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

                                                                    Exhibit 10.2

                           SECONDARY STORAGE AGREEMENT

       This Agreement, by and between Safti-Cell, Inc., its successors or
assigns (SCI) and Stem Cell Preservation Technologies, Inc. (SCPT), witnesses
that:

       Whereas SCPT is engaged in the business of preservation of adult stem
sells and preserves such cells at a primary storage location in Clearwater,
Florida, USA, and:

       Whereas SCI is committed to building a future, state-of-the-art, secure,
fire-resistant, earthquake-resistant facilities for the storage of such cells,
now THEREFORE, upon receipt of $10.00 and other good and valuable consideration
which the parties hereby acknowledge, it is agreed that:

       1.   SCPT will deliver cryopreserved second units of cells, to SCI for
            secondary, backup storage.
       2.   SCI will maintain the storage of such cells in a secure cryogenic
            environment.
       3.   Payments to SCI from SCPT will be as follows:
            A)  If all SCPT clients are billed for secondary storage or if they
                are provided secondary storage at no extra cost, SCI will store
                secondary units at a cost of $10.00 per unit, per annum.
            B)  If secondary storage is offered to SCPT clients on an optional
                basis, SCI will receive, in addition to the $10.00 noted in A)
                above, 50% of the amount charged over $20.00 per unit, per
                annum.
       4.   If retrieval of a unit of cells is required, the price that is
            charged to SCI will first cover actual labor costs, plus 10% for
            overhead. The parties will equally divide the retrieval fee.
       5.   Transportation costs for delivery of the back-up unit of cells will
            be the responsibility of the client and/or its insurance provider.
       6.   If SCPT is sold, merged, or enters into a business combination with
            any other company or entity, this agreement will be included and
            accepted as a necessary part of any such sale, merger or business
            combination between SCPT and such other company or entity.
       7.   The term of this agreement is for a period of 20 years, and may be
            extended by mutual agreement of the parties.
       8.   During the term of this agreement and any extension thereof, SCPT
            will receive 2% of all of SCI's net profits from secondary storage,
            regardless of source.

Dated this 1/st/ day of October, 2001

Safti-Cell, Inc., its                 Stem Cell Preservation Technologies, Inc.
Successors or assigns



By:  /s/ Charles D. Nyberg            By:  /s/ Daniel D. Richard
   ------------------------------        ---------------------------------------
   Charles D. Nyberg, President       Daniel D. Richard, CEO, Chairman of the
                                      Board of Directors
###### Editorial Note on Part 75

#### Editorial Note:

The provisions of this part marked [Statutory Provision] appear in Title III of the Federal Coal Mine Health and Safety Act of 1969.

#### § 75.402-1 Definition.

The term *too wet* means that sufficient natural moisture is retained by the dust that when a ball of finely divided material is squeezed in the hands water is exuded.
#### UNITED STATES v. O’NEILL (three cases). UNITED STATES v. AVERY.

Nos. 13617, 13618, 13619, 13620.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

April 7, 1954.

*702H. Brian Holland, Asst. Atty. Gen., Robert B. Ross, Ellis N. Slack, Robert N. Anderson, George F. Lynch, Sp. Assts. to Atty. Gen., Laughlin E. Waters, U. S. Atty., Los Angeles, Cal., for appellant.

Todd W. Johnson, Edward D. Robertson, Donald C. McGovern, Los Angeles, Cal., for appellees.

Before HEALY and ORR, Circuit Judges, and LEMMON, District Judge.

PER CURIAM.

Appellees are beneficiaries of a testamentary trust which, prior to and in the year 1946, was engaged in the business of raising beef cattle for market. In 1944 323 head of 2-year-old heifers were sold and profits realized therefrom reported as a capital gain under the provisions of § 117(j) of the Internal Revenue Code, 26 U.S.C.A. The Commissioner of Internal Revenue made a “redetermination of the amount of income taxes due and treated the income from the sale of the heifers as ordinary income. Appel-lees paid the additional amount assessed and being denied a refund instituted suit to recover.

