alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 4.2(c)


 


Amendment to the 2010 Employee Share
Option Plan (the “2010 ESOP”)


 


As approved at the Annual General Meeting of Shareholders
held on December 23, 2013:


 


		·	Section
                                         7.1 of the 2010 ESOP was revised to read as follows:



 


“2,240,000 authorized but unissued Shares
(and/or previously issued Shares (such issued Shares, if any, being held in trust for such purpose or held as dormant Shares by
the Company or its Affiliates)), shall be reserved for the purposes of the ESOP, subject to adjustment as set forth in Section
10 below.”


 


		·	Section
                                         7 of Addendum A to the 2010 ESOP (known as the “U.S. Sub-Plan”), other than
                                         the heading thereof, was revised to read as follows:



 


“For purposes of this U.S. Sub-Plan, Section
7.1 shall be amended to insert the following sentence as the second sentence thereof: Subject to the provisions of Section 10
of the ESOP, the maximum aggregate number of Shares that may be issued under the ESOP pursuant to Incentive Share Options shall
not exceed 2,240,000 Shares, unless such number is increased by such corporate approval as required under law.”
#### Charles M. WELZANT, Appellant, v. MERRILL LYNCH PIERCE FENNER & SMITH, INC., et al., Appellees.

No. 01-7171.

United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit.

Nov. 12, 2002.

Rehearing En Banc Denied Jan. 8, 2003.

Before GINSBURG, Chief Judge, EDWARDS, Circuit Judge, and SILBERMAN, Senior Circuit Judge.

*JUDGMENT*

PER CURIAM.

This appeal was considered on the record from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia and on the briefs filed by the parties. It is

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the district court’s order and judgment filed September 17, 2001 be affirmed for the reasons stated in the memorandum opinion filed therewith.

Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published. The Clerk is directed to withhold issuance of the mandate herein until seven days after resolution of any timely petition for rehearing or rehearing en banc. *See*Fed. RApp. P. 41(b); D.C.Cir. Rule 41.
| SUBSIDIARIES      OF BREITBURN ENERGY PARTNERS L.P. |
|-----------------------------------------------------|
|                                                |   |   |
| Name                                                |   | Jurisdiction |
| BreitBurn      Operating GP, LLC                    |   | Delaware |
| BreitBurn      Operating L.P.                       |   | Delaware |
| Alamitos      Company                               |   | California |
| BreitBurn      Florida LLC                          |   | Delaware |
| BrietBurn      Fulton LLC                           |   | Delaware |
| GTG      Pipeline LLC                               |   | Virginia |
| Mercury      Michigan Company, LLC                  |   | Michigan |
| Phoenix      Production Company                     |   | Wyoming |
| Preventive      Maintenance Services LLC            |   | Colorado |
| Terra      Energy Company LLC                       |   | Michigan |
| Terra      Pipeline Company LLC                     |   | Michigan |
| Beaver      Creek Pipeline, L.L.C.                  |   | Michigan |
| BreitBrun      Energy Partners I, L.P.              |   | Texas |
| BreitBurn      GP, LLC                              |   | Delaware |
| BreitBurn      Management Company, LLC              |   | Delaware |
| BreitBurn      Finance Corporation                  |   | Delaware |

----
STRATS Trust For Allstate Corporation Securities, Series 2006-3 10-K

Exhibit
31.1



CERTIFICATION



I,
Barbara Garafalo, certify that:



1.       I
have reviewed this report on Form 10-K and all reports on Form 10-D required to be filed in respect of the period covered by this
report on Form 10-K of STRATS Trust For Allstate Corporation Securities, Series 2006-3 (the “Exchange Act periodic reports”);



2.       Based
on my knowledge, the Exchange Act periodic reports, taken as a whole, do 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, all of the distribution, servicing and other information required to be provided under Form 10-D for the period
covered by this report is included in the Exchange Act periodic reports;



4.       Based
on my knowledge and the servicer compliance statement required in this report under Item 1123 of Regulation AB, and except as
disclosed in the Exchange Act periodic reports, the servicer has fulfilled its obligations under the servicing agreement in all
material respects; and



5.       All
of the reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities and their related attestation reports
on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities required to be included in this report in accordance
with Item 1122 of Regulation AB and Exchange Act Rules 13a-18 and 15d-18 have been included as an exhibit to this report, except
as otherwise disclosed in this report. Any material instances of noncompliance described in such reports have been disclosed in
this report on Form 10-K.



