alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>   1

                                 EXHIBIT 4.1 (c)

                             Second Amendment to the
      LanVision Systems, Inc. 1996 Non-Employee Directors Stock Option Plan

                               SECOND AMENDMENT TO

                                       THE

                             LANVISION SYSTEMS, INC.

                  1996 NON-EMPLOYEE DIRECTORS STOCK OPTION PLAN

Section 10 is hereby amended and restated in its entirety to read as follows:

         "10.     Non-Transferability.
                  -------------------

         Options granted hereunder shall be personal to the option grantee,  and
shall be non-assignable and  non-transferable  otherwise than by will and by the
law of descent and distribution. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary stated
in the 1996 Plan or any  amendment  thereto,  any  option  holder  may assign or
transfer any Option to an Affiliate.

         For purposes of this Section 10, the term  "Affiliate," with respect to
an option  holder,  shall  mean any  spouse or  member  of the  option  holder's
immediate family residing in the same household as the option holder,  any trust
of which the  option  holder is  grantor,  any  corporation  of which the option
holder is an executive officer,  any partnership of which the option holder is a
partner or, if the option holder is a corporation or limited liability  company,
any parent or subsidiary of the option holder,  or any other entity of which the
option holder directly owns a twenty-percent (20%) or greater interest."

The last  paragraph of Section 15 is hereby amended and restated in its entirety
to read as follows:

         "Any amendment of this 1996 Plan shall apply to all options  granted on
or after the date of such amendment,  unless  otherwise  stated by resolution of
the Board.  If such amendment were also applied to options  granted prior to the
date of the  amendment  and would  adversely  affect the  rights of such  option
grantee,  the  amendment may be made with regard to such prior options only with
the consent of such option grantee."

                            Adopted February 23, 2001












                                       2
[File No. 6971]

#### EMELIE MUHLHAUSER, Mathilda Mnhlhauser, Bertha Ellwein, Henry Gappert, August Gappert, Fritz Gappert, Theodore Gappert, Raymond Gappert, Charlotte Gappert, Augusta Borner, Emelie Holle Wolf, Henry C. Holle, Abner Larson, Special Guardian of Raymond Gappert and Charlotte Gappert, Minors, and F. C. McCagherty, as Administrator of the Estate of Frederick William Gappert, Also Known as Fritz W. Gappert, Deceased, Appellants and Respondents on Cross Appeal, v. SELMA BECKER and George Gappert, Respondents and Appellees and Appellants on Cross Appeal.

(20 NW2d 363)

Opinion filed August 31, 1945

*Sullivans, Flech*& *Higgins,*and *Floyd B. Sperry,*for appellants.

*J. K. Murray,*for respondents and appellees.

Burr, J.

In the case of Emelie Muhlhauser et al. v. Selma Becker and Fritz Gappert, known as case *#6971*[post, 103, 20 NW(2d) 353] which came before the district court upon the appeal of the plaintiffs herein from the decree of the county *36court, taken solely on the ground that the county court had no jurisdiction to determine the issue involved in the claim of defendants to be entitled to the estate of Frederick William Grap-pert, deceased, we have just decided that since the county court had no jurisdiction to hear and determine the issue presented to it, the district court on such appeal, should have so determined and have reversed the decree of the county court without proceeding to determine'the claim of the defendants to the estate involved.

The district court, however, having upheld the action of the county court, proceeded to determine the validity of the defendants’ claim on the appeal to the district court, and, while finding in their favor and ordering judgment accordingly, allowed the plaintiffs herein the sum of $975.00 for attorneys’ fees and $200.00 for administrator’s fees to be paid out of the estate. From the portion of the judgment allowing such fees the defendants appeal.

In view of our decision in this case #6971 (q. v.) the district court should not have made such allowances. Accordingly the judgment appealed from is reversed.