The only issue for trial before the trial court was whether profit from the sale of heifers by the trust during 1944 was ordinary income or capital gain within the provisions of § 117(j) of the Internal Revenue Code. This section permits a taxpayer to treat income from the sale of livestock held for breeding purposes for a period of six months (later amended to twelve) as a capital gain.

The trial court found as a fact that the 323 heifers sold during 1944 were held for breeding purposes within the meaning of § 117(j) of the Internal Revenue Code and had been held by the trust for more than six months.

It is conceded by the Government that whether an animal is held for breeding purposes and not primarily for sale presents a question of fact, but it contends that this finding is clearly erroneous in that it is not supported by substantial evidence. This contention is without merit. The finding is not clearly erroneous; is supported by substantial evidence and is controlling on this court.

Judgment affirmed.
#### Robert H. Diffin, Respondent, v. State of New York, Appellant.

(Claim No. 37573.)

Judgment unanimously affirmed, with costs. Certain additional findings of fact made. Memorandum: We find ample proof in the record to sustain the award. The trial court expressly recognized the rule that consequential damages could not be recovered by claimant for diminution in value of the property not taken by interference with access thereto or diversion of traffic therefrom *(Selig*v. *State of New York,*10 N Y 2d 34, 39). There was a finding that the highest and best use of a portion of the land not taken was for residential lots. Claimant’s property is a short distance east of Route No. 11 — a main highway — where there are gas lines and water from Otiseo Lake for use for residential purposes. One parcel.of claimant’s land was appropriated “without the right of access” for the construction of a limited access expressway (Interstate Route No. 81) which effectively blocked *1027access to Route No. 11 for the purpose of constructing underground utility pipes. Thus, there is clear proof that the taking deprives claimant of access to the gas and water available nearby. The loss of these utilities was a proper subject for consideration in fixing the diminution in value of a portion of the property best usable for residential purposes. The trial court doubtless considered these facts but they are not contained in the decision. We make additional findings to cover the subject matter. (Appeal from judgment of Court of Claims for claimant on a claim for appropriation of realty.) Present — Williams, P. J., Bastow, Goldman, Halpern and McClusky, JJ.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000
<CURRENCY>                              U.S. Dollars
       
<S>                                           <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                  Year
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              Dec-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                                 Jan-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                                   Dec-31-1996
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                1.000
<CASH>                                         1,081
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  1,033
<ALLOWANCES>                                   189
<INVENTORY>                                    1,174
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               3,190
<PP&E>                                         3,376
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (2,512)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 4,092
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          1,386
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    2,250
<COMMON>                                       15
<OTHER-SE>                                     291
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   4,092
<SALES>                                        5,060
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               5,060
<CGS>                                          4,013
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  4,672
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               214
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             432
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (4,271)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (4,271)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (4,271)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  (.39)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (.39)
        



</TABLE>
Exhibit
32.2


Section 1350
Certification


In connection with the annual report of
China Industrial Waste Management, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the
year ended December 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (the "Report"), I, Guo Xin, Chief Executive Officer of the Company,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. SS. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:





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





2. The
information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.
 March
      31, 2009
                
                /s/ Guo Xin ex32-2Guo
      XinChief
      Financial Officer, principal financial and accounting
    officer







A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document
authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears
in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement 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.
#### William Keeler, Respondent, v Galaxy Communications, LP, Appellant.

[834 NYS2d 411]—

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Herldmer County (Michael E. Daley, J.), entered June 12, 2006. The order, insofar as appealed from, denied defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint.

It is hereby ordered that the order insofar as appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously reversed on the law without costs, defendant’s motion is granted and the complaint is dismissed, and in the exercise of discretion plaintiff is granted leave to replead..