In
giving the certifications above, I have reasonably relied on information provided to me by the following unaffiliated party: The
Bank of New York Mellon, as Trustee.





|Dated: March 30, 2023 | By: | /s/ Barbara Garafalo                                     
|--------------------- | --- | ---------------------------------------------------------
|                      |     | Barbara Garafalo                                         
|                      |     | President                                                
|                      |     | (senior officer of depositor in charge of securitization)
---



Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND 
CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER 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 on Form 10-K of Clean Power Concepts, Inc. (the Company) for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned hereby certify,  pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge:



|     |                                                                                                                                                     
|---- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|(i)  | The Report on Form 10-K fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and      
|    
|(ii) | the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
|    



| |        |                        
| | ------ | -----------------------
| | By:    | Cory Turner          
| | Name:  | Cory Turner            
| | Title: | Chief Executive Officer
| | Date:  | September 22, 2008     



| |        |                        
| | ------ | -----------------------
| | By:    | Ralph Proceviat      
| | Name:  | Ralph Proceviat        
| | Title: | Chief Financial Officer
| | Date:  | September 22, 2008     





---
Exhibit (32)



SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATION



In connection with the Quarterly Report of Owens Corning (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2004 (the Report), I,
David T. Brown, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350, as adopted 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) | Information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
|--- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                       
|-----------------------
|                       
|/s/    DAVID T. BROWN  
|Chief Executive Officer



August 4, 2004
EXHIBIT 31(a)

I, Thomas M. Patrick, certify that:

1.	I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of North Shore Gas Company;

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 officer(s) 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)) for the registrant and have:

(a)	Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, 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)	Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

(c)	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 (the registrant's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) 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 officer(s) 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 the registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

(a)	All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably 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 management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal control over financial reporting.

 

Date: May 7, 2004

/s/ Thomas M. Patrick
***EXHIBIT 32***

 

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER 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 report on Form 10-KSB of High End Ventures, Inc. for the annual period ended September 30, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (“Report”), I, Nadir Walji, do hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge:

 

|   | (1) | This Report complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and |
|--------|-----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | (2) | The information contained in this Report fairly represents, in all material respects, the financial condition of the small business issuer at the end of the period covered by this Report and results of operations of the small business issuer for the period covered by this Report. |
|--------|-----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

Date: December 21, 2007  

 

/s/ Nadir Walji

Nadir Walji

Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer

 

This certification accompanies this Report pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the small business issuer for the purposes of §18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. This certification shall not be incorporated by reference into any filing under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (whether made before or after the date of this Report), irrespective of any general incorporation language contained in such filing.

 

A signed original of this written statement required by §906 has been provided to the small business issuer and will be retained by the small business issuer and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

 

 

35
United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit

No. 21-50061

Summary Calendar

United States of America, 

Plaintiff—Appellee,

versus

Jeremias Santiago Hernandez,

Defendant—Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 6:09-CR-216-4

Before Davis, Jones, and Elrod, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

Jeremias Santiago Hernandez, federal prisoner # 39692-177, appeals 

the district court’s denial of his motion for a sentence reduction pursuant to 

18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i). On appeal, he contends that the district court

failed to weigh all the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors and did not take 

* Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 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 Circuit Rule 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

January 5, 2022

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 21-50061 Document: 00516154560 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/05/2022
No. 21-50061

2

into consideration all his extraordinary and compelling reasons for a sentence 

reduction.

We review a district court’s decision denying compassionate release 

for an abuse of discretion. United States v. Chambliss, 948 F.3d 691, 693 (5th 

Cir. 2020). A district court may modify a defendant’s sentence, after 

considering the applicable § 3553(a) factors, if “extraordinary and 

compelling reasons warrant such a reduction” and “such a reduction is 

consistent with applicable policy statements issued by the Sentencing 

Commission.” § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i). The record reflects that the district court 

did not abuse its discretion in determining that a sentence reduction was not 

warranted based on its review of the § 3553(a) sentencing factors.

Accordingly, the district court’s order is AFFIRMED. 

Case: 21-50061 Document: 00516154560 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/05/2022
230 La. 632

#### Mrs. Regina Brelsford DANTONE v. Dr. Joseph D. DANTONE.

No. 42903.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

June 11, 1956.

Ponder & Ponder, by L. B. Ponder, Jr., ■Amite, for appellant.

Leonard E. Yokum, Hammond, for mover and appellee.

FOURNET, Chief Justice.

