alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>
 
                                                                 EXHIBIT 10.21.3


                                AMENDMENT NO. 2
                                     TO THE
                          KEY PRODUCTION COMPANY, INC.
                  STOCK OPTION PLAN FOR NON-EMPLOYEE DIRECTORS

          THIS AMENDMENT NO. 2 TO THE KEY PRODUCTION COMPANY, INC. ("KEY") STOCK
OPTION PLAN FOR NON-EMPLOYEE DIRECTORS, AS AMENDED BY AMENDMENT NO. 1, DATED
JANUARY 27, 1997, (THE "PLAN") IS ADOPTED EFFECTIVE MARCH 14, 1997.

                                    RECITALS

A.  Key adopted the Plan effective December 9, 1992, and has granted options to
    acquire Key common stock to its non-employee directors under the Plan in an
    amount equal to 112,500 of the shares originally reserved for issuance under
    the Plan.

B.  The Board of Directors of Key has determined that it is in the best
    interests of Key to amend the plan to increase the number of shares reserved
    under the Plan.

C.  Capitalized terms used in this Amendment and not defined herein shall have
    the meanings given to such terms in the Plan.


                             AMENDMENT TO THE PLAN

The Plan is hereby amended as follows:

1.  Section 4.1 is hereby amended by changing the first sentence in its entirety
    to read as follows:

          "The total number of Shares as to which Options may be granted
          pursuant to the Plan shall be 360,000 in the aggregate."

2.  The Plan may be amended and restated to include the provisions of this
    Amendment.

3.  Except as so amended, the Plan shall continue in effect with no change.

     Adopted March 14, 1997


                                  KEY PRODUCTION COMPANY, INC.,
                                  A DELAWARE CORPORATION



                                  BY:  /S/ F.H. MERELLI
                                       -------------------------------------
                                       PRESIDENT AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
Exhibit 32.1





Section 1350
Certification


Pursuant
to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002


(Subsections (a)
and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States
Code)





Pursuant
to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and
(b) of section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code),
each of the undersigned officers of Symmetry Medical, Inc., a Delaware
corporation (the "Corporation"), does hereby certify that:





The
Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended January 3, 2009
(the "Form 10-K") of the Corporation fully complies with the requirements
of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and
information contained in the Form 10-K fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Corporation.





Dated:    March
10, 2009


/s/  BRIAN S.
      MOOREBrian
      S. Moore
                Chief
      Executive Officer/s/  FRED L.
      HITEFred
      L. Hite
                Chief
      Financial Officer
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 Quarterly Report of Magnitude  Information Systems,  Inc.
(the  "Company")  on Form 10-QSB for the quarter  ended  September 30, 2004 (the
"Form 10-QSB"),  I, Steven D. Rudnik,  Chief  Executive  Officer of the Company,
certify, as of the date hereof,  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,  the Company's Form 10-QSB fully complies with the requirements of
Section  13(a)  or  15(d)  of the  Security  Exchange  Act of 1934  and that the
information  contained  in the Form  10-QSB  fairly  presents,  in all  material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.


Dated: November 12, 2004                      By: /s/ Steven D. Rudnik
                                                  -----------------------------
                                                  Steven D. Rudnik
                                                  President and Chief Executive
                                                  Officer
10578.

#### Hurst *v.*Goldstein Brothers.

Decided December 11, 1919.

Complaint—garnishment; from Haralson superior court—Judge Irwin. March *22,*1919.

*Edwards <&■ Edwards,*for plaintiff in error.

*I. N. Cheney, Hatton Lovejoy, Griffith & Matthews,*contra.

Luke, J.

1. “Where land is bargained by the tract, a deficiency in the acreage can not be apportioned unless the purchaser can show that actual fraud was perpetrated by the vendor.” *Parker*v. *Roberts,*19 *Ga. App.*270 (91 S. E. 345), and eases cited.

(а) “Where, in a suit on a note for the purchase-money of land so conveyed, the maker of the note undertakes to have an alleged deficiency in acreage apportioned in the amount of the recovery, but does not allege and prove actual fraud on the part of the vendor, the plaintiff is entitled to a judgment in the whole amount of the note sued on.” *Parker*v. *Roberts,*supra. See also *Estes*v. *Odom,*91 *Ga.*600 (18 S. E. 355).

