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

                                                                   EXHIBIT 3.1.2


                            CERTIFICATE OF AMENDMENT
                                       TO
                          CERTIFICATE OF INCORPORATION
                                       OF
                            SEAL HOLDINGS CORPORATION


         SEAL HOLDINGS CORPORATION, a corporation organized and existing under
and by virtue of the General Corporation Law of the State of Delaware, DOES
HEREBY CERTIFY:

         FIRST: That the Board of Directors of said corporation, by unanimous
written consent, adopted the following resolution:

         RESOLVED, that the Certificate of Incorporation of the corporation be
         amended by changing Paragraph A of Section IV so that, as amended, said
         Paragraph A of this Section shall be and read as follows:

                                                        "IV.

         1.    This  Corporation  is  authorized  to issue three classes of
               stock  to  be  designated,  respectively,  "Class  A  Common
               Stock",  "Class B Common Stock",  and "Preferred Stock". The
               total number of shares which the  Corporation  is authorized
               to issue is one hundred  twenty-five  million  (125,000,000)
               shares.   Ninety-nine  million  nine  hundred   seventy-five
               thousand  (99,975,000) shares shall be Class A Common Stock,
               which  shall  have a par value of twenty  cents  ($.20)  per
               share, twenty-five thousand (25,000) shares shall be Class B
               Common  Stock,  which shall have a par value of twenty cents
               ($.20)  per  share,  and  twenty-five  million  (25,000,000)
               shares  shall be  Preferred  Stock,  which  shall have a par
               value of one-tenth of one cent ($.001) per share."

         SECOND: That the said amendment has been consented to and authorized by
the holders of all of the issued and outstanding stock entitled to vote by a
written consent given in accordance with the provisions of Section 228 of the
General Corporation Law of the State of Delaware.

         THIRD: That the aforesaid amendment was duly adopted in accordance with
the applicable provisions of Sections 242 and 228 of the General Corporation Law
of the State of Delaware.

         IN WITNESS WHEREOF, said corporation has caused this Certificate to be
signed by its President and Chief Executive Officer this 17th day of June, 1999.



                                            SEAL HOLDINGS CORPORATION

                                            By:   /s/  Robert G. Tancredi, MD
                                            ---------------------------------
                                                     Dr. Robert G. Tancredi
**Exhibit 13.1**

----

**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 on Form 20-F of **Unilever N.V.**, a corporation organized under the laws of The Netherlands (the “Company”) for the period ending **December 31, 2006** as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), each of the undersigned officers 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:

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: 26 March 2007                                |
|-----------------------------------------------------|
|                                                |
| **/s/ Patrick Jean-Pierre Cescau**                  |
|                                                     |
| Patrick Jean-Pierre CescauGroup Chief Executive     |
|                                                |
| Dated: 26 March 2007                                |
|                                                |
| **/s/ Rudolph Harold Peter Markham**                |
|                                                     |
| Rudolph Harold Peter MarkhamChief Financial Officer |

----
QuickLinks
 -- Click here to rapidly navigate through this document




































 



 
 

  Exhibit 10.11    
    


 
 

  AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT    
    


        AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT (the
"Amendment"), dated July 30, 2008, between Intrepid Potash, Inc., a Delaware corporation, having its principal executive offices in Denver,
Colorado, (the "Company") and Robert P. Jornayvaz, III ("Executive"). 


 
 

  RECITALS    
    


        A.    Executive
and the Company previously entered into an employment agreement, dated April 25, 2008 (the "Employment
Agreement"), which memorializes the terms and conditions of Executive's employment with the Company and which, among other things, provides for use by Executive of a
Company-furnished vehicle valued at not more than $75,000. 


        B.    Executive
and the Company now wish to amend the terms of the Employment Agreement in order to accommodate use by Executive of a Company-furnished vehicle with a value in
excess of $75,000. 


 
 

  AMENDMENT    
    


        1.     Section
3(h) of the Employment Agreement is hereby amended by replacing "$75,000" where it appears in such paragraph with "$100,000." 


        2.     All
other terms and conditions of the Employment Agreement are unchanged by this Amendment and shall remain in full force and effect. 



        IN
WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company and Executive, intending to be legally bound, have executed this Amendment on the day and year first above written. 



				
	 	 INTREPID POTASH INC.
	
