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

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER CASE NO. C09-01149 MMC (EMC) 

MARK E. MILLER (S.B. # 130200) markmiller@omm.com 

ANNE E. HUFFSMITH (S.B. # 236438) ahuffsmith@omm.com 

SARA E. JERUSS (S.B. # 258716) sjeruss@omm.com 

O’MELVENY & MYERS LLP 

Two Embarcadero Center, 28th Floor 

San Francisco, California 94111-3823 

Telephone: 415.984.8700 

Facsimile: 415.984.8701 

Attorneys for Defendant and Counterclaimant 

ADVANCED MICRO DEVICES, INC. 

David N. Kuhn (State Bar #73389) 

Attorney-at-Law

144 Hagar Avenue 

Piedmont, CA 94611 

Telephone: (510) 653-4983 

E-mail: dnkuhn@pacbell.net 

Attorney for Plaintiff and Counterdefendant 

GREGORY BENDER 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION 

GREGORY BENDER, 

Plaintiff and Counterdefendant, 

v.

ADVANCED MICRO DEVICES, INC., 

Defendant and Counterclaimant. 

Case No. C09-01149 MMC (EMC) 

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] 

ORDER

WHEREAS a status conference is currently set for July 16, 2010 at 10:30 AM;

WHEREAS the parties have reached a tentative settlement agreement; 

WHEREAS the parties need additional time to finalize their settlement agreement and file 

the requisite documents with the Court; 

Case 3:09-cv-01149-MMC Document 68 Filed 07/14/10 Page 1 of 2
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

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER - 2 - CASE NO. C09-01149 MMC (EMC) 

THEREFORE, the parties hereby STIPULATE and AGREE that the status conference 

scheduled for July 16, 2010 shall be continued to August 27, 2010 at 10:30 am to allow the 

parties time to finalize their settlement agreement and file the requisite documents with the Court. 

Dated: July 13, 2010 

Respectfully submitted, 

By: /s/ Mark E. Miller 

Mark E. Miller 

O’Melveny & Myers LLP 

Counsel for Defendant

ADVANCED MICRO DEVICES, INC. 

Dated: July 13, 2010 By: /s/ David N. Kuhn 

David N. Kuhn 

Attorney-at-Law

Counsel for Plaintiff GREGORY BENDER 

Pursuant to General Order No. 45 X(B), I hereby attest that concurrence in the filing of 

this document has been obtained from each of the above-listed signatories. 

Dated: July 12, 2010 

Respectfully submitted, 

By: /s/ Mark E. Miller

Mark E. Miller

O’Melveny & Myers LLP 

Counsel for Defendant

ADVANCED MICRO DEVICES, INC. 

PURSUANT TO STIPULATION IT IS SO ORDERED:

Dated: _________________________ _____________________________________ 

 The Honorable Maxine M. Chesney 

 United States District Judge

July 14, 2010 /s/ Vaughn R Walker for

Case 3:09-cv-01149-MMC Document 68 Filed 07/14/10 Page 2 of 2
##### 



EXHIBIT 32.2 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 In connection with the Quarterly Report of Brantley Capital Corporation (the
Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2004 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Tab A. Keplinger, Chief Financial Officer of Brantley Capital Corporation, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of 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. /S/ TAB A. KEPLINGERTab A. KeplingerChief Financial OfficerNovember 15, 2004
§ 270.2a41-1 Valuation of standby commitments by registered investment companies. ( a ) A standby commitment means a right to sell a specified underlying security or securities within a specified period of time and at an exercise price equal to the amortized cost of the underlying security or securities plus accrued interest, if any, at the time of exercise, that may be sold, transferred or assigned only with the underlying security or securities. A standby commitment entitles the holder to receive same day settlement, and will be considered to be from the party to whom the investment company will look for payment of the exercise price. A standby commitment may be assigned a fair value of zero, Provided, That: ( 1 ) The standby commitment is not used to affect the company's valuation of the security or securities underlying the standby commitment; and
( 2 ) Any consideration paid by the company for the standby commitment, whether paid in cash or by paying a premium for the underlying security or securities, is accounted for by the company as unrealized depreciation until the standby commitment is exercised or expires.
( b ) [Reserved]
[51 FR 9779, Mar. 21, 1986, as amended at 56 FR 8128, Feb. 27, 1991; 61 FR 13982, Mar. 28, 1996; 62 FR 64986, Dec. 9, 1997]
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2448 Introduced in House (IH)]

109th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2448

          To extend the temporary suspension of duty on DEMT.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 18, 2005

  Mr. Murphy introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
          To extend the temporary suspension of duty on DEMT.

