alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 10.125


 


NaturalNano, Inc.


11 Schoen Place, Sixth Floor


Pittsford, NY 14534


 


November 14, 2012


Longview Special Finance, Inc.


150 Central Park South


2nd
Floor


New York, NY 10019


 


Ladies and Gentlemen:


 


This letter shall serve as the agreement
and promise of NaturalNano, Inc. (the "Company") to pay to the order of Longview Special Finance ("Longview"),
the sum of $2,500 plus interest at 8% per annum. The Company acknowledges that Longview has advanced $2,500 in funds at the Company's
request, and the Company's obligations hereunder shall be secured by all other collateral that secures the various senior secured
promissory notes that the Company has previously issued to Longview. In the event the Company fails to repay Longview in accordance
with the terms of this letter, Longview should be entitled to exercise all rights granted to it as a secured creditor pursuant
to the Security Agreements (as defined in the 8% Senior Secured Promissory Note issued to Longview by the Company on or about November
5, 2008).


 


All payments under or pursuant to this Note
shall be made in United States Dollars, in immediately available funds, to Longview at the address set forth above or at such other
place as Longview may designate from time to time in writing to the Company or by wire transfer of funds to Longview's account,
as requested by Longview. The outstanding principal balance of this Note, together with all accrued and unpaid interest, shall
be due and payable in full on January 31, 2013.


 


Very truly yours,


 


Natural Nano, Inc.


 





 


Name: James Wemett


Title: CEO
§ 1709.21 Audit requirements. The grantee shall provide the Agency with an audit for each year, beginning with the year in which a portion of the financial assistance is expended, in accordance with the following: ( a ) If the recipient is a for-profit entity, an electric or telecommunications cooperative, or any other entity not covered by the definition of “non-Federal entity” in 2 CFR 200.1, the recipient shall provide an independent audit report in accordance with 7 CFR part 1773 and the grant agreement.
( b ) If the recipient is a non-Federal entity, as defined in 2 CFR 200.1, the recipient shall provide an audit in accordance with subpart F of 2 CFR part 200.
[70 FR 5351, Feb. 2, 2005, as amended at 79 FR 76002, Dec. 19, 2014; 88 FR 7561, Feb. 6, 2023]
§ 1755.502 Scope. ( a ) Sections 1755.503 through 1755.510 cover approved methods of making service installations at customer access locations in telecommunications systems of RUS borrowers.
( b ) Requirements in §§ 1755.503 through 1755.510 cover facilities of the type described in the FCC rules in 47 CFR part 68 for one and multi-party customer owned premises wiring.
[66 FR 43317, Aug. 17, 2001]
NASA LogoNTRSNTRS - NASA Technical Reports ServerSearchmore_vertCollectionsAboutNewsHelpLogin Back to ResultsSuspension systems for ground testing large space structuresA research program is documented for the development of improved suspension techniques for ground vibration testing of large, flexible space structures. The suspension system must support the weight of the structure and simultaneously allow simulation of the unconstrained rigid-body movement as in the space environment. Exploratory analytical and experimental studies were conducted for suspension systems designed to provide minimum vertical, horizontal, and rotational degrees of freedom. The effects of active feedback control added to the passive system were also investigated. An experimental suspension apparatus was designed, fabricated, and tested. This test apparatus included a zero spring rate mechanism (ZSRM) designed to support a range of weights from 50 to 300 lbs and provide vertical suspension mode frequencies less than 0.1 Hz. The lateral suspension consisted of a pendulum suspended from a moving cart (linear bearing) which served to increase the effective length of the pendulum. The torsion suspension concept involved dual pendulum cables attached from above to a pivoting support (bicycle wheel). A simple test structure having variable weight and stiffness characteristics was used to simulate the vibration characteristics of a large space structure. The suspension hardware for the individual degrees of freedom was analyzed and tested separately and then combined to achieve a 3 degree of freedom suspension system. Results from the exploratory studies should provide useful guidelines for the development of future suspension systems for ground vibration testing of large space structures.Document ID19900020108Acquisition SourceLegacy CDMSDocument TypeContractor Report (CR)AuthorsGold, Ronald R.*(Dynamic Engineering, Inc., Newport News VA., United States)*Friedman, Inger P.*(Dynamic Engineering, Inc., Newport News VA., United States)*Reed, Wilmer H., III*(Dynamic Engineering, Inc., Newport News VA., United States)*Hallauer, W. L.*(Virginia Polytechnic Inst. and State Univ. Blacksburg., United States)*Date AcquiredSeptember 6, 2013Publication DateOctober 1, 1990Publication InformationPublisher: NASASubject CategorySpacecraft Design, Testing And PerformanceReport/Patent NumberNASA-CR-4325D-377NAS 1.26:4325Accession Number90N29424Funding Number(s)CONTRACT_GRANT: NAS1-18798PROJECT: RTOP 585-01-91-01Distribution LimitsPublicCopyrightWork of the US Gov. Public Use Permitted.Available DownloadsNameType19900020108.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
49–008 