 	
 By:	
 	
/s/ JAMES N. WHYTE






  James N. Whyte
 Executive Vice President of Human Resources and Risk Management
	
 	
 EXECUTIVE
	
 	

/s/ ROBERT P. JORNAYVAZ, III






  Robert P. Jornayvaz, III
















QuickLinks



Exhibit 10.11


AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT

RECITALS

AMENDMENT
Chart 1-4. From the onset of the recession to the end of 2006, 

labor force participation rates were down, except among 

older workers

-0.8

-4.8

-0.5

-1.4

5.7

-6.0

-4.0

-2.0

0.0

2.0

4.0

6.0

8.0

Total, 16 years and

over

Both sexes, 16 to

24

Men, 25 to 54 Women, 25 to 54 Both sexes, 55

years and over

Percentage points

Change in labor force participation rates (seasonally adjusted),

March 2001 to December 2006

NOTE: As defined by the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER), the recession lasted from March to November 2001.

SOURCE: Bureau of Labor Statistics

Chart 1-4. From the onset of the recession to the end of 2006, 

labor force participation rates were down, except among older 

workers

• The participation rate of youth 16 to 24 years old fell by about 5 percentage 

points between March 2001 and December 2006. The rates for men and 

women ages 25 to 54 years were down slightly over that period.

• The labor force participation rate for persons 55 years and over has increased 

since the early 1990s. From the onset of the recession in March 2001 to 

December 2006, the rate rose by nearly 6 percentage points. 

• While men ages 55 and older are more likely than their female counterparts to 

participate in the labor force, the increase in the participation rate for women 

was slightly larger than that for men.
exv10w35






Exhibit 10.35




FOURTH AMENDMENT TO

EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT OF STEPHEN N. KAHANE




     WHEREAS, AMICAS, Inc. f/k/a VitalWorks Inc. (the “Company”) and Stephen N. Kahane
(“Executive”) entered into an employment agreement as of January 1, 2004, which was amended by
agreement dated July 26, 2004 and further amended by agreements dated April 26, 2005 and December
31, 2008 (collectively the “Agreement”);



     Whereas, the Company and Executive desire to further amend the Agreement; and



     Whereas, all capitalized terms not otherwise defined herein shall have the meaning ascribed to
them in the Agreement.



     NOW THEREFORE, the Agreement is hereby amended as follows.





	 	1.	 	Section 3H is hereby deleted in its entirety and replaced with the
following:






“H. The severance payments, COBRA payments and any obligation to pay a bonus
(“Severance”) as may be set forth in Sections 3B and 3C above are subject to
termination as follows:




     (i) For a six (6) month period immediately following termination of the
Executive’s employment with the Company, and not foregoing any other rights the
Company may have, any obligation for the Company to pay Severance to Executive
shall immediately terminate as of the date the Executive becomes employed by a
Competitor, as defined in the Non-Compete and Non-Disclosure Agreement (Exhibit 1).




For a six (6) month period immediately following termination of the Executive’s
employment with the Company, the Executive agrees to notify the Company in writing
upon his acceptance of employment with a Competitor.”



     2. Except as specifically modified herein, the terms of the Agreement, and all terms and
conditions of your employment with Company shall remain in full force and effect.



1









 





     IN WITNESS WHEROF, each of the parties has caused this Fourth Amendment to be executed as of
February 10, 2009.



	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	Executive:

	 	 	 	Company:
	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 
	/s/ Stephen N. Kahane

	 	 	 	/s/ John J. Sviokla	 	 
	Stephen N. Kahane

	 	 	 	AMICAS, Inc.	 	 






2
##### 



EXHIBIT 32.2
 CFO CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE
SARBANES  OXLEY ACT OF 2002
   (i)
    
    the Form 10-Q fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or section
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m(a) or 78o(d)); and(ii)
    
    the information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Issuer.
 Dated: August 14, 2006/s/Robert CoppleRobert CoppleChief Financial Officer
  /s/ Carol WaldmanName: Carol WaldmanTitle: Notary PublicMy commission expires: 06/07/08
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.                  

###### Federal Election Commission

# Agency:

Federal Election Commission.

# Date And Time:

Thursday, August 17, 2017 at 10:00 a.m.

