alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
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 on Form 10-K of APT Systems, Inc. (the "Company) for the year ended January 31, 2017 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Glenda Dowie, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 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 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.  Date:  May 16, 2017/s/ Glenda DowieGlenda DowieChief Executive Officer
# C_2014187EN.01001401.xml

| 19.6.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 187/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.6.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 187/14

---

Corrigendum to Summary of Commission Decision of 30 January 2013 declaring a concentration incompatible with the internal market and the functioning of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/M.6570 — UPS/TNT Express) (notified under document C(2013) 431 final)

(notified under document C(2013) 431 final)

(
  Official Journal of the European Union C 137 of 7 May 2014
  )

Official Journal of the European Union C 137 of 7 May 2014

2014/C 187/10

On page 12, paragraph 33 should read as follows:

| ‘33. | The Commission agreed that the efficiencies were merger-specific, but it confirmed as verifiable only the cost savings related to the European air network and the ground handling, arising during the first three years after the completion of the Merger, that amount to respectively EUR [...] million, for intra Europe air network synergies and to EUR [...] million for ground handling. These savings were allocated on a country by country level based on UPS volume and cost data at the lane level. In order to estimate the pass-through rate of changes in variable costs to consumers, the Commission used the estimate of the impact of total average cost changes on the price of international intra-EEA express services provided by the Parties following their price concentration analysis. Given the cost structure of the Parties, this can be considered an overestimate of the actual pass-through of variable costs.’ |
| --- | --- |

‘33.

The Commission agreed that the efficiencies were merger-specific, but it confirmed as verifiable only the cost savings related to the European air network and the ground handling, arising during the first three years after the completion of the Merger, that amount to respectively EUR [...] million, for intra Europe air network synergies and to EUR [...] million for ground handling. These savings were allocated on a country by country level based on UPS volume and cost data at the lane level. In order to estimate the pass-through rate of changes in variable costs to consumers, the Commission used the estimate of the impact of total average cost changes on the price of international intra-EEA express services provided by the Parties following their price concentration analysis. Given the cost structure of the Parties, this can be considered an overestimate of the actual pass-through of variable costs.’

---
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

September 10, 2007 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice 132806(29) Michael F. Cavanagh
Elizabeth A. Weaver Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan Robert P. Young, Jr. PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Stephen J. Markman, Plaintiff-Appellee, Justices

v SC: 132806 COA: 270148 Ingham CC: 03-000476-FC DERRICK D. COLEMAN, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the motion for re consideration of this Court’s May 30, 2007 order is considered, and it is DENIED, beca use it does not appear that the order was entered erroneously.

p0830 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

September 10, 2007

Clerk
Document

EXHIBIT 10.1

NORTHFIELD BANK
AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT


This amendment is made effective as of the 1st day of January, 2022 (the “Effective Date”), by and between Northfield Bank (the “Bank”), a federally-chartered savings bank with its principal offices at 1731 Victory Boulevard, Staten Island, New York 10314-3598, and __________ (“Executive”).


WHEREAS, the Bank is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Northfield Bancorp, Inc., a stock holding company chartered in the State of Delaware (the “Company”); and


WHEREAS, Executive and the Bank entered into an employment agreement dated January 1, 2021 (the “Agreement”); and


WHEREAS, the Bank and Executive believe it is in the best interests of the Bank to renew the Agreement in its entirety with the exception of Section 6(a);


RESOLVED, Section 6(a) of the Agreement shall be replaced in its entirety with the following:


(a) “Termination for Just Cause” shall mean termination because of Executive’s (i) material act of willful misconduct in connection with the performance of the Executive’s duties, including, without limitation, misappropriation of funds or property of the Bank or an affiliate, (ii) material disregard for, or violation of, any laws or regulations, the Bank’s Code of Conduct or other policies or procedures that could result in financial or reputational harm to the Bank; (iii) conviction for, or plea of nolo contendere (i.e. a plea by which a defendant in a criminal prosecution accepts conviction as though a guilty plea had been entered but does not admit guilt)to, (x) any felony or (y) a misdemeanor involving deceit, dishonesty, or fraud; (iv) commission of any misconduct, whether or not related to the Bank or any of its affiliates, that has caused, or would reasonably be expected to cause, material detriment to the Bank’s or its affiliates’ reputation, business operation or relation with its employees, customers, vendors, or regulators; and (v) continued, willful and deliberate material non-performance of assigned duties (other than by reason of the physical or mental illness, incapacity or disability), that has continued for more than thirty (30) days following written notice providing the details thereof by the Board of Directors of the Bank to the Executive. 


