AKH Document 7-14 Filed 07/02/2007 Page 6 of 13Case 1:07-cv-03498-AKH Document 7-14 Filed 07/02/2007 Page 7 of 13Case 1:07-cv-03498-AKH Document 7-14 Filed 07/02/2007 Page 8 of 13Case 1:07-cv-03498-AKH Document 7-14 Filed 07/02/2007 Page 9 of 13Case 1:07-cv-03498-AKH Document 7-14 Filed 07/02/2007 Page 10 of 13Case 1:07-cv-03498-AKH Document 7-14 Filed 07/02/2007 Page 11 of 13Case 1:07-cv-03498-AKH Document 7-14 Filed 07/02/2007 Page 12 of 13Case 1:07-cv-03498-AKH Document 7-14 Filed 07/02/2007 Page 13 of 13
This Health Hazard Evaluation (HHE) report and any recommendations made herein are for the specific facility evaluated and may not be universally

applicable. Any recommendations made are not to be considered as final statements of NIOSH policy or of any agency or individual involved.

Additional HHE reports are available at http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/hhe/reports

This Health Hazard Evaluation (HHE) report and any recommendations made herein are for the specific facility evaluated and may not be universally

applicable. Any recommendations made are not to be considered as final statements of NIOSH policy or of any agency or individual involved.

Additional HHE reports are available at http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/hhe/reports

applicable. Any recommendations made are not to be considered as final statements of NIOSH policy or of any agency or individual involved.

Additional HHE reports are available at http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/hhe/reports
#### SIDES v. HOSPITAL

No. 7 PC.

Case below: 22 N.C. App. 117.

, Petition for writ of certiorari to North Carolina Court of Appeals allowed 30 August 1974.