*1203Memorandum: Plaintiff commenced this action to recover damages for injury to his reputation arising from allegedly defamatory statements made during one of defendant’s radio broadcasts. The complaint alleged that the broadcast by defendant “consisted of information that accused the plaintiff herein of selling ‘porn door to door’ ” and further “accused the plaintiff herein of ‘peddling porn’.” We conclude that Supreme Court erred in denying defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint based on plaintiff’s failure to set forth in the complaint “the particular words complained of,” as required by CPLR 3016 (a). The quoted language in the complaint, i.e., “porn door to door” and “peddling porn,” are mere phrases and thus by implication cannot be the “exact words” in their entirety allegedly uttered by defendant *(Gardner v Alexander Rent-A-Car,*28 AD2d 667 [1967]). Rather, those phrases are only a portion of the particular defamatory words and thus are not in compliance with CPLR 3016 (a) *(see id.).*Further, the qualifying language “consisted of’ in the complaint indicates impermissible paraphrasing on the part of plaintiff *(see Scalise v Herkimer, Fulton, Hamilton & Otsego County BOCES,*16 AD3d 1059, 1060 [2005]; *Gardner, 28*AD2d 667 [1967]). However, because there may be a basis for a cause of action for libel against defendant, we grant plaintiff leave to replead in the exercise of our discretion *(see Summers v County of Monroe,*147 AD2d 949, 951 [1989], *appeal dismissed*74 NY2d 735 [1989]).

In light of our determination, we need not consider defendant’s remaining contentions. Present—Gorski, J.P, Martoche, Centra, Lunn and Green, JJ.
FORM 6-KUNITED STATESSECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Washington, D.C. 20549

Report of Foreign Private Issuer

Pursuant to Rule 13a-16 or 15d-16 ofof Securities Exchange Act of 1934

September 28, 2004Commission File Number 001-14804

OAO TATNEFT(also known as TATNEFT)

(name of Registrant)75 Lenin StreetAlmetyevsk, Tatarstan 423450Russian Federation

(Address of principal executive offices)

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant files or will file annual reports under cover Form 20-F or Form 40-F.

Form 20-F . . . .X . . . . Form 40-F .	. . . . . . . .

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is submitting the Form 6-K in paper as permitted by Regulation S-T Rule 101(b)(1): .	. . . . . . .

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is submitting the Form 6-K in paper as permitted by Regulation S-T Rule 101(b)(7): .	. . . . . . .

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant by furnishing the information contained in this Form is also thereby furnishing the information to the Commission pursuant to Rule 12g3-2(b) under
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

Yes 	 . . . . . . . . No . . . .X. . . . .

---

September 28, 2004

Today, OAO Tatneft issued the following press release:

PRESS RELEASE

On September 28, 2004, the Board of Directors of OAO Tatneft held its regular meeting, and considered preparations for the Extraordinary General Shareholders' Meeting of OAO Tatneft. The
following agenda of the forthcoming General Shareholders' Meeting was approved:

| | 1. | Payment of dividends based on the results of nine months of 2004. Approval of the amount of dividends, the form and date of payment.
| | -- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Extraordinary General Shareholders' Meeting shall be held on November 6, 2004 in the form of an absentee vote.

The list of persons entitled to participate in the Extraordinary General Shareholders' Meeting of OAO Tatneft shall be compiled on the basis of the data of the Company's shareholders' register
as of 8:00 a.m. on October 1, 2004.

The Board of Directors has proposed to pay dividends on the Company's shares in the amount of:

| | - | 67% of the nominal value on ordinary shares; and
| | - | ------------------------------------------------
| | - | 100% of the nominal value on preferred shares.  

The dividends shall be paid during the period from November 15, 2004 to March 1, 2005. The dividends shall be paid in cash.

---

SIGNATURES


Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the registrant has duly caused this report to be signed on its behalf by the undersigned, thereunto duly authorized.

| | OAO TATNEFT
    By: /s/ Victor I. Gorodny
      Name: Victor I. GorodnyTitle: Deputy General Director, Head of the Property Department
| | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: September 28, 2004
#### § 77.1800 Cutout switches.

Trolley wires and trolley feeder wires shall be provided with cutout switches at intervals of not more than 2,000 feet and near the beginning of all branch lines.
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906

OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

Bradley J. Bell, Principal Executive Officer of Nalco Holding Company (Nalco) and Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of Nalco, in conjunction with the filing of Nalcos 10-K financial report (the Report) with the Securities and Exchange Commission, covering the period ending December 31, 2007, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U. S. C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, as follows:

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


b.
        The information in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Nalco.