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

SECTION 1. DEMT.

    (a) In General.--Heading 9902.32.12 of the Harmonized Tariff 
Schedule of the United States (relating to DEMT) is amended by striking 
``12/31/2006'' and inserting ``12/31/2009''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) applies 
to goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or 
after the 15th day after the date of enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
Sinobiomed Inc.: Exhibit 10.1 - Filed by newsfilecorp.com





Exhibit 10.1

JOINT FILING AGREEMENT

In accordance with Rule 13d-1(k) under the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, as amended, each of the undersigned hereby agrees to the joint
filing on behalf of each of them of a statement on Schedule 13D (including
amendments thereto) with respect to the Common Stock of Dragon Acquisition
Corporation, and that this Agreement be included as an Exhibit to such joint
filing.

Each of the undersigned acknowledges that each shall be
responsible for the timely filing of any statement (including amendments) on
Schedule 13D, and for the completeness and accuracy of the information
concerning him, her, or it contained therein, but shall not be responsible for
the completeness and accuracy of the information concerning the other persons
making such filings, except to the extent that he, she, or it knows or has
reason to believe that such information is inaccurate.

Dated: November 2, 2010 

By: /s/ Kam, Dennis Thai Leong

Name: Kam, Dennis Thai Leong 


ACCELERA VENTURES LIMITED 

By: /s/Kam, Dennis Thai Leong

Name: Kam, Dennis Thai Leong 
Title: Director 


ACCELERA EVOLUTION LIMITED 

By: /s/Kam, Dennis Thai Leong

Name: Kam, Dennis Thai Leong 
Title: Director
**Exhibit10.3**

 

**AMENDMENTNO. 1 TO THIRD AMENDED AND RESTATED**

** **

**EMPLOYMENTAGREEMENT**

** **

ThisAMENDMENT NO. 1 TO THIRD AMENDED AND RESTATED EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT (“Amendment”)is entered into as of this 1st day of January, 2004, by and betweenBruce Ross(“Executive”) and GUITAR CENTER, INC., a Delaware corporation(the “Company”).

 

Executive and the Companywish to amend that certain Third Amended and Restated Employment Agreemententered into between the two parties as of July 1, 2003 (the “PriorAgreement”), to revise the bonus provision therein.

 

In consideration of themutual promises and covenants contained herein and other good and valuableconsideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged,the parties hereto agree as follows:

 

# 1.                                       The Prior Agreement is amended byamending Section 3(b) in its entirety to read as follows:

#  

## (b)                                 In addition to the Base Salary, foreach fiscal year ending during the Employment Period, Executive shall also beeligible to receive an annual bonus in a target amount of 75% of theExecutive’s then-current Base Salary. The amount of such bonus will be determined by the Board or itsdesignee(s), in their sole discretion.

##  

# 2.                                       Except as expressly provided for inthis Amendment, no other term or provision of the Prior Agreement is amended ormodified in any respect.

#  

Inwitness whereof, the parties have executed this Agreement on the day andyear first above written.

 
|   | GUITAR CENTER, INC.                     |
|--------|-----------------------------------------|
|   |                                    |
|   |                                    |
|   | By:                                     | /Larry Thomas |   |
|   | Name:  Larry Thomas                |
|   | Title:  Co-Chief Executive Officer |
|   |                                    |
|   |                                    |
|   | EXECUTIVE                               |
|   |                                    |
|   |                                    |
|   | /Bruce Ross                             |   |
|   | Bruce Ross                              |
|        |                                         |  |  |  |

 

1

----
#### Mathilde Fruhwald et al., Respondents, v. Devere Trucking Corp. et al., Defendants, and T. Ferrara, Doing Business as Ferrara Dress Trucking, Appellant.