RESOLVED FURTHER, except as expressly modified by this Amendment, the Employment Agreement shall remain in full force and effect and this Amendment together with the Employment Agreement, shall constitute one agreement between the parties. 














    1








IN WITNESS WHEREOF the Bank and Executive have signed (or caused to be signed) this Agreement, on _______________, 2021.  
 


												
			Northfield Bank
	Attest:			
			By:	
				
	Secretary		Title:	
				
				
	Attest:		Executive
				
				
	Secretary		Name of Executive and Title
				
				
			Northfield Bancorp, Inc.  

	Attest:		(The Company is executing this Agreement only for the purposes of acknowledging the obligations of the Company hereunder.)
				
			By:	
	Secretary			
			Title:	
				




    2
§ 44.105 How does a tribal governing body retrocede a program to the Secretary? ( a ) To retrocede a program, the tribal governing body must: ( 1 ) Notify the Bureau in writing, by formal action of the tribal governing body; and
( 2 ) Consult with the Bureau to establish a mutually agreeable effective date. If no date is agreed upon, the retrocession is effective 120 days after the tribal governing body notifies the Bureau.
( b ) The Bureau must accept any request for retrocession that meets the criteria in paragraph (a) of this section.
( c ) After the tribal governing body retrocedes a program: ( 1 ) The tribal governing body decides whether the school becomes Bureau-operated or contracted under 25 U.S.C. 450 *et seq.;* and
( 2 ) If the tribal governing body decides that the school is to be Bureau-operated, the Bureau must provide education-related services in at least the same quantity and quality as those that were previously provided.
# C_2006278EN.01001001.xml

| 16.11.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 278/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.11.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 278/10

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.4399 — LBO France/Vinci Airport Services)

(2006/C 278/07)

(Text with EEA relevance)

On 16 October 2006, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | from the Europa competition website (http://ec.europa.eu/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

from the Europa competition website (http://ec.europa.eu/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32006M4399. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law. (http://ec.europa.eu/eur-lex/lex) |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32006M4399. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law. (http://ec.europa.eu/eur-lex/lex)

---
H. Res. 514

In the House of Representatives, U.S.,

June 7, 2000.

Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule

XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the

Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of

the bill (H.R. 4576) making appropriations for the Department of Defense for the fiscal year ending September 30,

2001, and for other purposes. The first reading of the bill

shall be dispensed with. All points of order against consideration of the bill are waived. General debate shall be confined

to the bill and shall not exceed one hour equally divided and

controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of

the Committee on Appropriations. After general debate the

bill shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute

rule. Points of order against provisions in the bill for failure

to comply with clause 2 of rule XXI are waived. During consideration of the bill for amendment, the Chairman of the

Committee of the Whole may accord priority in recognition

on the basis of whether the Member offering an amendment
2

•HRES 514 EH

has caused it to be printed in the portion of the Congressional Record designated for that purpose in clause 8 of rule

XVIII. Amendments so printed shall be considered as read.

The Chairman of the Committee of the Whole may: (1) postpone until a time during further consideration in the Committee of the Whole a request for a recorded vote on any

amendment; and (2) reduce to five minutes the minimum

time for electronic voting on any postponed question that follows another electronic vote without intervening business,

provided that the minimum time for electronic voting on the

first in any series of questions shall be 15 minutes. At the

conclusion of consideration of the bill for amendment the

Committee shall rise and report the bill to the House with

such amendments as may have been adopted. The previous

question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and

amendments thereto to final passage without intervening motion except one motion to recommit with or without instructions.

Attest:

Clerk.
### Geohydrology of the artificial-recharge site at Bay Park, Long Island, New York

By: John VecchioliG.D. BennettF. J. Pearson Jr.L.A. Cerrillo

                            https://doi.org/10.3133/pp751C

#### Links

-                                                                                                                             Document:                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  **Report**                                                                                                     (pdf)                                                                                                                                     
- Plates:                               - **Plate 1**                            (pdf)
  - **Plate 2**                            (pdf) 
- Download citation as:  RIS                         |                         Dublin                            Core

#### Abstract

Part or all of this report is presented in Portable Document Format                        (PDF). For best results viewing and printing PDF documents, it is recommended that you download                        the documents to your computer and open them with Adobe Reader. PDF documents opened from your                        browser may not display or print as intended. Download the latest version of Adobe Reader, free of charge. More information                        about viewing, downloading, and printing report files can be found at the common download problems FAQ.
# C_2006261EN.01002601.xml

| 28.10.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 261/26 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.10.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 261/26

---

Action brought on 4 September 2006 — Euro-Information v OHIM (CYBERGUICHET )

(Case T-245/06)

(2006/C 261/49)

Language in which the application was lodged: French

Parties

Applicant: Européenne de traitement de l'information SAS (Euro-Information) (Strasbourg, France) (represented by: P. Greffe, A. Jacquet and J. Schouman, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)

Defendant:

Form of order sought by the applicant

| — | annulment of the whole of the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 5 July 2006, Case R 67/2006-1, which refused the registration of CYBERGUICHET as a Community trade mark under application No 4 114 575 in respect of all the goods and services claimed in Classes 9, 36 and 38; |
| --- | --- |

—

annulment of the whole of the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 5 July 2006, Case R 67/2006-1, which refused the registration of CYBERGUICHET as a Community trade mark under application No 4 114 575 in respect of all the goods and services claimed in Classes 9, 36 and 38;

| — | registration of CYBERGUICHET as a Community trade mark under application No 4 114 575 in respect of all the goods and services claimed. |
| --- | --- |

—

registration of CYBERGUICHET as a Community trade mark under application No 4 114 575 in respect of all the goods and services claimed.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Community trade mark concerned: Work mark ‘CYBERGUICHET’ for goods and services in Classes 9, 36 and 38 (application No 4 114 575)

Community trade mark concerned:

Decision of the examiner: Refusal of registration

Decision of the examiner:

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of appeal

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

Pleas in law: The applicant claims that, contrary to that which the Board of Appeal of OHIM stated in the contested decision, its trade mark is arbitrary and has a sufficiently distinctive character as required by Council Regulation No 40/94 (1) in relation to the goods and services claimed.

Pleas in law:

1

---

(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark (OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1)

1

---
### [§2413. Renumbered §4954]
Oryzalin Biological Opinion

United Phosphorus, Inc and Celsius Property BV

April 11, 2012
Comments on Opinion

• Registrant/Registration Information

– Two technical registrants: UPI and Celsius (p. 

37)

– There are no combination products with 

glyphosate (p. 39 and 493)
Comments on Opinion

• Use rates 

– One label (outside other labeled rates) will be 

amended (p. 42)

– EPA Reg. No. 8660-150 is intended for one 

application per year (p. 42)

– EPA Reg. No. 70506-54 is an MUP; no rates 

provided (p. 42)

• Assume meant 70506-55, intended for one 

application per year
Comments on Opinion

• Data to be developed in registration 

review

– Aerobic aquatic metabolism

– Anaerobic aquatic metabolism

– Estuarine/marine invertebrate life cycle

– Estuarine/marine early life stage

– Freshwater and estuarine/marine invertebrate 

acute and chronic sediment toxicity

– Terrestrial plant toxicity

– Aquatic plant growth (vascular and non-vascular)
RPAs

• Watered in or soil incorporated within 300 

ft of salmon bearing waters

– How was the distance determined?
RPAs

• 10 ft. vegetative buffer or 20 ft. no spray 

zone

– How was this value determined?

• Were all application methods considered, including spreader?

– Could pose enforcement problems

• Mean high water mark?

• Average water line?
Next Steps

• UPI and Celsius will prepare a formal 

submission with comments on the draft 

BiOp
Exhibit
31.1
 
 CERTIFICATION
 
 I,
Randall D. Holmes, certify that:
 
 1.
              I
      have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Ridgewood Electric
      Power Trust V;
 
 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.


/s/
      Randall D. HolmesName:
            Randall
      D. HolmesTitle:
            Chief
      Executive Officer
              (Principal
      Executive Officer)Date:
            March
      19, 2008
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This shcedule contains summary financial information extracted from GST
Network's Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 1999 and is
qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                               0
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             359,187,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       21,422,000
<BONDS>                                    346,565,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                 (8,800,000)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               359,187,000
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            33,861,000
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                          27,461,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              6,400,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                11,513,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (5,113,000)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (5,113,000)
<EPS-BASIC>                                          0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
§ 256.23 Do I have to move out while work is done? ( a ) You will be notified by your servicing housing office that you must vacate your house only if: ( 1 ) It is scheduled for major renovations requiring that all occupants vacate the house for safety reasons; or
( 2 ) It is scheduled for replacement, which requires demolition of your current house.
( b ) If you are required to vacate the premises during construction, you are responsible for: ( 1 ) Locating other lodging;
( 2 ) Paying all costs associated with vacating and living away from the house; and
( 3 ) Removing all your belongings and furnishings before the scheduled beginning work date.