(б) In the instant ease, while the purchaser of the land *alleged*actual fraud on the part of the vendor, the evidence authorized the jury to find to the contrary.

2. There was evidence to authorize the .verdict, which has been approved by the trial judge, and for no reason assigned was it error to overrule the motion for a new trial.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Broyles, O. J., and Bloodworth, J., concur.*
NIST related Provisions in the 

NDAA

Presentation 

to the 

Visiting Committee on Advanced Technology
NIST and the NDAA (P.L. 116-283)

• Specifies budget, expenditures and policies of the DOD for FY21. 

• 7/21/20: passed the House by a vote of 295-195

• 11/16/20: passed the Senate by voice vote.

• 12/8/20: Conference report passed House 335-78, 1 present

• 12/11/20: Conference report passed Senate 84-13

• 12/23/20: VETOED by President Trump

• 12/28/20: House overrides veto 322-87 (2/3 vote required)

• 1/1/21: Senate overrides veto 81-13

• 1/1/21: Became P.L. 116-283
NIST and the NDAA (P.L. 116-283)

• Law contains many provisions related to Commerce/NIST programs 

and activities.

• No monies provided to carry out mandates

• Many provisions mandate consultation/coordination/collaboration

• Provisions apply across numerous NIST labs and programs:

CTL EL ITL MML PML MEP M-USA Standards 
NIST and the NDAA (P.L. 116-283)

• Legislation focused on NIST programmatic activities included in whole

or in part in the final bill

• Quantum

• AI

• Semiconductors

• Microelectronics

• 5G

• Advanced Manufacturing

• Supply Chain
#### UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Gary D. ANDERSON, Appellant.

No. 00-3940.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted May 30, 2001.

Filed June 4, 2001.

Before HANSEN, RICHARD S. ARNOLD, and FAGG, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

After Gary D. Anderson pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), the district court1 sentenced him to 57 months of imprisonment and 3 years of supervised release. On appeal, Anderson’s counsel has filed a brief and moved to withdraw under *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), and Anderson has not filed a pro se supplemental brief.

The only issue raised is ineffective assistance of counsel, which should be litigated in 28 U.S.C. § 2255 proceedings rather than this appeal. *See United States v. Martin,*59 F.3d 767, 771 (8th Cir.1995).

Having reviewed the record independently pursuant to *Penson v. Ohio,*488 U.S. 75, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), we detect no nonfrivolous issues for appeal. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court, and we grant counsel’s withdrawal motion.

1

. The Honorable Gary A. Fenner, United States District Judge for the Western District of Missouri.
# Instructions and Changes

# Summary Stats E.g. 1

# Summary Stats E.g. 2

# MBD0002D57A.pdf

# MBD0002F963.pdf
#### Hyatt *v.*Wiggins.

Opinion delivered February *4,*1929.

*1089
      *Sam T. Poe, Tom Poe*and *McDonald Poe,*for appellant.

*Fred A. Isgrig*and *PhilUp McNemer,*for appellee.

Kirby, J.,

(after stating the facts). It is insisted that the court erred in the giving of the instruction objected to, relative to the changed specifications for the use of galvanized wire instead of steel in reinforcing the concrete, the jury being told, in effect, that the changed specification had been agreed to by appellants; but the majority is of opinion, in which the writer does not concur, that a fair construction of the instruction does not warrant this conclusion, and that, since the law was properly declared" in other instructions in harmony with and not contradictory thereof, there was no error committed in the giving of the instruction in the form requested, and that no prejudice could have resulted therefrom.

The evidence is sharply in conflict as to whether there was any parol agreement made between the parties about the use of galvanized wire for reinforcing in lieu of steel provided to be used in the written contract, but the jury has found against appellants on this point,.and, there 'being substantial testimony supporting the verdict, it will not be disturbed here.

Neither does the court find that error was committed in the giving or refusing to give instructions relative to the measure of damages for injury resulting from failure to construct the culvert in accordance with the contract therefor. Under the instruction" given, the jury were authorized to find the damages consisted in the difference between the value of the property sold had the conduit been constructed in accordance with the contract and its value without such properly constructed and after the collapse thereof. The conduit was without value except *1090as a neicessary drainage way for carrying off the surface water from the premises, and, under the circumstances, the -damages would have been the difference in value of the property with the conduit or drain properly constructed in accordance with the icontract and its value, with the conduit constructed as it was in fact made.