ChristiaNSON, Ch. J., and Morris, Burke and Nuessle, JJ., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 9
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                          28,280
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                           6,226
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                18,836
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                     21,062
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                         136,475
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                           136,053
<LOANS>                                        381,780
<ALLOWANCE>                                      5,783
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 638,933
<DEPOSITS>                                     521,925
<SHORT-TERM>                                    33,951
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                              9,710
<LONG-TERM>                                      7,293
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                            3,684
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           805
<OTHER-SE>                                      61,565
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                 638,933
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                 19,967
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                4,525
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                 1,004
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                25,496
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                              10,381
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              11,043
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                           14,453
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                    1,075
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                               2,586
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                      0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 11,121
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                       4,843
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     3,093
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .85
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .69
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    5.27
<LOANS-NON>                                      4,379
<LOANS-PAST>                                     1,432
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                   145
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                  5,978
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                 2,973
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                    1,690
<RECOVERIES>                                       412
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                5,783
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                                 0
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                          1,384
        

</TABLE>
# Continuation of the National Emergency With Respect To the Actions of the Government of Syria 

On May 11, 2004, pursuant to his authority under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, 50 U.S.C. 1701-1706, and the Syria Accountability and Lebanese Sovereignty Restoration Act of 2003, Public Law 108-175, the President issued Executive Order 13338, in which he declared a national emergency with respect to the actions of the Government of Syria. To deal with this national emergency, Executive Order 13338 authorized the blocking of property of certain persons and prohibited the exportation or re-exportation of certain goods to Syria. On April 25, 2006, and February 13, 2008, the President issued Executive Order 13399 and Executive Order 13460, respectively, to take additional steps with respect to this national emergency.

The President took these actions to deal with the unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security, foreign policy, and economy of the United States constituted by the actions of the Government of Syria in supporting terrorism, maintaining its then existing occupation of Lebanon, pursuing weapons of mass destruction and missile programs, and undermining U.S. and international efforts with respect to the stabilization and reconstruction of Iraq.

While the Syrian government has made some progress in suppressing networks of foreign fighters bound for Iraq, its actions and policies, including continuing support for terrorist organizations and pursuit of weapons of mass destruction and missile programs, continue to pose an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security, foreign policy, and economy of the United States. As a result, the national emergency declared on May 11, 2004, and the measures adopted on that date, on April 25, 2006, in Executive Order 13399, and on February 13, 2008, in Executive Order 13460, to deal with that emergency must continue in effect beyond May 11, 2010. Therefore, in accordance with section 202(d) of the National Emergencies Act, 50 U.S.C. 1622(d), I am continuing for 1 year the national emergency declared with respect to certain actions of the Government of Syria. The United States will consider changes in the policies and actions of the Government of Syria in determining whether to continue or terminate this national emergency in the future and would welcome progress by the Government of Syria on these matters.

                        This notice shall be published in the                         *Federal Register*                        and transmitted to the Congress.                    

[FR Doc. 2010-10786

Billing code 3195-W0-P
#### Cora M. Langdon, Claimant, *v.*The State of New York, Defendant.

(Claim No. 24496.)

Court of Claims,

November 10, 1936.

*Louis E. Krohn,*for the claimant.

*Owen M. Begley, Assistant Attorney-General,*for the defendant.

Barrett, P. J.

This is a motion, under sections 288, 289 and following sections of the Civil Practice Act and title 15 of the Rules of Civil Practice, for examination of officers and employees of the Utica State Hospital before trial herein.

By section 14 of the Court of Claims Act it is provided that the Court of Claims may establish rules, regulate its practice, prescribe the form and method of procedure before it, vacate or modify judgments and grant new trials, *“*and except as otherwise provided in said rules and regulations, or the Civil Practice Act, the practice shall be the same as in the Supreme Court.” There is no applicable rule of the Court of Claims, and the question is whether such examination is authorized by the Civil Practice Act. In *Bush Terminal Co.*v. *City of New York*(259 N. Y. 509) it was held that such provisions do not apply to a municipal corporation as a party. (See, also, *Davidson*v. *City of New York, 221 N.*Y. 487.) I can see no distinction between these cases and this claim in which the State is defendant. There being no express statutory authority for the examination, the motion must be denied. An order may be submitted accordingly.

Ryan, J., concurs.
Exhibit 31.2

I,  James  R.  Baumgardner,  certify  that:

1. I have reviewed this Form 10-Q of American Ecology Corporation;

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;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the
financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as
of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4. The registrant's other certifying officers and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial
reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the
registrant and we have:
a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that material
information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries,
is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the
period in which this report is being prepared;
b) Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such
internal control over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision,
to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting
and the preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance
with generally accepted accounting principles;
c) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and
procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of this report
(the "Evaluation Date"); and
d) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's internal control over
financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's most recent fiscal
quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially
affect, the registrant's internal control over financial reporting; and

5. The registrant's other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our
most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the
registrant's auditors and the audit committee of registrant's board of directors
(or persons performing the equivalent function):
a) all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal controls
over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the
registrant's ability to record, process, summarize and report financial data and
have identified for the registrant's auditors any material weaknesses in
internal controls; and
b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal controls.