109TH CONGRESS REPORT " ! HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 2d Session 109–466 

WAIVING A REQUIREMENT OF CLAUSE 6(A) OF RULE XIII WITH RESPECT 

TO THE SAME DAY CONSIDERATION OF CERTAIN RESOLUTIONS REPORTED BY THE RULES COMMITTEE 

MAY 16, 2006.—Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed 

Mr. PUTNAM, from the Committee on Rules, 

submitted the following 

R E P O R T 

[To accompany H. Res. 815] 

The Committee on Rules, having had under consideration House 

Resolution 815, by a nonrecord vote, report the same to the House 

with the recommendation that the resolution be adopted. 

SUMMARY OF PROVISIONS OF THE RESOLUTION

The resolution waives clause 6(a) of rule XIII (requiring a twothirds vote to consider a rule on the same day it is reported from 

the Rules Committee) against certain resolutions reported from the 

Rules Committee. The resolution applies the waiver to any resolution reported on the legislative day of May 17, 2006 providing for 

consideration of the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 376) establishing the congressional budget for the United States Government 

for fiscal year 2007 and setting forth appropriate budgetary levels 

for fiscal years 2008 through 2011, or addressing budget enforcement or priorities. 

Æ 


ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with HEARING
#### § 1726.253 Prior approved contract modification related to alternative bid provision for payment to contractor for bulk purchase of materials.

When construction is to be performed over an extended period of time, but large quantities of material are to be purchased by the contractor at the beginning of the project (e.g., cable for URD installations), the borrower may allow alternative bids providing for payment to the contractor of 90 percent of the cost of such materials within 30 days of delivery of those materials at the job site. The borrower will retain the right to award the contract with or without the alternative payment provision, however, the contract still must be awarded on the basis of the lowest evaluated responsive bid for the alternative accepted.
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk's Office, Atlanta, August 13, 2019.

I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes 

of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto 

affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

Court of Appeals 

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA, August 13, 2019

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order

A20D0007. EJIMAH NWACHUKWU v. LAUREN FERGUSON.

Upon consideration of the Application for Discretionary Appeal, it is ordered that it be 

hereby DENIED.

LC NUMBERS:

16A02205 16A00671 16A01390
```

[109th Congress Public Law 199]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office]

[DOCID: f:publ199.109]

[[Page 120 STAT. 307]]

Public Law 109-199
109th Congress

                                 An Act

 
To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 
   545 North Rimsdale Avenue in Covina, California, as the ``Lillian 
  Kinkella Keil Post Office''. <<NOTE: Mar. 20, 2006 -  [H.R. 4053]>> 

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

SECTION 1. DESIGNATION.

     The facility of the United States Postal Service located at 545 
North Rimsdale Avenue in Covina, California, shall be known and 
designated as the ``Lillian Kinkella Keil Post Office''.

SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

    Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, paper, or other 
record of the United States to the facility referred to in section 1 
shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Lillian Kinkella Keil Post 
Office''.

    Approved March 20, 2006.

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY--H.R. 4053:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD:
                                                        Vol. 151 (2005):
                                    Nov. 8, considered and passed House.
                                                        Vol. 152 (2006):
                                    Mar. 3, considered and passed 
                                        Senate.

                                  <all>
```
#### WASHINGTON TRUST CO. OF CITY OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. MORSE IRON WORKS & DRY DOCK CO. et al., Appellants.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.

October 15, 1906.)

Action by the Washington Trust Company of the city of New York against the Morse Iron Works & Dry Dock Company and others.