The undisputed testimony showed what the value of the property was before and after the collapse of the conduit, and that the difference in such value was decidedly more than the cost of reconstruction of the conduit, and also the complaint alleged appellants were entitled to such damages of reduced value in addition to the cost of reconstruction of the conduit.

After a careful examination the court has concluded that there is no prejudicial error in the record, and the judgment is accordingly affirmed.
Exhibit
32.1





SECTION
906 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. §1350




I, A.
Bruce O’Connor, hereby certify that, to the best of my knowledge, the periodic
report being filed herewith containing financial statements 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 said
periodic report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
condition and results of operations of Middlesex Water Company for the period
covered by said periodic report.







/s/ A. Bruce O’ConnorA.
      Bruce O’ConnorChief
      Financial Officer





Date:   March 8 ,
2010





A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to
Middlesex Water Company and will be retained by Middlesex Water Company and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.
```

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4466 Introduced in House (IH)]

108th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4466

  To amend the Endangered Species Act of 1973 to exclude the Preble's 
 Meadow Jumping Mouse from lists of endangered species and threatened 
                   species published under that Act.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 20, 2004

 Mr. Tancredo introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                         Committee on Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To amend the Endangered Species Act of 1973 to exclude the Preble's 
 Meadow Jumping Mouse from lists of endangered species and threatened 
                   species published under that Act.

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

SECTION 1. EXCLUSION OF PREBLE'S MEADOW JUMPING MOUSE FROM ENDANGERED 
              SPECIES LIST AND THREATENED SPECIES LIST.

    Section 4(c) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 
1533(c)) is amended by adding at the end the following:
    ``(3) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Secretary 
shall not include the Preble's Meadow Jumping Mouse in any list of 
endangered species or threatened species published under this 
subsection.''.
                                 <all>
```
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 Veterans Affairs

The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) gives notice under Public Law 92-463 (Federal Advisory Committee Act) that a meeting of the National Academic Affiliations Council will be held via conference call on January 6, 2015, from 2:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m. EST. The purpose of the Council is to advise the Secretary on matters affecting partnerships between VA and its academic affiliates. The Council will discuss the status of the Veterans Access, Choice, and Accountability Act of 2014's Graduate Medical Education Expansion Plan and receive an update from the Council's fall meeting recommendations. The Council will receive public comments from 3:45 p.m. to 4:00 p.m. EST.

                    Interested persons may attend and/or present oral statements to the Council. The dial in number to attend the conference call is: 1-800-767-1750. At the prompt, enter access code 02939 then press #. Individuals seeking to present oral statements are invited to submit a 1-2 page summary of their comments at the time of the meeting for inclusion in the official meeting record. Oral presentations will be limited to five minutes or less, depending on the number of participants. Interested parties may also provide written comments for review by the Council prior to the meeting or at any time, via email to,                     *William.Marks@va.gov,*                     or by mail to William J. Marks M.D., MS-HCM, Chief of Health Professions Education, Office of Academic Affiliations (10A2D), 810 Vermont Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20420. Any member of the public wishing to attend or seeking additional information should contact Dr. Marks via email or by phone at (415) 750-2100.                

Dated: December 4, 2014.

Rebecca Schiller,

Federal Advisory Committee Management Officer.

[FR Doc. 2014-28786 Filed 12-8-14; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8320-01-P
#### Louisville & Nashville R. R. Co. *v.*M. M. Bush.

Appeal — Reversal—Conflicting Evidence.

The Court of Appeals will not disturb a verdict upon conflicting evidence.

APPEAL, PROM HARDIN CIRCUIT COURT.

March 10, 1874.

Opinion by

Judge Peters :

By an act approved December 7, 1869, the railroad companies of this commonwealth are made responsible for full damages to the *573owners of horses and other stock killed or injured by the carelessness or negligence of their agents, etc., on their railroads. And it provides that the killing or injuring horses or other stock by the cars along said roads or branches shall be *prima facie*evidence of the negligence and carelessness on the part of such company. This act has been held to be constitutional by this court in several adjudications.