In a negligence action by plaintiff wife to recover damages for personal injuries, and by her husband to recover damages for loss of her services and for medical expenses, the defendant Ferrara appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, entered December 5, 1961, which denied his motion, made during a jury trial, to dismiss the complaint as to him for failure of proof and for a directed verdict, and which directed a new trial. The motion was made at the close of all the evidence before the submission of the case to the jury, and was denied. The case was then submitted to the jury which failed to return any verdict because of its disagreement. Thereafter the said order was made and entered; and the defendant Ferrara appeals therefrom as now permitted by statute (Civ. Prac. Act, § 457-a, subd. 3; cf. *Le Glaire*v. *New York Life Ins. Co.,*5 A D 2d 171, 172; *Schwartz*v. *City of Mt. Vernon,*12 A D 2d 816). Order reversed on the law, without costs; defendant Ferrara’s motion to dismiss the complaint as to him for failure of proof granted; and judgment directed to be entered accordingly. No questions of fact were considered. The female plaintiff, while passing through an alley between two buildings, allegedly fell because her foot caught in a wire clothes hanger lying on the ground. In one of the adjacent buildings were two dress contractors, who used wire hangers on which to hang dresses. Several hours before the accident the defendant Ferrara, a truckman, had removed some 1,000 dresses, each dress on a separate hanger, from the factories of the dress contractors. His process of removal was to slide the dresses down a wire, stretched from the windows of the factories, into his truck parked in the alleyway below. In our opinion, there is no evidence from which the jury could find that defendant Ferrara was the owner of the hanger which allegedly caused plaintiff to fall, or that defendant Ferrara ever had control over such hanger, or that it had any connection with his trucking operation at the premises. Beldoek, P. J., Christ, Hill, Rabin and Hopkins, JJ., 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

Russell A. Robinson, 163937

Law Office of Russell A. Robinson

345 Grove Street, First Floor

San Francisco CA 94102

Telephone: 415.255.0462

Facsimile: 431.4526

e-mail: rarcases@yahoo.com

Counsel for Plaintiff

ANTHONY JONES

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ANTHONY JONES,

Plaintiff,

v.

CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO,

MTA EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR/CEO

NATHANIEL P. FORD, SR., ANTONIO

PARRA, and DOES 1-100, 

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C-09-0611-CRB

STIPULATION OF DISMISSAL OF

ENTIRE ACTION; ORDER

[Civil Rights – Public Employment]

TO THE COURT HEREIN:

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that Plaintiff and Defendants, through counsel of record,

hereby stipulate to dismissal of this action with prejudice in its entirety.

Date: February 11, 2010 /s/ Russell A. Robinson 

By: Russell A. Robinson

Law Office of Russell A. Robinson

Counsel for Plaintiff ANTHONY JONES

Date: February 11, 2010 /s/ LAWRENCE HECIMOVICH 

By: LAWRENCE HECIMOVICH

Office of the City Attorney

City & County of San Francisco

Counsel for Defendants CITY AND COUNTY OF

SAN FRANCISCO, MTA EXECUTIVE

DIRECTOR/CEO NATHANIEL P. FORD, SR.,

ANTONIO PARRA, 

Case 3:09-cv-00611-CRB Document 35 Filed 02/16/10 Page 1 of 2
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

- 2 -

ORDER

Based on the above, it is hereby ordered as follows:

This action is hereby dismissed, in its entirety, with prejudice. In conjunction with this

dismissal, Defendants __are / __ are not entitled to recover their costs, if any.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Date: , 2010 

Honorable Charles R. Breyer

USDC, N.Dist. Of California

X

Feb. 16

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORN

I

A

IT IS SO ORDERED

Judge Charles R. Breyer

Case 3:09-cv-00611-CRB Document 35 Filed 02/16/10 Page 2 of 2
Editorial Note on Part 17
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 17 appear at 87 FR 8196, Feb. 14, 2022.