The appellee, Dr. Joseph D. Dantone, in reliance on the provisions of Article 573 of the Code of Practice, as amended by Act 49 of 1871 and Section 1 of Act 24 of 1930,1 has filed here a motion to have dismissed his wife’s suspensive and devolutive appeal from a judgment rejecting her demand for a separation from bed and board, contending that inasmuch as her appeal was perfected more than 30 days following the date of such judgment it cannot be sus-pensive, and that, thereafter, there can be no devolutive appeal in such a suit.

This contention is not well taken for the provisions of LSA-R.S. 13:4452 *150('Article 573 of the Code of Practice as amended by Act 24 of 1930), ordinarily controlling in appeals from judgments granting separations or divorces, being in derogation of the right of appeal (which finds favor in the law), must be strictly construed, and are, therefore, inapplicable here since the judgment appealed from is not a final judgment of separation from bed and board, but, instead, a judgment rejecting the plaintiff’s suit for a separation from bed and board, which is governed and tested by other articles of the Code of Practice, and, thereunder, the appeal will be maintained as devolutive since there is nothing to suspend. See Cortez v. Cortez, 175 La. 179, 143 So. 41.

For the reasons assigned, the appeal is dismissed as suspensive, but maintained as devolutive.

1

. Article 573 as amended in 1871 provided that “where the judgment decrees a divorce, such a petition or motion of appeal must be filed within thirty days * * * after the signing of such judgment, instead of ten days, and shall operate as a suspensive appeal therefrom, and there shall be no devolutive appeal allowed thereafter.” However, these provisions were superseded by the enactment of Section 1 of Act 24 of 1930 (now LSA-R.S. 13:4452) which provides that “ * * * no appeal shall lie from any final judgment of separation from bed and board or of divorce after thirty days from its date, but any appeal perfected within that time shall suspend the execution of the judgment until the appeal shall have been finally disposed of.”
Exhibit 32.1


CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO


18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In connection with the Annual Report of Orient Paper, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K/A for the period ended December 31, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Zhenyong Liu, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:





(1)
The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and





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





A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 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.





The foregoing certification is being furnished solely to accompany the Report pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350 and is not being filed for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company, whether made before or after the date hereof, regardless of any general incorporation language in such filing.





Dated: March 23, 2011
By:
/s/Zhenyong LiuZhenyong Liu

Chief Executive Officer

(principal executive officer)
#### GUINNESS UNITED DISTILLERS & VINTNERS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ANHEUSER-BUSCH, INC., Defendant-Appellant.

Docket No. 02-7804.

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

Nov. 5, 2002.

Peter E. Moll, Jerold J. Ganzfried, Mark I. Levy, Howrey Simon Arnold & White, LLP, Washington, DC, Parker H. Bagley, Andrew Tomback, of counsel, Milbank Tweed Hadley & McLoy LLP, New York, NY, for Appellant.

Brendan J. O’Rourke, Kevin J. Perra, Robert J. Eddington, Proskauer Rose LLP, New York, NY, for Appellee.

Present WINTER, CABRANES, Circuit Judges, and JONES,* District Judge.

*

**Of the Southern District of New York, sitting by designation.

SUMMARY ORDER

ON CONSIDERATION WHEREOF, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the judgment of the District Court be and it hereby is AFFIRMED.

The defendant-appellee, AnheuserBusch, Inc. (“Anheuser-Busch”), challenges on appeal the grant by the District *55Court of a preliminary injunction pending trial to Guinness United Distillers *&*Vintners (“Guinness”) on Guinness’s claim of trademark infringement, enjoining Anheuser-Busch from marketing a product under a name that Guinness claims infringes on one of its marks. We review the grant of a preliminary injunction, including a preliminary injunction granted on Lanham Act claims, for abuse of discretion. *TCPIP Holding Co., Inc. v. Haar Communications, Inc.,*244 F.3d 88, 92 (2d Cir. 2001).

The defendant-appellee did not show that the District Court abused its discretion in issuing the preliminary injunction. The judgment of the District Court is AFFIRMED.
EXHIBIT 31(a)

I, Thomas M. Patrick, certify that:

1.	I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of The Peoples Gas Light and Coke Company;

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 officer(s) 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)) for the registrant and have:

(a)	Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, 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)	Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

(c)	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 (the registrant's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) 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 officer(s) 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 the registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

(a)	All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably 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 management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal control over financial reporting.

 

Date:  August 13, 2003

  /s/  Thomas M. Patrick