alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit
10.4 (d)
 AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO THE MYLAN INC.
AMENDED AND RESTATED 2003 LONG-TERM INCENTIVE PLAN
      1.
    The following sentence is hereby added to the end of Section 7.03 of the Plan:Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in this Plan or any Award Agreement, to the
extent that any Awards are payable upon a termination of employment and such payment
would result in the imposition of any individual excise tax and late interest charges
imposed under Section 409A of the Code, the settlement and payment of such Awards shall
instead be made on the first business day after the date that is six (6) months
following such termination of employment (or death, if earlier).2.
    The following sentences are hereby added to the end of Section 11.18 of the Plan:The intent of the parties is that payments and benefits under this Plan comply with
Section 409A of the Code to the extent subject thereto, and, accordingly, to the maximum
extent permitted, this Plan shall be interpreted and be administered to be in compliance
therewith. Notwithstanding anything contained herein to the contrary, to the extent
required in order to avoid accelerated taxation and/or tax penalties under Section 409A
of the Code, Participants shall not be considered to have terminated employment with the
Company for purposes of this Plan and no payment shall be due to Participants under this
Plan until such Participant would be considered to have incurred a separation from
service from the Company within the meaning of Section 409A of the Code. Any payments
described in this Plan that are due within the short term deferral period as defined
in Section 409A of the Code shall not be treated as deferred compensation unless
applicable law requires otherwise.3.
    This Amendment shall be governed by, interpreted under and construed in accordance with the
laws of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.4.
    Except as modified by this Amendment, the Plan is hereby confirmed in all respects.




---



##### 



MYLAN INC./s/ Heather BreschBy:  Heather BreschTitle:
    Chief Operating Officer 2
#### Isaac Stewart's Ex'r *v.*James Stewart, Trustee, etc.

Interest — Trustee of Fund.

A trustee of a fund to be applied to a certain purpose cannot be' allowed to .hold the trust fund for fifteen or twenty years without making the application of the fund and avoid payment of interest thereon.

Trusts — Right to Sue Trustee.

A person who shows himself to have an interest in a trust fund may maintain an action against the trustee for an accounting and for application of the fund.

APPEAL EROM LOUISVILLE CHANCERY COURT.

September 27, 1873.

Opinion by

Judge Pryor:

The plaintiff, James Stewart (the appellee), alleged that he and his two brothers were the only heirs of their mother, Elizabeth Stewart. That at her death she owned a negro woman, who was sold by the consent of all the brothers and by an agreement the proceeds were to be applied to purchasing tombstones for the graves of their father and mother and their brother John. This agreement is made part of the petition and shows that Isaac Stewart, defend^*124ant’s intestate, received the money, $419, on the 13th of September, 1851, and was to apply it in purchasing these tombstones when called for. The agreement shows upon its face that it is payable to Isaac and Willis Stewart. This is evidently a mistake in copying the record as the obligation is signed by Isaac and it is also alleged in the petition that it is made payable to or the agreement was made with the plaintiff, James Stewart, arid his brother, Willis Stewart, and not denied by the answer, but whether this be so or not, the appellee was interested in the trust fund and can maintain this action. It does not appear when Isaac Stewart died, but the writing shows that he took possession of this trust fund in 1851 and, as he maintains, the writing having been made payable to his brother and himself, it was incumbent on him to have made some disposition of it in order that the trust might be executed, and even if not payable to himself but his two brothers, he cannot be permitted to retain that fund for fifteen or twenty years without paying interest thereon. It was his duty as well as that of His brothers to see that the money was appropriated to the sacred purpose for which it seems to have been intended.

*Rodman, for appellants.*

*Brunch, for appellees.*

An answer was filed by the appellants relying on the plea of payment. This answer was stricken from the files, as the record shows, and as no exception was made to this ruling this error cannot avail the appellants in this court.

It was proper to require the whole of the tru§t to be brought into ■ court in order that it might be at the disposal of the chancellor. It was perhaps error to award costs against the appellants from the filing of the petition up to the period they filed their answers resisting the payment of the money, for the reason that no demand was made, still these costs, if allowed appellants, would only amount to the tax and order filing the petition, and no reversal should be made for such a technical omission, when the substantial rights of the party is not affected by it.

Judgment *affirmed.*
<PAGE>   1
                                                                   EXHIBIT 23.01



                         CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS



We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements
(Form S-8 Nos. 33-13995, 33-67940, 33-72438, 333-06025 and 333-88683) pertaining
to the Nashua Corporation 1987 Stock Option Plan, Nashua Corporation 1993 Stock
Incentive Plan, Nashua Corporation Employees' Savings Plan, Nashua Corporation
Amended 1996 Stock Incentive Plan and the Nashua Corporation 1999 Shareholder
Value Plan, with respect to the consolidated financial statements and schedule
of Nashua Corporation included in the Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year
ended December 31, 2000.