§ 17.40 Scope and purpose. ( a ) This subpart applies to all claims filed by or on behalf of employees of the Department of Housing and Urban Development for loss of or damage to personal property which occurs incident to their service with HUD under the Military Personnel and Civilian Employees' Claims Act of 1964. A claim must be substantiated and the possession of the property determined to be reasonable, useful, or proper. The maximum amount that can be paid under any claim under the Act is $25,000 and property may be replaced in kind at the option of the Government. Nothing in this subpart shall be construed to bar claims payable under statutory authority.
( b ) HUD is not an insurer and does not underwrite all personal property losses that an employee may sustain. Employees are encouraged to carry private insurance to the maximum extent practicable to avoid large losses or losses which may not be recoverable from HUD. The procedures set forth in this section are designed to enable the claimant to obtain the maximum amount of compensation for his loss or damage. Failure of the claimant to comply with these procedures may reduce or preclude payment of his claim under this subpart.
[36 FR 24427, Dec. 22, 1971, as amended at 48 FR 6536, Feb. 14, 1983]
### §8236b. Report

Not later than 3 years after October 24, 1992, the Secretary shall transmit to the President and the Congress a final report containing—

(1) a description of actions taken by the Secretary and other Federal agencies to implement this part;

(2) a description of the action taken by States, local governments, and other organizations to implement the voluntary guidelines issued under section 8236 of this title and any problems encountered in implementing such guidelines; and

(3) recommendations on the feasibility of requiring, as a prerequisite to receiving federally assisted, guaranteed, or insured mortgages, the achievement of a minimum energy efficiency rating.

(Pub. L. 95–619, title II, §273, as added Pub. L. 102–486, title I, §102(a), Oct. 24, 1992, 106 Stat. 2788.)
§ 1006.306 Income verification for receipt of NHHBG assistance. ( a ) *Initial determination of eligibility.* DHHL must verify that the family is income eligible based on anticipated annual income. The family is required to provide documentation to verify this determination. DHHL is required to maintain the documentation on which the determination of eligibility is based.
( b ) *Periodic verification.* DHHL may require a family to periodically verify its income in order to determine housing payments or continued occupancy consistent with DHHL's written policies. When income verification is required, the family must provide documentation which verifies its income, and this documentation must be retained by DHHL.
[89 FR 9762, Feb. 12, 2024]
1

Daniels, Nia (FAA)

From: Daniels, Nia (FAA)

Sent: Thursday, May 28, 2015 11:13 AM

To: 'suman.saripalli@kalscott.com'

Cc: '333exemptions@faa.gov'

Subject: Petition for Exemption: KalScott Engineering, Inc. (FAA-2014-1064)

May 28, 2015 

Dear Mr. Saripalli: 

This letter is to inform you that the following information is missing from your petition (Docket No. FAA2014-1064). This information is necessary for the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to process your 

petition. 

 Describe the aircraft make, model, and type (i.e. - fixed-wing, rotorcraft, lighter-than-air) for the 

proposed UAS operation. The description should include the maximum weight (including 

payload). This information can be located in the aircraft manual. 

Please submit the additional information (non-proprietary) to your docket at www.regulations.gov and submit 

any proprietary information to the FAA Headquarters or electronically via e-mail to 

333exemptions@faa.gov. If you want us to process your request any further, we must receive the information 

described above by June 11, 2015. If we do not receive the information, we will close the docket without 

notifying you further. 

If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at (202) 267-9677. 

Sincerely, 

Nia Daniels 

Program Analyst 

Nia Daniels, ARM‐108

Federal Aviation Administration

Office of Rulemaking, Airmen & Airspace Rules Division

800 Independence Avenue, SW

Washington, DC 20591

PH: (202) 267 ‐ 7626

Fax: (202) 267 ‐ 5075

nia.daniels@faa.gov
[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 249 (Wednesday, December 29, 2004)]
[Notices]
[Pages 77986-77987]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-28436]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

