alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
August 25, 1996

VIA FACSIMILE MAIL

Valley Point Partners    The Balcor Company       Daniel J. Perlman, Esq.
Limited Partnership      2355 Waukegan Road       Katten Muchin & Zavis
c/o The Balcor Company   Suite A200               Suite 2100
2355 Waukegan Road       Bannockburn, IL  60015   525 W. Monroe Street
Suite A200               Attn.:  Al Lieberman     Chicago, IL  60661
Bannockburn, IL  60015
Attn.:  Ilona Adams

     Re:  Agreement of Sale, dated as of the 2nd day of August, 1996 
          (the "Agreement") between Valley Point Partners Limited Partnership, 
          as Seller, and ERP Operating Limited Partnership, as Purchaser, for 
          the purchase of Canyon Pointe Apartments, San Antonio, Texas 
          (the "Property").

Dear Ms. Adams and Messrs. Lieberman and Perlman:

     Purchaser hereby requests an extension of the Approval Period, as such
term is defined in Section 16(A) of the Agreement from September 5, 1996 until
5:00 p.m. CDT on September 19, 1996.  Purchaser further requests that the
Closing Date, as such term is defined in Section 8 of the Agreement, be changed
from September 19, 1996 to September 26, 1996.  Please acknowledge Seller's
acceptance of this modification to the Agreement by executing this letter in
the space provided below and returning it via facsimile mail to Purchaser.


                         ERP OPERATING LIMITED PARTNERSHIP,
                         an Illinois limited partnership

                         By:  Equity Residential Properties Trust,
                              a Maryland Real Estate Investment Trust,
                              its general partner

                         By:   /s/ Shelley L. Dunck
                              ------------------------------------
                                   Shelley L. Dunck
                                   Vice President


Approved and Accepted this   day of August, 1996

VALLEY POINT PARTNERS LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, 
an Illinois limited partnership

By:  Valley Point Partners, Inc., 
     an Illinois corporation
 
     By:   /s/ Jerry M. Ogle
          -----------------------------------
     Name:     Jerry M. Ogle
          -----------------------------------
     Title:    Vice President and Secretary
          -----------------------------------
<PAGE>
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 Bioethics, Ltd. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2008
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the
date hereof (the "Report"), I, Mark J. Cowan, Chief
Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the
Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.  1350, as adopted
pursuant to  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 result of operations of the Company.


 /s/ Mark J. Cowan
Mark J. Cowan
Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer
May 16, 2008
### **Subchapter H—Excise Tax Based on Investment Income of Private Colleges and Universities**

Sec.
4968.
Excise tax based on investment income of private colleges and universities.
NASA LogoNTRSNTRS - NASA Technical Reports ServerSearchmore_vertCollectionsAboutNewsHelpLogin Back to ResultsExperimental Techniques for Thermodynamic Measurements of CeramicsExperimental techniques for thermodynamic measurements on ceramic materials are reviewed. For total molar quantities, calorimetry is used. Total enthalpies are determined with combustion calorimetry or solution calorimetry. Heat capacities and entropies are determined with drop calorimetry, differential thermal methods, and adiabatic calorimetry . Three major techniques for determining partial molar quantities are discussed. These are gas equilibration techniques, Knudsen cell methods, and electrochemical techniques. Throughout this report, issues unique to ceramics are emphasized. Ceramic materials encompass a wide range of stabilities and this must be considered. In general data at high temperatures is required and the need for inert container materials presents a particular challenge.Document ID19990087315Acquisition SourceGlenn Research CenterDocument TypePreprint (Draft being sent to journal)AuthorsJacobson, Nathan S.*(NASA Glenn Research Center Cleveland, OH United States)*Putnam, Robert L.*(California Univ. Davis, CA United States)*Navrotsky, Alexandra*(California Univ. Davis, CA United States)*Date AcquiredSeptember 6, 2013Publication DateAugust 1, 1999Subject CategoryNonmetallic MaterialsReport/Patent NumberNAS 1.15:209385E-11812NASA/TM-1999-209385Funding Number(s)PROJECT: RTOP 523-21-13Distribution LimitsPublicCopyrightWork of the US Gov. Public Use Permitted.Available DownloadsNameType19990087315.pdfSTIcloud_downloadcontent_copyvisibilityRelated RecordsThere are no records associated with this record.visibility_offNo Preview Available
 No Fear Act | Freedom of Information Act | Office of the Inspector General | Agency Financial ReportsNASA Web Privacy Policy and Important Notices | NASA Guidelines for Quality of InformationDisclaimers, Copyright, Terms of Use | Accessibility | NASA OCIO | USA.gov | NASA.govContact Us | Site MapSTI LogoNASA Official: JoAnne R. Calhoun Site Curator: STI Compliance and Distribution Services Last Modified: September 12, 2024
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

**COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,**

**Respondent**

**v.**

**ALEX LEROY LOVEJOY,**

**Petitioner :** 

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**: No. 395 MAL 2016** 

**Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the Order of the Superior Court** 

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW **, this 18th day of October, 2016, the Petition for A llowance of Appeal** 

**and Application to File Supplement to Petition for A llowance of Appeal are**  DENIED

**.**
CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER
PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Michael B. McLaughlin, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial
Officer, of Bernard, Allan & Edwards, Inc. certify that:

I have reviewed this report on Form 10-KSB of Bernard, Allan
& Edwards, Inc.

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.

Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in the report, fairly present in all material
respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows
of the issuer as of, and for, the periods presented in the report.

I am responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls
and procedures for the Company.

I have designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that
material information is made known, particularly during the period in
which the periodic report is being prepared.

I have evaluated the effectiveness of the Company's disclosure controls
and procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of
this report; and I have presented in this report conclusions about the
effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures based
on the required evaluation as of that date.

I have disclosed to the Company's auditors and to the audit committee
of the board of directors (or persons fulfilling the equivalent
function):

 (i) all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of
internal controls which could adversely affect the Company's ability
to record, process, summarize and report financial data and have
identified for the Company's auditors any material weaknesses in
internal controls; and

 (ii) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management
or other employees who have a significant role in the Company's internal
controls; and I have indicated in this report whether or not there
were significant changes in internal controls or in other factors that
could significantly affect internal controls subsequent to the date of
our evaluation, including any corrective actions with regard to
significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.


Dated: April 14, 2005




BY: /s/ Michael B. McLaughlin

Michael B. McLaughlin
Chief Executive Officer, Chief Financial Officer
§ 30.184 Who may receive a renounced interest in trust or restricted land if the land will descend by intestate succession? ( a ) If the interest in trust or restricted land represents 5 percent or more of the entire undivided ownership of the parcel, you may renounce that interest in favor of one or more of the following: ( 1 ) Eligible heirs of the decedent; or
( 2 ) The Tribe with jurisdiction over the interest.
( b ) If the interest in the trust or restricted land represents less than 5 percent of the entire undivided ownership of the parcel, you may renounce that interest in favor of only one person or entity listed in paragraph (a) of this section, or to one Indian person related to you by blood.
#### Williams *v.*Smith Brothers.

Beck. J.

Where an equitable .petition was brought by the vendee for a rescission of the contract of purchase and sale of a body of land, which appears from the conveyance to have been sold by the tract and which was described in the deed by metes and bounds and as eontaining so many acres “more or less,” and to compel a repayment to the vendee of that portion of the purchase-price actually paid, upon the latter’s re-conveyance of the land to the vendor, the petitioner’s right to rescission being based upon an alleged deficiency in the number of aeres embraced in the tract of land conveyed, the ease should have been dismissed upon general demurrer, actual fraud not being shown or charged in the petition. *Finney*v. Morris, 116 *Ga.*758 (42 S. E. 1020) ; *Ken*
      *336
      *dall*v. *Wells,*126 *Ga.*343 (55 S. E. 41) ; *Emlen*v. *Roper,*133 *Ga.*726 (66 S. E. 934). *Judgment reversed.*

November 16, 1910.

Equitable petition. Before'Judge Mitchell. Colquitt superior court.- October 14, 1909.

*J. D. McKenzie,*for plaintiff in error. *E. L. Bryan,*contra.