/S/ Bradley J. BellBradley J. BellPrincipal Executive Officer and Executive VicePresident and Chief Financial OfficerDate:
        February 28, 2008


A signed original of this written statement required by §906 has been provided to Nalco Holding Company and will be retained by Nalco Holding Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.





---
# C_2023275EN.01001401.xml

| 4.8.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 275/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.8.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 275/14

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.11137 – EMIL FREY FRANCE / SACAPUCE / JAM PROD / GROUPE KERTRUCKS FINANCE)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2023/C 275/03)

On 3 July 2023, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the internal market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1). The full text of the decision is available only in French and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | in the merger section of the ‘Competition policy’ website of the Commission (https://competition-cases.ec.europa.eu/search). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the ‘Competition policy’ website of the Commission (https://competition-cases.ec.europa.eu/search). 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 (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32023M11137. EUR-Lex is the online point of access to European Union law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32023M11137. EUR-Lex is the online point of access to European Union law.

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.

---
§ 585.509 Who is responsible for submitting lease or grant payments to ONRR? ( a ) For each lease, ROW grant, or RUE grant issued under this part, you must identify one person who is responsible for all payments due and payable under the provisions of the lease or grant. The responsible person identified is designated as the payor, and you must document acceptance of such responsibilities, as provided in 30 CFR 1218.52.
( b ) All payors must submit payments and maintain auditable records in accordance with guidance we issue or any applicable regulations in subchapter A of this chapter. In addition, the lessee or grant holder must also maintain such auditable records.
Exhibit 31-12
**FORM 10-Q CERTIFICATION**
I, David E. Meador, Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of TheDetroit Edison Company, certify that:
 1. I have reviewed this Form 10-Q for the Quarterly Period EndingSeptember 30, 2004 of The Detroit Edison Company;  2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untruestatement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessaryto make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under whichsuch statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report;  3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and otherfinancial information included in this report, fairly present in allmaterial respects the financial condition, results of operations andcash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented inthis report;  4. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsiblefor establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (asdefined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for theregistrant and have:
 a. Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, orcaused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designedunder our supervision, to ensure that material informationrelating to the registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within thoseentities, particularly during the period in which this report isbeing prepared;  b. (Intentionally omitted)  c. Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’sdisclosure controls and procedures and presented in this reportour conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosurecontrols and procedures, as of the end of the period covered bythis report based on such evaluation; and  d. Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting that occurred duringthe registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter that has materiallyaffected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, theregistrant’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 financialreporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of theregistrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions):
 a. All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses inthe design or operation of internal control over financialreporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect theregistrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and reportfinancial information; and  b. Any fraud, whether or not material, that involvesmanagement or other employees who have a significant role in theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting.
/s/ DAVID E. MEADOR Date: November 4, 2004    David E. Meador  Senior Vice President and  Chief Financial Officer of The Detroit Edison Company
-       - Superintendent of Documents
      - 2023-08-30T19:09:05-0400
      - Government Publishing Office, Washington, DC 20401
      - Government Publishing Office
      - Government Publishing Office attests that this document has not been altered since it was disseminated by Government Publishing Office
#### §§ 550.187-550.193 [Reserved]
Editorial Note on Part 75
Editorial Note: The provisions of this part marked [Statutory Provision] appear in Title III of the Federal Coal Mine Health and Safety Act of 1969.

§ 75.324 Intentional changes in the ventilation system. ( a ) A person designated by the operator shall supervise any intentional change in ventilation that— ( 1 ) Alters the main air current or any split of the main air current in a manner that could materially affect the safety or health of persons in the mine; or
( 2 ) Affects section ventilation by 9,000 cubic feet per minute of air or more in bituminous or lignite mines, or 5,000 cubic feet per minute of air or more in anthracite mines.
( b ) Intentional changes shall be made only under the following conditions: ( 1 ) Electric power shall be removed from areas affected by the ventilation change and mechanized equipment in those areas shall be shut off before the ventilation change begins.
( 2 ) Only persons making the change in ventilation shall be in the mine.
( 3 ) Electric power shall not be restored to the areas affected by the ventilation change and mechanized equipment shall not be restarted until a certified person has examined these areas for methane accumulation and for oxygen deficiency and has determined that the areas are safe.