                                          ERNST & YOUNG LLP
Manchester, New Hampshire
March 28, 2001
#### The Indianapolis, Pittsburgh, and Cleveland Railroad Company *v.*Irish.

Bill of Exceptions.—Diagram.—Where a diagram of a locality is offered in evidence and rejected, it must be set out in a bill of exceptions, in order to reserve the question on the ruling.

APPEAR from the Howard Circuit Court.

Pettit, C. J.

This suit was brought by the appellee against the appellant for killing by its locomotive, etc., a horse, where the road was not securely fenced. Proper issues 'were formed, and the case has been twice tried by different judges, with the same result, a finding for the plaintiff. It was once reversed; *The Indianapolis, etc., R. R. Co.*v. *Irish,*26 Ind. 268; but the evidence was different on the trials.

On the first there was a diagram of the place- of the killing and its surroundings; on the second no such diagram is in the evidence. The evidence was, in other respects, somewhat different, but mainly the same. The counsel for appellant, in his brief, says, that he offered a diagram, that it was objected to, and the objection sustained, and exceptions taken, but in the bill of exceptions the diagram offered is not set out or made a part of the bill, and we cannot, therefore, take notice of it,

The only question in the case is, was the evidence sufficient to justify the finding and judgment? We have above said the case has been twice tried by different judges with the same result, which is a strong indication that the evidence sustains the verdict; but we have examined the evidence, and though there is some conflict in it, we think it strongly preponderates in favor of the finding and judgment; but if we could not see this preponderance in the written evidence, but only that it was conflicting, we could not reverse. The reason of this ruling is so well known to the profession, and has been so often stated and repeated, that we need not refer to the cases.

*278
      *J. A. Harrison,*for appellant.

*W. R. Pierse*and *H. D. Thompson,*for appellee.

The judgment is affirmed, at the costs of the appellant, with ten per cent, damages.
Exhibit 32


                        CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC REPORT


I,  Gregory  D.  Cash,  Chief  Executive  Officer  of  Vasomedical,   Inc.  (the
"Company"),  certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:

     (1)  the Quarterly  Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the three months
          ended  August  31,  2003  (the  "Report")   fully  complies  with  the
          requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities  Exchange Act
          of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and

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


Dated: October 15, 2003

                                            /s/ Gregory D. Cash
                                            -----------------------
                                            Gregory D. Cash
                                            Chief Executive Officer




I, Thomas W. Fry, Chief Financial Officer of Vasomedical,  Inc. (the "Company"),
certify,  pursuant to Section 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, that:

     (1)  the Quarterly  Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the three months
          ended  August  31,  2003  (the  "Report")   fully  complies  with  the
          requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities  Exchange Act
          of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and

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


Dated: October 15, 2003

                                            /s/ Thomas W. Fry
                                            -----------------------
                                            Thomas W. Fry
                                            Chief Financial Officer
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0000839950
<NAME> NORTH COAST ENERGY
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                         788,251
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,719,759
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    107,241
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             2,831,251
<PP&E>                                      30,545,348
<DEPRECIATION>                              12,192,941
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              21,363,322
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        2,930,729
<BONDS>                                              0
<COMMON>                                        80,446
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                      7,680
<OTHER-SE>                                  12,082,944
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                6,918,7754
<SALES>                                      4,498,579
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             4,498,579
<CGS>                                        4,127,615
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                4,127,615
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                              (41,185)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             512,104
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (99,955)
<INCOME-TAX>                                  (24,000)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (75,955)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (75,955)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.05)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.05)
        

</TABLE>
#### In the Matter of Patrick C. DINKINS, Debtor. PACIFIC EASTERN CORPORATION, Appellant, v. Patrick C. DINKINS, Appellee.

No. 78-1151.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

March 31, 1980.

Ames Davis, Nashville, Tenn., for appellant.

William Vance, David G. Bisbee, Atlanta, Ga., for appellee.

ON PETITION FOR REHEARING

(Opinion January 25, 1980, 5 Cir. 1980, 610 F.2d 367).

Before TUTTLE, VANCE and KRAVITCH, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

The petition for rehearing is overruled. However, in order to clarify somewhat our discussion of the type of situation in which summary jurisdiction exists we revise the former opinion which is withdrawn and the following is substituted in lieu thereof.
No. 13,050.

#### The Board of Commissioners of Wells County et al. *v.*Fahlor.

*Highways.*— Establishment *of.*— Special *Assessment.*— Notice.—In proceedings to establish a public road, where an adjacent owner’s land is sought to be subjected to a special assessment, notice is essential to confer jurisdiction.

Judicial *Proceedings.*— Void.— *Validating Statute Invalid.*— Where judicial proceedings are void because of an entire absence of notice to a property owner, a subsequent statute assuming to validate such proceedings is invalid.

From the Wells Circuit Court.

J. *S. Daily, L. Mock, L. B. Simmons, E. R. Wilson*and *J. J. Todd,*for appellants.

*N. Burwell,*for appellee.