# Place:

999 E Street NW., Washington, DC (Ninth Floor).

# Status:

This meeting was open to the public.

**Federal Register**                         Notice of Previous Announcement—82 FR 37857.                    

The following item was also discussed:

Draft Advisory Opinion 2017-08: Point Bridge Capital, LLC

# Person to Contact for Information:

Judith Ingram, Press Officer, Telephone: (202) 694-1220.

Dayna C. Brown,

Secretary and Clerk of the Commission.

[FR Doc. 2017-18116 Filed 8-23-17; 11:15 am]

 BILLING CODE 6715-01-P
(March 27, 2008)

#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Christopher A. Romano, Appellant.

[854 NYS2d 582]

Rose, J.

In satisfaction of a superior court information charging defendant with the crime of rape in the first degree, defendant pleaded guilty to the crime of rape in the second degree and waived his right to appeal. At sentencing defendant’s request for youthful offender treatment was denied. He was sentenced pursuant to the negotiated, plea agreement to six months in jail, which time he had already served, and 10 years of probation. Defendant now appeals, contending that County Court erred by not considering that he was eligible for youthful offender treatment.

Where, as here, it is asserted that the sentencing court failed to consider youthful offender status for an eligible defendant, the challenge to denial of such status is not precluded by a waiver of the right to appeal *(see People v Griffin,*17 AD3d 927, 927 [2005]; *People v Harrington,*281 AD2d 748, 749 [2001], *lv denied*96 NY2d 830 [2001]). Nevertheless, as the record reveals that County Court expressly considered—and denied— defendant’s request for youthful offender treatment, we find no error *(see People v Harrington,*281 AD2d at 749; *cf. People v Aiken,*186 AD2d 897, 899 [1992]; *People v Gannon,*162 AD2d 818, 819 [1990]). A review of the sentencing minutes reveals that County Court was aware that defendant was eligible for such treatment prior to ruling on his request and there is nothing in the record to indicate that he was denied youthful offender status based on a misunderstanding regarding his eligibility.

Defendant’s remaining contentions are precluded by his waiver of appeal *(see People v Callahan,*80 NY2d 273, 281 [1992]; *People v Griffin,*17 AD3d at 927).

Mercure, J.P., Spain, Lahtinen and Kavanagh, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
II 

114TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 3483 

To amend chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, to provide for en bloc 

consideration in resolutions of disapproval for ‘‘midnight rules’’, and 

for other purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

NOVEMBER 29, 2016 

Mr. JOHNSON introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs 

A BILL 

To amend chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, to provide 

for en bloc consideration in resolutions of disapproval 

for ‘‘midnight rules’’, and for other purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Midnight Rules Relief 

5 Act of 2016’’. 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 3483 IS

1 SEC. 2. EN BLOC CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTIONS OF 

2 DISAPPROVAL PERTAINING TO ‘‘MIDNIGHT 

3 RULES’’. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 801(d) of title 5, United 

5 States Code, is amended by adding at the end the fol6 lowing: 

7 ‘‘(4) In applying section 802 to rules described under 

8 paragraph (1), a joint resolution of disapproval may con9 tain one or more such rules if the report under subsection 

10 (a)(1)(A) for each such rule was submitted during the 

11 final year of a President’s term.’’. 

12 (b) TEXT OF RESOLVING CLAUSE.—Section 802(a) 

13 of title 5, United States Code, is amended— 

14 (1) by inserting after ‘‘resolving clause of which 

15 is’’ the following: ‘‘(except as otherwise provided in 

16 this subsection)’’; and 

17 (2) by adding at the end the following: ‘‘In the 

18 case of a joint resolution under section 801(d)(4), 

19 the matter after the resolving clause of such resolu20 tion shall be as follows: ‘That Congress disapproves 

21 the following rules: the rule submitted by the ll 

22 relating to ll; and the rule submitted by the ll 

23 relating to ll. Such rules shall have no force or 

24 effect.’ (The blank spaces being appropriately filled 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with BILLS
3 

•S 3483 IS

1 in and additional clauses describing additional rules 

2 to be included as necessary).’’. 

Æ 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with BILLS
EXHIBIT 32.2



















CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO




18 U.S.C.  § 1350,




AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO




SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002














In connection with the Quarterly Report of IntegraMed America, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I John W. Hlywak, Jr., Chief Financial 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 my knowledge:









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







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










By:
John W. Hlywak, Jr.John W. Hlywak, Jr.