*All the Justices concur.*
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

DAY ELEV

 500.15

 500.28

 499.66

 500.52

 501.06

 501.88

 502.14

 502.32

 501.83

 501.35

 500.86

 500.32

 499.67

 499.09

 498.53

 499.09

 499.70

 500.12

 500.16

 500.35

 499.78

 499.16

 499.55

 499.03

 499.43

 498.92

 499.99

 499.38

 498.87

 499.92

 55,466

 55,607

 54,940

 55,867

 56,453

 57,358

 57,647

 57,848

 57,302

 56,773

 56,235

 55,650

 54,951

 54,332

 53,742

 54,332

 54,983

 55,433

 55,476

 55,682

 55,068

 54,407

 54,823

 54,268

 54,695

 54,152

 55,292

 54,641

 54,099

 55,218

STORAGE

-704

+141

-667

+927

+586

+905

+289

+201

-546

-529

-538

-585

-699

-619

-590

+590

+651

+450

+43

+206

-614

-661

+416

-555

+427

-543

+1,140

-651

-542

+1,119

CHANGE

-1

423

5

803

571

737

422

378

0

11

3

5

-13

9

18

625

659

555

344

423

5

-12

514

5

495

11

886

-7

20

827

INFLOW

 349

 347

 338

 332

 270

 270

 271

 273

 272

 274

 274

 298

 339

 314

 315

 325

 328

 323

 319

 317

 315

 319

 303

 283

 279

 283

 308

 319

 290

 260

POWER

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

SPILL

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

OUTLET

 5

 5

 3

 4

 6

 11

 5

 4

 3

 4

 0

 2

 0

 7

 0

 3

 3

 5

 3

 2

 0

 2

 1

 2

 1

 2

 3

 2

 3

 3

C.F.S.

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

U.S. BUREAU OF RECLAMATION-CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT-CALIFORNIA

NOVEMBER 2009 TULLOCH RESERVOIR DAILY OPERATIONS RUN DATE: 12/01/2009

RES.

EVAP

C.F.S.

COMPUTED*

ACRE-FEET

RELEASE - C.F.S. 

TOTALS -952 8,721 9,107 0 0 94

ACRE-FEET -952 17,298 18,064 0 0 186

SUMMARY

RELEASE (ACRE-FEET)

POWER 18,064

SPILL 0 18,064

 56,170

OUTLET 0

TOTAL 

NEW

MELONES

RELEASE (1)

 25

 416

 6

 784

 581

 706

 433

 373

 9

 9

 6

 5

 18

 17

 11

 610

 626

 528

 334

 386

 8

 5

 498

 7

 498

 7

 844

 6

 6

 823

 8,585

 17,028

*COMPUTED INFLOW IS SUM OF CHANGE IN STORAGE, RELEASES, AND

EVAPORATION.
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

DAY HIGH

 190

 195

 194

 208

 219

 219

 225

 230

 225

 218

 242

 236

 256

 217

 203

 187

 177

 178

 185

 189

 189

 197

 200

 190

 194

 203

 166

 177

 168

 166

 176

 187

 206

 211

 201

 211

 196

 200

 205

 205

 200

 183

 174

 161

 152

 151

 163

 163

 173

 181

 179

 173

 165

 152

 144

 145

 180

 180

 186

 200

 213

 215

 215

 218

 214

 212

 217

 219

 218

 202

 186

 171

 161

 169

 176

 172

 182

 189

 187

 184

 177

 172

 156

 153

LOW MEAN

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

U.S. BUREAU OF RECLAMATION-CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT-CALIFORNIA

FEBRUARY 2001 WATER QUALITY REPORT RUN DATE: March 13, 2001

ELECTRICAL CONDUCTIVITY, UMHOS 

Comments:

0 reading indicates that the station was out of service.

STATEN ISLAND ON THE SOUTH FORK MOKELUMNE RIVER
### §1724. Omitted

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section, Pub. L. 96–420, §5, Oct. 10, 1980, 94 Stat. 1788, which related to the Maine Indian Claims Settlement and Land Acquisition Funds, was omitted from the Code as being of special and not general application.
### §5118. Application generally

The provisions of this Act shall not apply to any of the Territories, colonies, or insular possessions of the United States, except that sections 9, 10, 11, 12, and 16 [25 U.S.C. 5112, 5113, 5115, 5116, 5123] shall apply to the Territory of Alaska: Provided, That sections 4, 7, 16, 17, and 18 of this Act [25 U.S.C. 5107, 5110, 5123, 5124, 5125] shall not apply to the following-named Indian tribes, the members of such Indian tribes, together with members of other tribes affiliated with such named tribes located in the State of Oklahoma, as follows: Cheyenne, Arapaho, Apache, Comanche, Kiowa, Caddo, Delaware, Wichita, Osage, Kaw, Otoe, Tonkawa, Pawnee, Ponca, Shawnee, Ottawa, Quapaw, Seneca, Wyandotte, Iowa, Sac and Fox, Kickapoo, Pottawatomi, Cherokee, Chickasaw, Choctaw, Creek, and Seminole. Section 4 of this Act [25 U.S.C. 5107] shall not apply to the Indians of the Klamath Reservation in Oregon.