August 12, 2003

/s/ James R. Baumgardner
--------------------------
Chief Financial Officer


<PAGE>
#### BECK et al., Appellants, *v.*HOLLAND et al., Respondents.

(No. 1,627.)

(Submitted June 22, 1903.

Decided July 9, 1903.)

*Appeal*— Record—Sufficiency.

A record on appeal, consisting only of a bill of exceptions, notice of appeal, and certificate of tbe elerlr, and which does not purport to contain a qerti-fiied copy of the judgment roll as such, part of the papers constituting which are contained in the bill of exceptions, the existence of others merely being recited therein, is insufficient to give the court jurisdiction.

*Appeal from District Gourt, Silver Bow Gownty; William Clancy, Judge. ■*

Action by J. E. Beck and others against John G. Holland and another. From a judgment for defendants, plaintiffs appeal.

Dismissed.

*Air. B. S. Thresher,*for Appellants.

*Mr. Edwin M. Laonb,*and *Mr. J. L. Templeman,*for Respondents.

*461Rehearing granted October 9, 1903.

MB. COMMISSIONER OLAYBERQ-

prepared tlie opinion for the court.

The record in this case consists only of a bill of exceptions, notice of appeal, and certificate of the clerk, and does not purport to contain a certified copy of the judgment roll as such. The bill of exceptions contains copies of a portion of the papers constituting the judgment roll, and merely recites the existence of others. We have lately decided that such a. record is insufficient to> give the court jurisdiction. *(Featherman*v. *Granite County,*28 Mont. 462, 72 Pac. 972.)

Wo therefore are of the opinion that the appeal should be dismissed.

Per CuRJAM. — For the reasons stated in the foregoing opinion, the appeal is dismissed.

Mu. Justice Hollo wat:

The record recites that from the date of the commencement of this action to the date of judgment a number of changes of parties had been made by the court j but the record nowhere contains copies of the orders relating to such changes. Section 1196, Code of Civil Procedure, specifies what papers shall constitute the judgment roll, and, among others, are copies of orders relating to change of parties. In the absence of these, the judgment roll is not complete, or, in other words, no judgment roll is before this court, and we have m> jurisdiction to consider the appeal on its merits. *(Stanton*v. *Lewis,*28 Mont. 267, 72 Pac. 658.) For this reason I concur in a dismissal.
AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT


     This Amendment (this "Amendment") is made and entered into as of August 1,
1998, by and between Success National Bank, a national banking organization
("Employer"), and Marlene Sachs ("Employee").

     WHEREAS, Employer and Employee have entered into an Employment Agreement
dated as of August 1, 1998 (the "Employment Agreement"); and

     WHEREAS, Employer and Employee desire to amend the Employment Agreement as
set forth below.

     NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the provisions and undertakings set
forth herein, the parties, intending to be legally bound, hereby agree as
follows:

1.   AMENDMENT.  Section 2.1 of the Employment Agreement is hereby amended by
adding the following subsection thereto:

     "(f) Automobile Allowance.  Employee shall be entitled to the use of an
automobile provided by Employer and Employer shall be responsible, and shall
not be entitled to reimbursement for, any and all reasonable costs and expenses
relating to the use and maintenance of such automobile to the extent such costs
and expenses are substantiated by Employee."

2.   MISCELLANEOUS

     2.1  Sole Amendment.  The Employment Agreement shall not be amended except
as expressly set forth herein.

     2.2  Governing Law.  This Amendment shall be interpreted, construed and
enforced in accordance with the internal laws of Illinois.