Chief Financial Officer





May 7, 2010
#### George B. SMYERS, Claimant-Appellant, v. Gordon H. MANSFIELD, Acting Secretary of Veterans Affairs, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 2007-7178.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

Dec. 11, 2007.

George B. Smyers, pro se.

*ORDER*

The court treats George B. Smyers’ letter as a motion to dismiss his appeal.

Upon consideration thereof,

IT IS ORDERED THAT:

(1) The motion is granted.

(2) All other pending motions are deemed moot.

(3) Each side shall bear its own costs.
<PAGE>   1


                                                                      EXHIBIT 11


                               GLASSMASTER COMPANY
                        COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER SHARE
                     For the two years ended August 31, 2000
                    (Thousands except for per share figures)

                                                             2000         1999
                                                            ------       ------
Primary:
--------
  Income (Loss) from Continuing Operations                   ($636)       ($996)
  Income (Loss) from Discontinued Operations                     0            0
                                                            ------       ------

  Net Income(Loss)                                           ($636)       ($996)
  ----------------                                          ======       ======


Basic:
------
  Average Shares Outstanding                                 1,631        1,629

  Per Share Amounts:
          Continuing Operations                              ($.39)       ($.61)
          Discontinued Operations                                0            0
                                                            ------       ------
          Net Income (Loss)                                  ($.39)       ($.61)

Diluted:
  Average Shares Outstanding                                 1,631        1,629
  Net effect of dilutive stock options under the
    treasury stock method using the average market price         0            0
                                                            ------       ------

      Total                                                  1,631        1,629

  Per Share Amounts:
          Continuing Operations                              ($.39)       ($.61)
          Discontinued Operations                                0            0
                                                            ------       ------
          Net Income (Loss)                                  ($.39)       ($.61)
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

CITY OF EL PASO, TEXAS

,

Appellant,

v.

ALBERT LOPEZ AND LEXBY LOPEZ

,

Appellee s

. §

§

§

§

§ No. 08

- 24

- 00078

- CV

Appeal from the

County Court at Law No. 3

of El Paso County, Texas

(TC# 2017DCV0065)

J U D G M E N T

The Court has considered this cause on the record and concludes the appeal should be

dismissed. We therefore dismiss the appeal. We further order Appellant to pay all costs of this

appeal and that this decision be certified below for observance.

IT IS SO ORDERED THIS 9 TH DAY OF MAY 2024.

G INA M. PALAFOX, Justice

Before Alley , C.J., Palafox and Soto, JJ.
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

IN RE 

ARMANDO MADRID, 

RELATOR.

§

§

§

§

No. 08-14-00290-CR

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF 

MANDAMUS

J U D G M E N T

The Court has considered this cause on the Relator’s petition for writ of mandamus 

against the Honorable Martin Muncy, Judge of the 109th District Court of Andrews, Texas, and 

concludes Relator’s petition for writ of mandamus should be denied. We therefore deny the 

petition for writ of mandamus, in accordance with the opinion of this Court.

IT IS SO ORDERED THIS 9TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2015.

YVONNE T. RODRIGUEZ, Justice

Before McClure, C.J., Rodriguez, and Hughes, JJ.
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    EXHIBIT (21)


                              WHITEHALL CORPORATION

                            ANNUAL REPORT ON FORM 10K

                                   ITEM 14(a)3


(22) Subsidiaries of the Registrant

         The following table lists the subsidiaries of the Registrant and the
jurisdiction of incorporation of each subsidiary:



<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                  Name                               Jurisdiction of Incorporation     Principal Location
                  ----                               -----------------------------     ------------------
         <S>                                         <C>                                <C>
         Aero Corporation                            Florida                            Lake City, Florida

         Aero Corporation                            Delaware                           Dallas, Texas

         Aero Hushkit Corporation                    Delaware                           Dallas, Texas

         Aero Corp Macon, Inc.                       Delaware                           Macon, Georgia

         Hydroscience, Inc.                          Texas                              Dallas, Texas

         Aero Corporation San Antonio, Inc.          Texas                              Dallas, Texas
</TABLE>



    Each of the subsidiaries conducts business only under its corporate name.





                                      -39-