(June 18, 1934, ch. 576, §13, 48 Stat. 986; Pub. L. 101–301, §3(b), May 24, 1990, 104 Stat. 207.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

This Act, referred to in text, is act June 18, 1934, ch. 576, 48 Stat. 984, popularly known as the Indian Reorganization Act, which is classified generally to this chapter. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see Short Title note set out under section 5101 of this title and Tables.

#### Codification

Section was formerly classified to section 473 of this title prior to editorial reclassification and renumbering as this section.

#### Amendments

1990—Pub. L. 101–301 substituted "sections 4," for "sections 2, 4," in proviso.

#### **Executive Documents**

#### Admission of Alaska as State

Admission of Alaska into the Union was accomplished Jan. 3, 1959, on issuance of Proc. No. 3269, Jan. 3, 1959, 24 F.R. 81, 73 Stat. c16, as required by sections 1 and 8(c) of Pub. L. 85–508, July 7, 1958, 72 Stat. 339, set out as notes preceding section 21 of Title 48, Territories and Insular Possessions.
#### William W. Farley, as State Commissioner of Excise of the State of New York, Appellant, v. Liquors Seized at No. 593 Flushing Avenue, Borough of Brooklyn, Kings County, New York City. Rosario Scammacca, Respondent.

Judgment and order affirmed, with costs. No opinion. Jenks, P. J., Carr, Rich, Stapleton and Putnam, JJ., concurred.
### **Subchapter C—Mitigation of Effect of Period of Limitations**

Sec.
6521.
Mitigation of effect of limitation in case of related taxes under different chapters.
#### In the Matter of Fred Mouakad, Individually and on Behalf of Other Tenants of Hotel Martinique, Inc., Similarly Situated, Respondent, against Paul L. Ross et al., Constituting the Temporary City Housing Rent Commission, et al., Appellants.

Present — Peek, P. J., Glennon, Dore, Cohn and Callahan, JJ. [See 274 App. Div. 74, 877, 1933.]
NASA LogoNTRSNTRS - NASA Technical Reports ServerSearchmore_vertCollectionsAboutNewsHelpLogin Back to ResultsHypervelocity Impact Testing of Nickel Hydrogen Battery CellsNickel-Hydrogen (Ni/H2) battery cells have been used on several satellites and are planned for use on the International Space Station. In January 1992, the NASA Lewis Research Center (LeRC) conducted hypervelocity impact testing on Ni/H2 cells to characterize their failure modes. The cell's outer construction was a 24 mil-thick Inconel 718 pressure vessel. A sheet of 1.27 cm thick honeycomb was placed in front of the battery cells during testing to simulate the on-orbit box enclosure. Testing was conducted at the NASA White Sands Test Facility (WSTF). The hypervelocity gun used was a 7.6 mm (0.30 caliber) two-stage light gas gun. Test were performed at speeds of 3, 6, and 7 km/sec using aluminum 2017 spherical particles of either 4.8 or 6.4 mm diameter as the projectile. The battery cells were electrically charged to about 75 percent of capacity, then back-filled with hydrogen gas to 900 psi simulating the full charge condition. High speed film at 10,000 frames/sec was taken of the impacts. Impacts in the dome area (top) and the electrode area (middle) of the battery cells were investigated. Five tests on battery cells were performed. The results revealed that in all of the test conditions investigated, the battery cells simply vented their hydrogen gas and some electrolyte, but did not burst or generate any large debris fragments.Document ID19970001594Acquisition SourceLegacy CDMSDocument TypeConference PaperAuthorsFrate, David T.*(NASA Cleveland, OH United States)*Nahra, Henry K.*(NASA Cleveland, OH United States)*Date AcquiredSeptember 6, 2013Publication DateSeptember 1, 1996Subject CategorySpacecraft Design, Testing And PerformanceReport/Patent NumberNAS 1.15:107325NASA-TM-107325E-10431AIAA Paper 96-4292Meeting InformationMeeting: Space Programs and Technologies ConferenceLocation: Huntsville, ALCountry: United StatesStart Date: September 24, 1996End Date: September 26, 1996Sponsors:American Inst. of Aeronautics and AstronauticsAccession Number97N11388Funding Number(s)PROJECT: RTOP 963-89-0ADistribution LimitsPublicCopyrightWork of the US Gov. Public Use Permitted.Available DownloadsNameType19970001594.pdfSTIcloud_downloadcontent_copyvisibilityRelated RecordsThere are no records associated with this record.visibility_offNo Preview Available
 No Fear Act | Freedom of Information Act | Office of the Inspector General | Agency Financial ReportsNASA Web Privacy Policy and Important Notices | NASA Guidelines for Quality of InformationDisclaimers, Copyright, Terms of Use | Accessibility | NASA OCIO | USA.gov | NASA.govContact Us | Site MapSTI LogoNASA Official: JoAnne R. Calhoun Site Curator: STI Compliance and Distribution Services Last Modified: September 12, 2024
### §5143. Authorization of appropriations