No opinion. Motion for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals granted; questions to be settled before JENKS, J.
§ 1780.42 Transfer of obligations. An obligation of funds established for an applicant may be transferred to a different (substituted) applicant provided: ( a ) The substituted applicant is eligible and has the authority to receive the assistance approved for the original applicant; and
( b ) The need, purpose(s) and scope of the project for which RUS funds will be used remain substantially unchanged.
EXHIBIT 10.33

               CONVERSION ELECTION LETTER DATED NOVEMBER 13, 2006
                             FROM MICHAEL A. BOWDEN






<PAGE>

                               Michael A. Bowden
                                2945 Yates Street
                             Denver, Colorado 80212




November 13, 2006


China Wireless Communications, Inc.
Attn:  Board of Directors
1746 Cole Boulevard, Suite 225
Golden, Colorado 80401

Subject:  Election to Convert Note to Michael Bowden

Dear Members of the Board:

At this  time,  I would  like  to  request  conversion  of my  Convertible  Note
Subscription  Agreement  (#4),  dated as of August  1,  2005,  in the  amount of
$10,000.00 plus interest due December 31, 2006 to common stock of China Wireless
Communications, Inc. according to the terms of the Note.

Sincerely,


/s/ MICHAEL A. BOWDEN
|  |  |  |  |  |
|--|--|--|--|--|
|  |  |  |  |

  Pennsylvania

> - Philadelphia
- Philadelphia II
- Pittsburgh Homestead/Hazelwood
- Pittsburgh East Liberty
- Pittsburgh Homewood
- West Philadelphia
- North Philadelphia

----
----

----

|   | (1) | The      Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the      Securities Exchange Act of 1934;and |
|--------|-----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | (2) | The      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material      respects, the consolidated financial condition of the Company as of the      dates presented and the consolidated result of operations of the Company      for the periods presented. |
|--------|-----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Dated:      September 22, 2008                                                                |   |   |   |
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|--------|--------|
|  /s/      Yijun Wang                                                                          |   |   |   |
| Yijun      WangChief      Executive Officer, President, Director(Principal      Executive Officer) |

----
Exhibit 10(o)


THE GILLETTE COMPANY FINANCIAL PLANNING
REIMBURSEMENT PROGRAM
REVISED OCTOBER 2004



	 	 	 
	Eligibility	 	Each executive of the Company who (i) is generally treated as a United States employee for employment and benefit purposes, (ii) is not eligible for the Company’s Senior Executive Financial Planning Program, and (iii) is either a grade level 25 or above, or holds any of the following By-Law officer positions in The Gillette Company:  Vice President, Internal Auditor, Patent and Trademark Counsel, or Secretary.
		 	 
	Program Benefit	 	Reimbursement by Company of financial counseling, estate planning, tax preparation, retirement and other related financial planning services for the participant and his/her spouse, domestic partner or dependent children.
		 	 
	Available Providers	 	Any qualified tax, financial, legal or similar firm selected by participant.
		 	 
	Excluded Services	 	Brokerage or other investment transaction fees; asset management fees; insurance premiums; services for individuals other than participant, his/her spouse or domestic partner and dependent children.
		 	 
	Maximum Benefit	 	During employment: $5,000 of reimbursements received in any calendar year.
		 	 
		 	Following retirement under a Company-sponsored retirement plan:  $3,000 of reimbursements received in any calendar year, over the participant’s life.
		 	 
	Tax Effects	 	Program benefits received by participant will be includable in compensation.  The participant is responsible for applicable Federal and State income taxes and FICA taxes.
		 	 
	Termination of Participation	 	Last day of calendar year in which participant ceases to be an eligible executive, unless participant qualifies for retirement benefits under this program.
		 	 
	Program Amendment and Termination	 	At discretion of the Company, by action of the Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors, without requirement of advance notice.
		 	 
	Effective Date	 	January 1, 1999 (for eligible executives on or after such date).
§ 1753.16 Architectural services. ( a ) The borrower shall be responsible for selecting an architect to perform the architectural services required in the design and construction of buildings.
( b ) ( 1 ) The borrower shall use Form 220 when contracting for architectural services for major construction, except that the borrower may use either Form 220 or Form 217 if the building is an unattended central office building.
( 2 ) The borrower and the architect negotiate the fees for services under Form 220.
( 3 ) Reasonable modifications or additions to the terms and provisions in Form 220 may be made, subject to RUS approval, to obtain the specific services needed for a building.
( 4 ) ( i ) Three copies of Form 220, executed by the borrower and the architect, shall be sent to GFR to be forwarded to RUS for approval. RUS will review the contract terms and conditions. RUS will not approve the contract if, in RUS's judgment: ( A ) Unacceptable modifications have been made to the contract form.
( B ) The contract will not accomplish loan purposes.
( C ) The architectural service fees are unreasonable.
( D ) The contract presents unacceptable loan security risk to RUS.
( ii ) If RUS approves the contract, RUS will send one copy to the architect and one copy to the borrower.
( 5 ) Loan funds will not be available to pay for the preliminary architectural services if a loan is not made for the construction project, or if the construction project is abandoned.
( 6 ) Subpart D of 7 CFR part 1753 sets forth the requirements and procedures to be followed by borrowers constructing central office, warehouse, and garage buildings with RUS loan funds.
( c ) ( 1 ) RUS telephone borrowers shall obtain two copies of a completed Form 284, Final Statement of Architect's Fees, when all services and obligations required under the architectural services contract have been completed. All fees shown on the statement shall be supported by detailed information where appropriate. For example: out-of-pocket expense, cost plus, and per diem types of compensation shall be listed separately with labor, transportation, etc., itemized for each service involving these types of compensation.
( 2 ) If Form 284 and supporting data are satisfactory, the borrower shall approve the statement, sign both copies, and send one copy to the GFR.
( 3 ) Upon approval of Form 284 by RUS, the borrower shall promptly make final payment to the architect.
[54 FR 3984, Jan. 27, 1989. Redesignated at 55 FR 39397, Sept. 27, 1990, as amended at 59 FR 43717, Aug. 25, 1994; 64 FR 16606, Apr. 6, 1999]
Exhibit 13.1