Elliott, J.

— This case is in this court for the second time. *Fahlor*v. *Board, etc.,*101 Ind. 167. A branch of the subject-matter of .this controversy, exhibiting some of the facts and questions contained in the record* now before us was considered in *Johnson*v. *Board, etc.,*107 Ind. 15. The cases to which we have referred lay down two leading rules which govern this case.

*First.*Notice is essential to confer jurisdiction in proceedings for the establishment of a public road, where an *427adjacent owner’s land is sought to be subjected to a special assessment.

Filed October 12, 1892.

*Second.*Where judicial proceedings are void because of an entire absence of notice to a property owner, a subsequent statute assuming to validate such proceedings is invalid.

Judgment affirmed.
Exhibit 31.1

CERTIFICATION

I,
Peter R. Huntsman, certify that:

1.     I
have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Huntsman Corporation and Huntsman International LLC;

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 registrants as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4.     The
registrants' other certifying officer 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 registrants and have:



5.     The
registrants' other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants'
auditors and the audit committee of the registrants' board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):



Date:
February 22, 2008

| |  |                                                              
| |  | -------------------------------------------------------------
| |  |                                                              
| |  | /s/PETER R. HUNTSMANPeter R. Huntsman Chief Executive Officer

---



QuickLinks
Need for Conformance Testing 

The success of many biometric applications is particularly dependent on the interoperability of 

biometric systems. A number of biometric national and international standards in support of these 

applications have been developed and published. 

The existence of these base standards alone (e.g., biometric data interchange formats, biometric 

technical interfaces) is not enough to demonstrate that products meet the technical requirements 

specified in the standards. 

Conformance testing captures the technical description of a standard and measures whether an 

implementation faithfully implements the standard. Standards-based conformance test tools help both 

developers and users by validating conformance claims, leading to greatly increased levels of confidence 

in products. Conformance testing can also help ensure interoperability between standards-based 

products and systems.
Exhibit 21

                           SUBSIDIARIES OF REGISTRANT*

                                                         State or Other
                                                         Jurisdiction of
                                                         Incorporation or
       Name of Subsidiary                                  Organization
       ------------------                                ----------------

Moore Products Co. (Canada) Inc.                            Canada

Moore Products Co. (U.K.) Limited                           England

Moore Products Co. B.V.                                     Netherlands

Moore Products Co. (Italia) S.r.l.                          Italy

Moore Products Co. (France) SARL                            France

Moore Products Co. (Australia) Pty. Ltd.                    Australia

Moore Products Co (S) Pte Ltd                               Singapore

Moore Products Co. (Japan) K.K.                             Japan

*The names of certain subsidiaries are omitted pursuant to Item 601(b)(21)(ii)
of Regulation S-K.


<PAGE>
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 BF Acquisition Group
V, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-KSB for the period ending
April 30, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, William Colucci,
Treasurer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 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.

Dated: July 7, 2005

                                    /s/ William Colucci
                                    -----------------------------
                                    William Colucci, Treasurer
                                    BF Acquisition Group V, Inc.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary information extracted from the 
consolidated balance sheet and the consolidated statement of operations filed
as part of the quarterly report on form 10-QSB and is qualified in its entirety by
reference to such report on form 10-QSB.

</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                          583466
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   287222
<ALLOWANCES>                                   (10000)
<INVENTORY>                                    3057995
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               4150570
<PP&E>                                         7021975
<DEPRECIATION>                                 1571894
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                10338380
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          1658543
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       5369868
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                  10338380
<SALES>                                         817122
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                817122
<CGS>                                           356779
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   501200
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     8
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               79913
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (107609)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (107609)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (107609)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.03)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
**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 Great Lakes Bancorp, Inc. (the
“Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2007 as filed with the
      Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Andrew
      W. Dorn, Jr., Chief Executive Officer, certify to the best of my knowledge,
      pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 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.
|--- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



May 9, 2007***/s/
                Andrew W. Dorn, Jr.***Andrew
                W. Dorn, Jr.President
                and Chief Executive OfficerPrincipal
                Executive Officer
<PAGE>
                                                                   EXHIBIT 10(a)


                   CONSENT OF SUTHERLAND ASBILL & BRENNAN LLP

We hereby consent to the reference to our name under the caption "Legal Matters"
in the Prospectus filed as part of Post-Effective Amendment No. 3 to Form N-4
(File No. 333-118362) for Merrill Lynch Life Variable Annuity Separate Account A
of Merrill Lynch Life Insurance Company. In giving this consent, we do not admit
that we are in the category of persons whose consent is required under Section 7
of the Securities Act of 1933.


                                       SUTHERLAND ASBILL & BRENNAN LLP



                                       By:    /s/ Mary E. Thornton
                                          --------------------------------
                                                Mary E. Thornton


Washington, D.C.
December 2, 2005