Foreign-Trade Zones Board


Review of Oil/Petrochemical Refinery Subzone Activity

    Background. The Foreign-Trade Zones Board (the Board) has 
authorized 81 refinery/petrochemical complexes to conduct crude oil/
petrochemical product refining activity under FTZ procedures. In 2000, 
active refinery/petrochemical subzones requested and were approved an 
indefinite extension of their NPF authority, which initially had been 
granted for a five-year period (Board Order 1116, 65 FR 52696, 8/30/
2000). NPF authority involves full access to FTZ procedures for export 
activity and, with regard to products sold in the U.S., the ability to 
choose the Customs duty rates that apply to certain petrochemical 
products and refinery by-products (duty-free), by admitting incoming 
foreign inputs, such as crude oil, in non-privileged foreign status. 
Such petrochemicals and by-products account for about 20 to 25 percent 
of refinery activity, on average. [NPF authority does not apply to the 
foreign inputs used to produce other refinery products, such as 
gasoline, jet fuel, and heating oil (some 75-80% of output); they would 
continue to be subject to their normal duty rates.] The extension

[[Page 77987]]

case involved a comprehensive assessment of zone use by the refinery 
subzones considering their economic and regulatory circumstances. When 
the Board extended NPF authority for refinery subzones in September 
2000, it noted that the FTZ staff would conduct periodic reviews, as 
part of its zone monitoring program.
    Summary. The industry review will involve an overall industry-wide 
evaluation of the economic effects of the oil refining industry's use 
of FTZ procedures. It will address the role zone procedures play in 
helping the refineries and the industry to improve their international 
competitive situation, and in encouraging investment in the United 
States that might otherwise be done abroad.
    Public comment on the review is invited from interested parties. 
Submissions (original and 3 copies) shall be addressed to the Board's 
Executive Secretary at one of the following addresses:
    1. Submissions Via Express/Package Delivery Services: Foreign-
Trade-Zones Board, U.S. Department of Commerce, Franklin Court 
Building--Suite 4100W, 1099 14th St. NW., Washington, DC 20005; or
    2. Submissions Via the U.S. Postal Service: Foreign-Trade-Zones 
Board, U.S. Department of Commerce, FCB--Suite 4100W, 1401 Constitution 
Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20230.
    The closing period for their receipt is March 21, 2005.

    Dated: December 21, 2004.
Dennis Puccinelli,
Executive Secretary.
[FR Doc. 04-28436 Filed 12-28-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
### §8287d. Assistance to Federal agencies in achieving energy efficiency in Federal facilities and operations

The Secretary in fiscal year 1999 and thereafter, shall continue the process begun in fiscal year 1998 of accepting funds from other Federal agencies in return for assisting agencies in achieving energy efficiency in Federal facilities and operations by the use of privately financed, energy savings performance contracts and other private financing mechanisms. The funds may be provided after agencies begin to realize energy cost savings; may be retained by the Secretary until expended; and may be used only for the purpose of assisting Federal agencies in achieving greater efficiency, water conservation and use of renewable energy by means of privately financed mechanisms, including energy savings performance contracts and utility incentive programs. These recovered funds will continue to be used to administer even greater energy efficiency, water conservation and use of renewable energy by means of privately financed mechanisms such as utility efficiency service contracts and energy savings performance contracts. The recoverable funds will be used for all necessary program expenses, including contractor support and resources needed, to achieve overall Federal energy management program objectives for greater energy savings. Any such privately financed contracts shall meet the provisions of the Energy Policy Act of 1992, Public Law 102–486 regarding energy savings performance contracts and utility incentive programs.

(Pub. L. 105–277, div. A, §101(e) [title II], Oct. 21, 1998, 112 Stat. 2681–231, 2681–278.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

The Energy Policy Act of 1992, referred to in text, is Pub. L. 102–486, Oct. 24, 1992, 106 Stat. 2776. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see Short Title note set out under section 13201 of this title and Tables.

#### Codification

Section was enacted as part of Department of the Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 1999, and also as part of the Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act, 1999, and not as part of the National Energy Conservation Policy Act which comprises this chapter.

#### **Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries**

#### Similar Provisions

Similar provisions were contained in the following prior appropriation act:

Pub. L. 105–83, title II, Nov. 14, 1997, 111 Stat. 1582.
#### § 96.16 Public domestic authorities.

Public domestic authorities are not required to become accredited to be able to provide adoption services in intercountry adoption cases, but must comply with the Convention, the IAA, the UAA, and other applicable law when providing services in an intercountry adoption case.

[79 FR 40634, July 14, 2014]