Wipro Limited

Certification of
Principal Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,

As adopted pursuant to

Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

I, Azim H. Premji, Executive Chairman and Managing Director of Wipro Limited, hereinafter referred to as the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C
Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:



| | (i) | the Annual Report of the Company on Form 20-F for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2016, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
| | --- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (ii) | information contained in such Annual Report on Form 20-F fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| | ---- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



/s/ Azim H. PremjiAzim H. Premji Executive Chairman and
Managing Director (Principal Executive Officer)


I, Jatin Pravinchandra Dalal, Chief Financial Officer of Wipro Limited, hereinafter referred to as the Company, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:



| | (i) | the Annual Report of the Company on Form 20-F for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2016, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
| | --- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (ii) | information contained in such Annual Report on Form 20-F fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| | ---- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



/s/ Jatin Pravinchandra DalalJatin Pravinchandra Dalal Chief
Financial Officer (Principal Financial Officer)


Date: May 26, 2016
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v James L. Chambers, Appellant.

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, rendered March 6, 1972, convicting him of murder, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. Judgment reversed, on the law and as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, and new trial ordered. The defendant was convicted of the murder of one Donald Perl, who was shot as he was assisting the defendant’s sister in her efforts to leave her paramour, Watson Nesbit. Defendant’s sister was also shot and it was the theory of the defense that Nesbit had committed the crimes. The prosecution’s case, although legally sufficient, was not overwhelming and was largely dependent upon admissions which the defendant, age 16 at the time of the shooting, had made to his former girlfriend and to members of her family. Reversal is mandated because the defendant was denied a fair trial. In instructing the jury, the trial court unduly emphasized the prosecution’s theory of the case, without any significant reference to the evidence adduced on behalf of the defendant. Although a court need not catalogue all of the evidence introduced and is under no obligation to marshal the evidence except as required to relate it to the applicable law (CPL 300.10), to the extent that a court does refer to the evidence, such reference must be done in an even-handed manner *(People v Bell,*38 NY2d 116, 120). Particularly flagrant examples are the court’s charge on the issues of flight, motive and the evaluation of the credibility of witnesses. In this latter instruction the court referred only to the defendant, noting that he had been convicted of a robbery with sexual overtones, without any reference to the suspect credibility of some of the prosecution witnesses. Also improper was the court’s lengthy explanation that the defendant could have subpoenaed police records and officers for the purpose of preparing the case. Such an instruction was largely unnecessary and tended to distract the jury from the important issues, as well as suggest that the defendant had some burden of coming forward. Although the defendant’s other arguments on appeal are insubstantial, the prejudicial effect of the court’s charge requires that the defendant be granted a new trial. Hopkins, J. P., Mangano, Rabin and Gulotta, JJ., concur.
[if !vml]>[endif]>
[if !vml]>[endif]>
You havereached the Federal Depository Library Program Electronic Collection (FDLP/EC)Archive. This archive assures ongoing access to publications in the FDLP/EC.Access to publications in the archive is available through GPO's suite ofcataloging and locator services, including the Catalog of U.S. GovernmentPublications.  Archived copies of publications are retrieved in the eventthat publications are no longer available from the original publishing agencysite. (Historical purposes)
**Title:****Interfaces forPersonal Identity Verification**** 
SuDocNumber:C13.10:800-73-1
ItemNumber:0247(online)
CGPsystem Number:000591241
 
Report
Errata
 **