*Wintersrmth, for appellant.*

Brown, *for appellee.*

There is serious conflict in the evidence between the engineer of the company on duty when the plaintiff’s mule was killed, and the witnesses who visited the place where the mule was found the morning after the killing, as to> the precise spot where the accident happened, and how the collision was brought about. If it had occurred as the engineer stated it did, it would, perhaps, have been unavoidable. But if from the tracks of the mule and other marks on the ground, as testified to by the witnesses introduced by appellant, the killing was done as these facts indicate, it might have been avoided. And a jury having passed upon the facts, we are not authorized to interpose.

The two instructions given by the court to the jury are unobjectionable, and are as favorable to appellant as it had a right to have them. Those asked by appellant were properly refused because they were in conflict with the statute herein cited, and for other reasons which we deem unnecessary specifically to point out.

Nor do we discover that the appellant was prejudiced by the court permitting the valuation of the mule made by the commissioners appointed under the statute approved in 1871, 1 Acts 1871, 67, to be read to the jury. That valuation was less than was fixed by a majority of the witnesses examined in the case, and less than the amount fixed by the jury.

Judgment affirmed.
NIST PSCR RESEARCH INVESTMENTS BOLSTER 

IOWA’S ECONOMY 

The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) Public Safety 

Communications Research (PSCR) Division is the primary federal laboratory 

focused on conducting research, development, testing, and evaluation for 

public safety communications technologies. Their mission is to accelerate 

communications innovation in support of public safety communities and the 

citizens they serve. 

The Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012 allocated $300 Million 

from the Public Safety Trust fund to NIST PSCR to perform critical public safety 

communications R&D during a 10-year period. PSCR implemented numerous 

research mechanisms to support the development and deployment of the 

Nationwide Public Safety Broadband Network: grants, Small Business Innovation 

Research (SBIR) contracts, prize challenge competitions, and internal research. 

These research mechanisms were housed within six research portfolios and crosscutting initiatives to maximize their impact: 

•	 User Interface/User Experience •	 Public Safety Analytics

•	 Location-Based Services •	 Security

•	 Mission Critical Voice •	 Resilient Systems 

While the ultimate impact of these research mechanisms is the increased safety 

of first responders and their communities through improved communications

technologies, PSCR was interested in better understanding how their R&D 

investments to date result in economic impacts that ripple outward to state 

economies. An independent analysis was conducted to demonstrate how PSCR’s 

deployment of the $300 Million from the Public Safety Trust Fund translated into 

broader impacts to the United States, including jobs, earnings, value added, and 

total economic output. PSCR’s R&D investments resulted in economic output 

in 33 of the 50 states. Results of the analysis are presented here. 

For more information, see NIST PSCR’s Economic Impact Study. 

For additional information of PSCR’s research programs, visit https://www.nist.gov/ctl/pscr. 

1 Prize Challenge 

Participant 

Awards Totaling 

$0.01 Million 

IOWA BY THE NUMBERS 

NIST INVESTMENT 

$0.01 Million 

OUTPUT 

$0.2 Million 

VALUE-ADDED 

$0.2 Million 

EARNINGS 

$0.1 Million 

JOBS 

1 

Output: the total value of economic 

activity circulating through the U.S. 

economy generated by PSCR’s R&D 

investments 

Value-Added: how much the 

combined U.S. state economies 

grew over a period of time due to 

PSCR’s R&D investments 

Earnings: the change in household 

earnings in the U.S. economy 

generated by PSCR’s R&D 

investments 

Jobs: the change in the number of 

full- and part-time jobs generated 

by each one million dollar change 

in U.S. economic activity due to 

PSCR’s R&D investments 

*All dollar amounts presented 

in 2022 and reflect data as of 

October 2022.

**All values are rounded; thus, the 

sum of the components may not 

sum exactly to the NIST Investment 

amount.
Minimum Qualifications for Firearm

and Toolmark Examiners Trainees Page 1 of 1 Adopted 04/20/2006

Minimum Qualifications for Firearm and Toolmark Examiner Trainees

1.0 Objective

The following guidelines is to identify the education requirements for an entry level

trainee position

2.0 Education Requirement

2.1 Bachelor’s degree in a natural/physical science based field of study from an

accredited academic institution.

3.0 Personal Background Recommendations

3.1 No felony convictions

3.2 Employment drug screen

3.3 Background investigation