     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement as of
the last date written below.
                                   EMPLOYER
                                   SUCCESS NATIONAL BANK

                                   By:    /s/  Christa N. Calabrese
                                         Name:  Christa N. Calabrese
                                         Title:  Executive Vice President

                                   EMPLOYEE:

                                         /s/ Marlene Sachs
                                        Name:  Marlene Sachs<PAGE>
Prepared by MERRILL CORPORATION www.edgaradvantage.com




QuickLinks
 -- Click here to rapidly navigate through this document

Exhibit 10q-11  


 
 

AMENDMENT TO THE BELLSOUTH PERSONAL
  RETIREMENT ACCOUNT PENSION PLAN    
  



    WHEREAS,
BellSotuh Corporation (the "Company") sponsors the BellSouth Personal Retirement Account Pension Plan (the "Plan"), which was amended and restated effective January 1,
1998, and subsequently amended from time to time; and 


    WHEREAS,
L.M. Berry and Company adopted the Plan subject to certain modifications described in Schedule 2 of the Plan; and 


    WHEREAS,
pursuant to Section 15.01 of the Plan, the BellSouth Employees' Benefit Claim Review Committee (the "Committee") is authorized to adopt nonmaterial amendments to the
Plan; and 


    WHEREAS,
the Committee approved, at its February 11, 2000 meeting, amendment to the Plan to provide the interest crediting rate of 6.15% for the L.M. Berry and Company
participants for the 2000 Plan Year; and 


    WHEREAS,
the Committee authorized Richard D. Sibbernsen, Chairman of the Committee, to approve plan amendment language consistent with such approval and to execute documents in
connection therewith; 


    NOW,
THEREFORE, the Committee hereby approves the following amendment of the Plan: 



    Amend
Schedule 2 of the Plan for L.M. Berry and Company by adding at the end of Paragraph 4(f) the following: 



"As
of the last day of Plan Year 2000, each Participant's account shall be credit with interest at the rate of 6.15% under the terms of the Plan." 





    Any
other provisions of the Plan not amended herein shall remain in full force and effect. 


    This
Amendment shall be effective as of January 1, 2000. 



	

By:	
 	

/s/ RICHARD D. SIBBERNSEN   
 Richard D. Sibbernsen

Vice President—Human Resources
	

Date: December 15, 2000











QuickLinks


AMENDMENT TO THE BELLSOUTH PERSONAL RETIREMENT ACCOUNT PENSION PLAN
<PAGE>

EXHIBIT 23.1


CONSENT OF ERNST & YOUNG LLP, INDEPENDENT AUDITORS


We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements
(Form S-8 Nos. 333-92699 and 333-4030 and Form S-3 No. 333-31161) pertaining to
the Heartport, Inc. 1999 Supplemental Stock Option Plan and Employee Stock
Purchase Plan, the Heartport, Inc. 1996 Stock Option Plan and Employee Stock
Purchase Plan, and the convertible subordinated notes, of our report dated
January 21, 2000, with respect to the consolidated financial statements and
schedule of Heartport, Inc. included in the Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the
year ended December 31, 1999.


                                    /s/ ERNST & YOUNG LLP

Palo Alto, California
March 27, 2000
```

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2043 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

106th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 2043

  To designate the United States Post Office building located at 3101 
  West Sunflower Avenue in Santa Ana, California, as the ``Hector G. 
                    Godinez Post Office Building''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            February 9, 2000

 Mrs. Feinstein (for herself and Mrs. Boxer) introduced the following 
      bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on 
                          Governmental Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To designate the United States Post Office building located at 3101 
  West Sunflower Avenue in Santa Ana, California, as the ``Hector G. 
                    Godinez Post Office Building''.

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

SECTION 1. DESIGNATION OF HECTOR G. GODINEZ POST OFFICE BUILDING.

    The United States Post Office building located at 3101 West 
Sunflower Avenue in Santa Ana, California, shall be known and 
designated as the ``Hector G. Godinez Post Office Building''.

SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

    Any reference in a law, regulation, map, document, paper, or other 
record of the United States to the United States Post Office building 
referred to in section 1 shall be deemed to be a reference to the 
``Hector G. Godinez Post Office Building''.
                                 <all>
```
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

JUDGMENT

No. 04-19-00584-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF A.N., A.E.N., and E.O.R., Children

From the 45th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2018-PA-02564

Honorable Charles E. Montemayor, Judge Presiding

BEFORE JUSTICE MARTINEZ, JUSTICE WATKINS, AND JUSTICE RODRIGUEZ

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, the judgment of the trial court is 

AFFIRMED. It is ORDERED that no costs be assessed against appellant in relation to this appeal.

SIGNED January 22, 2020.

_____________________________

Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice