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

                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.35

                              GUNTHER PARTNERS, LLC
                               667 MADISON AVENUE
                            NEW YORK, NEW YORK 10021

                                       June 19, 2003

Gunther International Ltd.
One Winnenden Road
Norwich, Connecticut 06360
Attn: Marc I. Perkins
      President and Chief Executive Officer

Dear Marc:

         Reference is hereby made to that certain Promissory Note, dated as of
December 31, 2002, issued by Gunther International Ltd. (the "Company") in the
principal amount of $1,100,000.00 (the "Note"), originally made payable to the
order of Robert Spiegel and assigned to Gunther Partners, LLC ("Gunther
Partners") pursuant to a Note Assignment, dated as of January 31, 2003.

         Gunther Partners agrees that the Note is hereby amended to provide that
the unpaid balance of the Note, together with all accrued but unpaid interest
thereon, shall be due and payable on demand at any time on or after April 1,
2004. In all other respects, the Note shall continue in full force and effect in
accordance with its original terms and provisions.

         In addition, Gunther Partners hereby confirms its commitment to lend
the Company up to $1,000,000.00 in additional funds at any time before April 1,
2004 in the event that the Board of Directors of the Company in good faith
determines that such additional funds are necessary in order to fund the current
operations of the Company. Any additional indebtedness resulting from this
commitment shall bear interest at 8% per annum and shall be due and payable on
demand at any time on or after April 1, 2004.

                                     Very truly yours,

                                     Gunther Partners, LLC

                                     By:   /s/ Thomas J. Tisch
                                        --------------------------
                                           Name: Thomas J. Tisch
                                           Title: Manager
#### CHEROKEE INS. CO. v. R/I, INC.

No. 75P90

Case below: 97 N.C.App. 295

Petition by plaintiff for discretionary review pursuant to G.S. 7A-31 denied 10 May 1990.
#### § 1304.100 Scope and intent.

This subpart prescribes requirements for floating cabins on the Tennessee River System. Floating cabins as applied to this subpart include existing nonnavigable houseboats approved by TVA and other existing structures, whose design and use is primarily for human habitation or occupation and not for navigation or transportation on the water. Floating cabins that were not located or moored on the Tennessee River System as of December 16, 2016, shall be deemed new floating cabins. New floating cabins are prohibited and subject to the removal provisions of this part and Section 9b of the TVA Act. No new floating cabins shall be moored, anchored, or installed on the Tennessee River System. Floating cabins that were located or moored in the Tennessee River System as of December 16, 2016, shall be deemed existing floating cabins. Existing floating cabins may remain moored on the Tennessee River System provided they remain in compliance with the rules in this part and obtain a permit from TVA issued after October 12, 2021. All permits for nonnavigable houseboats or floating cabins that were not located on the Tennessee River System as of December 16, 2016, are terminated. Unless otherwise noted, the term floating cabin refers to the primary structure on the monolithic frame as well as all attached structures.

[86 FR 50633, Sept. 10, 2021]
§ 431.4 Critical factors and the application of the process schedule. Critical factors specified in the process schedule must be measured, controlled, and recorded by the establishment to ensure that these factors remain within the limits used to establish the process schedule. Examples of factors that are often critical to process schedule adequacy may include: ( a ) *General.* ( 1 ) Maximum fill-in weight or drained weight;
( 2 ) Arrangement of pieces in the container;
( 3 ) Container orientation during thermal processing;
( 4 ) Product formulation;
( 5 ) Particle size;
( 6 ) Maximum thickness for flexible containers, and to some extent semirigid containers, during thermal processing;
( 7 ) Maximum pH;
( 8 ) Percent salt;
( 9 ) Ingoing (or formulated) nitrite level (ppm);
( 10 ) Maximum water activity; and
( 11 ) Product consistency or viscosity.
( b ) *Continuous rotary and batch agitating retorts.* ( 1 ) Minimum headspace; and
( 2 ) Retort reel speed.
( c ) *Hydrostatic retorts.* ( 1 ) Chain or conveyor speed.
( 2 ) [Reserved]
( d ) *Steam/air retorts.* ( 1 ) Steam/air ratio; and
( 2 ) Heating medium flow rate.
#### § 1313.149 Program accessibility: Discrimination prohibited.

Except as otherwise provided in § 1313.150, no qualified handicapped person shall, because the agency's facilities are inaccessible to or unusable by handicapped persons, be denied the benefits of, be excluded from participation in, or otherwise be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity conducted by the agency.
We Energies’

generating system

COAL

September 2008

Location:

This plant occupies more than 400 acres of land on the shore of Lake Michigan, 

20 miles south of Milwaukee.

Type of Plant:

Coal-based, base-load (typically operating 24 hours a day).

Initial Cost:

$246 million

Number of Active Generating Units:

4 steam turbines

Year in Service (South Plant):

Unit 5: 1959 Unit 7: 1965

Unit 6: 1961 Unit 8: 1967

Generating Capacity:

Unit 5: 261 megawatts

Unit 6: 264 megawatts

Unit 7: 298 megawatts

Unit 8: 312 megawatts*

Total Net Generating Capacity:

1,135 megawatts

Oak Creek

Power 

Plant

The most thermally efficient 

generating power plant 

in Wisconsin.

Unit 8 is Oak Creek’s largest turbine-generator unit, 

measuring 125 ft. long, 28 ft. wide, 31 ft. high and 

weighing 1,600 tons. The entire turbine and generator 

are bolted together in one long shaft system. Units 5, 

6 and 7 each have two parallel shaft systems with 

two separate generators.

* 
We Energies’ generating system

COAL

Contribution to Total System Electric 

Energy Production Capability:

20 percent

Voltage:

Generator: 18,000

Step-Up Transformer: 138,000 (Unit 5)

 230,000 (Unit 6,7,8)

Fuel:

Pulverized coal; natural gas for boiler start-up.

Coal Handling:

Transportation: Unit train (135 coal cars per train)

Storage: Indoor: 55,000 tons

 Outdoor (inactive): 475,000 tons

Preparation: 16 pulverizers crush coal at 33 tons per 

 hour each

Average Coal Use:

5,000-10,000 tons daily (depending on system demands)

Boilers:

(Units 5-8); One per turbine generator.

Height: 18 stories (Unit 8)

Furnace temperature: 2,500 degrees Fahrenheit

Steam temperature: 1,050 degrees Fahrenheit

Steam pressure: 2,400 pounds per square inch

Ash Handling:

More than 99 percent of fly ash is removed by electrostatic 

precipitators. Bottom ash is removed by a hydraulic removal 

system.

Chimney:

One for every two boilers. The southern-most chimney, 

Oak Creek’s largest, is 550 ft. tall.

Cooling System:

800,000 gallons of water from Lake Michigan are used every 

minute to convert the exhaust steam from the turbine back into 

water for reuse. The water is returned to the lake.

Control Room:

All major functions in the plant are controlled by operators 

with computer support to continuously monitor and report 

on pressures, temperatures, flow rates, etc. In addition, the 

computer aids in start-up, shutdown, makes load adjustments 

during operation and records information for future reference.

Oak Creek Power Plant
#### § 300.14 Filings under section 7(k).

Any application for Commission review and approval of a rate or rate schedules established by the Administrator of the Bonneville Power Administration pursuant to section 7(k) of the Pacific Northwest Electric Power Planning and Conservation Act must be filed in compliance with the provisions of § 35.13(a)(2) of part 35 of this chapter and with the provisions of this part, and must include the classifications, practices, rules and regulations affecting the rate and charges and all contracts which in any manner affect or relate to such rate, charges, classifications, services, rules, regulations, or practices. However, such classifications, practices, rules, regulations or contracts which may affect or relate to rates will not be subject to Commission approval unless they are determined to be rates or rate schedules.

[Order 323-B, 52 FR 20709, June 3, 1987]
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Stephen J. Markman

, Chief Justice

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

Richard H. Bernstein

Kurtis T. Wilder

Elizabeth T. Clement

, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

October 5, 2018

s1002 

# Order

Clerk October 5, 2018

157821

- 2

_________________________________________

In re MGR, Minor. SC: 157821

- 2

COA: 338286; 340203

Oakland CC Family Division:

2016

- 842995

- AD

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the February 27, 2018

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is GRANTED. The time allowed

for oral argument shall be 20 minutes for each side. MCR 7.314(B)(1).

Appellants shall file their brief within 42 days of the date of this order addressing:

(1) whether the Court of Appeals erred in determining that the trial court’s decisi ons

under Section 39 of the Adoption Code, MCL 710.39, were moot in light of the order of

filiation that entered in the paternity action; and (2) whether In re MKK , 286 Mich App

546 (2009), should be overruled. The appellees shall file their briefs within 21 days of

being served with the appellants’ brief. A reply, if any, must be filed by the appellants

within 14 days of being served with the respective appellee’s brief.

We further direct the Clerk to schedule the oral argument in this case for the same

future session of the Court when it will hear oral argument in In re LMB, Minor (Docket

No. 157903).

The Family Law Section of the State Bar of Michigan is invited to file a brief

amicus curiae. Other persons or groups interested in the determinati on of the issues

presented in this case may move the Court for permission to file briefs amicus curiae.

Motions for permission to file briefs amicus curiae and briefs amicus curiae

regarding these cases should be filed in this case only and served on t he parties in both

cases

.
**Exhibit32.2**

 

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

Inconnection with the Quarterly Report of Information Holdings Inc. (the “Company”)on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2004 as filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on November 3, 2004 (the “Report”), I,Vincent A. Chippari, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer ofthe Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuantto Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge:

 

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

 

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

 

 
| November  3, 2004 | /s/  Vincent A. Chippari                                                             |   |
|-------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
|              | Vincent  A. Chippari                                                                 |
|              | Executive  Vice President and Chief Financial Officer  (Principal Financial Officer) |

 

 

Asigned original statement of this written statement required by Section 906, orother document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting thesignature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of thiswritten statement required by Section 906, has been provided to InformationHoldings Inc. and will be retained by Information Holdings Inc. and furnishedto the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

 

----
[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 49 (Monday, March 14, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 13615-13616]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-5837]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[Docket<greek-i> EPA-RO4-SFUND-2011-0192, FRL-9280-4]


B&B Manufacturing Site; Mobile, Mobile County, AL; Notice of 
Settlement

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Notice of settlement.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: Under Section 122(h)(1) of the Comprehensive Environmental 
Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA), the United States 
Environmental Protection Agency has entered into a settlement for 
reimbursement of past response costs concerning the B&B Manufacturing 
Site located in Mobile, Mobile County, Alabama for publication.

DATES: The Agency will consider public comments on the settlement until 
April 13, 2011. The Agency will consider all comments received and may 
modify or

[[Page 13616]]

withdraw its consent to the settlement if comments received disclose 
facts or considerations which indicate that the settlement is 
inappropriate, improper, or inadequate.

ADDRESSES: Copies of the settlement are available from Ms. Paula V. 
Painter. Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-RO4-
SFUND-2011-0192 or Site name B&B Manufacturing Superfund Site by one of 
the following methods:
    <bullet> http://www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line 
instructions for submitting comments.
    <bullet> http://www.epa.gov/region4/waste/sf/enforce.htm.
    <bullet> E-mail: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#8bdbeae2e5ffeef9a5dbeafee7eacbeefbeaa5ece4fd"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="5505343c3b2130277b0534203934153025347b323a23">[email protected]</span></a>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paula V. Painter at 404/562-8887.

    Dated: February 23, 2011.
Anita L. Davis,
Chief, Superfund Enforcement & Information Management Branch, Superfund 
Division.
[FR Doc. 2011-5837 Filed 3-11-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
# Fourth Court of Appeals **San Antonio, Texas**

July 17, 2013

No. 04

- 13

- 00174

- CV

IN THE INTEREST OF L.H. , a child

From the 45th Judicial District Court

, Bexar County, Texas Trial Court No. 2009

- PA

- 00997 Honorable Dick Alcala , Judge Presiding

ORDER

In accordance with this c ourt’s memorandum opinion of this date, the appeal is DISMISSED FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION. It is ORDERED that no costs shall be assessed against Appellant in relation to this appeal because he qualifies as an indigent under T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 20.

It is so ORDERED on July 17, 2013

.

_____________________________ Karen Angelini, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said court on this 17th day of July, 2013

.

_____________________________ Keith E. Hottle, Clerk
# Data Collection Checklist

☐	Does the number of service contacts for each type of service make sense in relation to the needs assessment and program plan?

☐	Do the number, type, and geographic location of services indicate a need to modify the deployment strategy?

☐	Are there protocols in place to ensure that forms are signed and approved by team supervisors?

☐	Do the data support that these protocols are being followed?

☐	Is there a dual data entry system in place to ensure accuracy?

☐	Is the data entry system working correctly?  If not, how can it be improved?

☐	Based on the results of the provider and participant surveys, what programmatic adjustments would you make (e.g., training, management, support)?
# C_2010288EN.01004103.xml

| 23.10.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 288/41 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.10.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 288/41

---

Action brought on 23 July 2010 — Hartmann-Lamboy v OHIM — Diptyque (DYNIQUE)

(Case T-305/10)

()

(2010/C 288/80)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Marlies Hartmann-Lamboy (Westerburg, Germany) (represented by: R. Loos, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: DIPTYQUE SAS (Paris, France)

Form of order sought

| — | Annul, in part, the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 7 May 2010 in Case R 1217/2009-1 or amend it in so far as the applicant was unsuccessful; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul, in part, the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 7 May 2010 in Case R 1217/2009-1 or amend it in so far as the applicant was unsuccessful;

| — | order the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market to pay the costs of the opposition proceedings, the appeal and the proceedings before the General Court. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market to pay the costs of the opposition proceedings, the appeal and the proceedings before the General Court.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant.

Community trade mark concerned: Word mark DYNIQUE for goods and services in classes 3, 41 and 44.

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: DIPTYQUE SAS

Mark or sign cited in opposition: Word mark DIPTYQUE for goods and services in classes 3, 4 and 35

Decision of the Opposition Division: The opposition was upheld.

Decision of the Board of Appeal: The appeal was dismissed in part.

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (1) since there is no likelihood of confusion between the marks at issue.

---

(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark (OJ 2009 L 78, p. 1).

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CURRENCY> 1
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                       8,525,648
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                7,594,795
<ALLOWANCES>                                   144,549
<INVENTORY>                                  3,338,103
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            20,546,412
<PP&E>                                      16,061,587
<DEPRECIATION>                               8,561,566
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              42,469,564
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        7,327,493
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        35,131
<OTHER-SE>                                  33,842,363
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                42,469,564
<SALES>                                     63,817,100
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            63,817,100
<CGS>                                       36,697,495
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               19,545,023
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                              (17,922)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           (187,257)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              7,779,761
<INCOME-TAX>                                 3,096,345
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 4,683,416
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.34
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.32
        

</TABLE>
### SUBCHAPTER IV—THE MADRID PROTOCOL
### §714f. Use of funds

The Corporation is authorized to use in the conduct of its business all its funds and other assets, including capital and net earnings therefrom, and all funds and other assets which have been or may hereafter be transferred or allocated to, borrowed by, or otherwise acquired by it.

(June 29, 1948, ch. 704, §8, 62 Stat. 1072.)

#### **Executive Documents**

#### Exceptions From Transfer of Functions

For exception of functions of corporations of Department of Agriculture from transfer of functions to Secretary of Agriculture by Reorg. Plan No. 2 of 1953, see Exceptions From Transfer of Functions note set out under section 712a of this title.
#### § 354.246 Exclusion of diseased persons.

No person affected with any communicable disease (including, but not being limited to, tuberculosis) in a transmissible stage shall be permitted in any room or compartment where exposed or unpacked edible products are prepared, processed, or otherwise handled.
P.1 

OAR Box 1830 

Prepped by Ollie Stewart 

Document Number: 

87) IV-C-53 

Docket Number: 

A-87-11 

Printed 11/13/2008 7:20:55 AM Sheet 87 of 232 
P.2 

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460 

FEB 2 !988 

OFFICE OF 

AIR AND RADIATION 

Honorable Carroll Hubbard 

United States House of Representatives 

Washington, D.C. 20515 

Dear Mr. Hubbard: 

This is in response to your January 19, 1988 letter 

relaying the concerns of your constituent, Mr. Albert Sisk, 

regarding EPA's regulatory proposal to require onboard 

canisters on new vehicles to control refueling emissions. To 

assist you with your response, I have enclosed a copy of our 

proposal for your review. Section E (pages 31177-31182) 

explains EPA's overall rationale for proposing onboard 0 

controls. If you would like further details of our analysis, .* 

please contact Mr. Philip Carlson of the Standards 

Development and Support Branch of the Emission Control 

Technology Division, 2565 Plymouth Road, Ann Arbor, Michigan 

48105 (FTS 374-8270 or Commercial (313) 668-4270). 

Thank you for your letter. We will place the letter 

from Mr. Sisk in our public docket and fully consider his 

comments in the next phase of our rulemaking process. 

Sincerely yours, 'lllil 

ORIGINAL SIGNED BY ••• 

RICHARD D. WILSON 

Richard D. Wilson 

Director, Office of Mobile Sources 

Enclosure 

cc: Docket A-87-11 

Prepared by: Form Letter:sal: 1/28/88.-AL880342 - ECTD, Ann Arbor, MI 

• BCC: Region 04 

Congressional Llalson/Quinn