There are authorized to be appropriated to carry out sections 5136 to 5143 of this title $8,000,000 for each of the fiscal years 1991 through 1995.

(Pub. L. 91–229, §6, as added Pub. L. 101–624, title XVIII, §1854(b), Nov. 28, 1990, 104 Stat. 3837.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Another section 6 of Pub. L. 91–229 was added by Pub. L. 101–82, title III, §303, Aug. 14, 1989, 103 Stat. 583, and is classified to section 5142 of this title.

Section was formerly classified to section 494 of this title prior to editorial reclassification and renumbering as this section.
Exhibit 32.1



CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





I, Joshua Ralston, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of General
Enterprise Ventures, Inc. for the quarterly period ending June 30, 2010 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q fairly presents in
all material respects the financial condition and results of operations of General Enterprise Ventures Inc.





|Date: March
    27, 2023 |  |  | /s/ Joshua Ralston                      | 
|------------------------ |  |  | --------------------------------------- | 
|                         |  |  | Joshua Ralston, Chief Financial Officer |
(No. 707

Claim denied.)

#### William L. Corris, Claimant, *vs.*State of Illinois, Respondent.

*Opinion filed April 16, 1925.*

*Services*— rules *of court must he complied with.*The rules of the court must be complied with by claimant before he is in position to ask an award for services rendered.

*Same*— consent *by State officer mil not dispense with rule of court.*Consent to an allowance of a claim by a State officer will not dispense with a compliance with the rules of the court.

Oscar J. Putting, for claimant.

Edward J. Brundage, Attorney General; Floyd E. Britton, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent.

Mr. Justice Leech

delivered the opinion of the court:

The claimant, William L. Corris, by Oscar J. Putting, files his declaration herein setting forth that said claimant was active in procuring reports and transcripts of testimony and evidence in a certain proceeding that was pending- before the Illinois Commerce Commission on the 15th day of July, 1921, and prior thereto, wherein an application was filed in behalf of the city of Chicago, for the reduction of. gas rates in said city by the People’s Gas Light and Coke Company; that said hearing was had on said petition in said city of Chicago for a number of days; that in the course- of said proceedings the Attorney General (then Edward J. Brundage) directed one of his assistants, Assistant Attorney General Matthew Mills, to assist in said hearing before said Illinois Commerce Commission; that in his endeavor to render services to the said Illinois Commerce Commission and the State of Illinois in accordance with the wishes of said Attor- ' ney General Edward J. Brundage, said Assistant Attorney General Matthew Mills did attend said hearing regularly and attended the taking of testimony and the obtaining of transcript of certain evidence, that the sum of $1610.00 is now . due claimant for services rendered.

The Attorney General, Edward J. Brundage, by Floyd E. Britton, filed his consent to the award.

There is no evidence before this court as to the number of days of service rendered by said claimant, neither is any evidence before the court that said services was rendered by and with the consent of the Commerce Commission.

*77There is nothing but the bare statement of claimant that the services were rendered. .

Owing to the lack of proper evidence and the absolute failure of the claimant to comply with the rules of the Court of Claims, the case is dismissed and with the recommendation that no award be made.