alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
1.
    
    I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K/A (Amendment No. 1) of Blue Dolphin Energy
Company (the Registrant).2.
    
    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
periods covered by this report;3.
    
    Based on my knowledge, the financial statements and other financial information included in
this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of
operations and cash flows of the Registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this
report;4.
    
    The Registrants other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and
maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and
15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules
13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the Registrant and we have:
     5.
    
    The Registrants other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent
evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the Registrants auditors and the
audit committee of the Registrants board of directors:
    /s/ Ivar SiemIvar SiemChairman and Chief Executive Officer (Principal Executive Officer)
Amendment to Letter Agreement dated November 21, 2003



 Exhibit 10.58 
  
 Addendum of Offer of Employment 
  
 David Johnston 
  
 November 21, 2003 
  
 Dear David, 
  
 This letter is to inform you of an addendum to your Offer of Employment signed in November 2003, with Nektar Therapeutics. 
  
 In addition to all other terms and agreements provided in your signed Offer of Employment and
to assist you with your relocation to the San Francisco Bay Area, Nektar agrees to provide you with a second move of household goods from your apartment in Boston, MA to your new permanent residence in the San Francisco Bay Area. Up to 12 months
storage in transit will also be offered with this shipment. 
  
 Per the terms of
the Nektar relocation policy supplied to you in your original Offer of Employment, in the event that you should voluntarily terminate your employment with Nektar or be terminated other than “without cause” by Nektar within one (1) year
after this relocation expense has incurred on your behalf, you agree to repay the pro-rated relocation dollars. (Including all expenses and closing costs that were directly billed to Nektar). 
  
 All other terms and conditions of your Offer of Employment are and will remain in effect.

  
 Sincerely, 
  

			
	 /s/ EG Frisby


	
	Elizabeth G. Frisby
	Vice President, Human Resources
	
	OFFER ACCEPTED:
		
	 /s/ David Johnston

	 	 12/11/03


	David Johnston	 	Date
#### PIRONG, Respondent, v. SOLVAY PROCESS CO., Appellant.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department.

May 16, 1906.)

Action by Jacob PirOng against the Solvay Process Company.

PER CURIAM.

Judgment and order affirmed, with costs.

.McLennan, P. J., and NASH, j., dissent.
#### Marshall’s Administrator *vs. Cox.*

Covenant Case 31.

Error to the Montgomery Circuit; S. W. Roeeins, Judge.

*Absolute bill of sale. Mortgage.*

if a t,ju 0f sale absolute ^oofef UI1 agreement of the parties, *134not h■'iisiitcti to pro\e it condí'imuil; lari less it have been procured to be ox**» uted Urn’ fraud, or mistake.

*133April 4.

Judge Nicholas,

delivered the opinion oí’ the court.

Cox conveyed to Marshall two slaves by absolute bill of sale, and after the death of the latter, filed this bill against the. administrator of Marshall, alleging that the bill of sale was in-intended to operate only as a mortgage to secure certain debts and liabilities from Cox to Marshall, *134The a»!niini«trator denies the allegations of the bill. It is not alleged or jirov ed that the bill of sale was made absolute on its fa. e through fraud 01 mistake.

*A. Davis*for plaintiff.

I he circuit court, on parol p.p-of of the understanding and agreement of tli<‘ 5 •--ríe', treated the bill of sale a" a mortgage, anil decreed a surrender of the slaves to Coy.

The case cones completely within the principle settled in Thompson *vs.*Patton, V Litt. 74.

The decree is, therefore, reversed, the cause remanded to the circuit court, the bill to he there dismissed at the complainant's costs The plaintiff in error to recover his costs in this coürt.
#### § 1784.9 Grant amount.

Grants will be made for up to 75 percent of the project development and/or construction costs, which does not include project administrative costs. Pursuant to 7 U.S.C. 1926d, the State of Alaska shall provide 25 percent in matching funds from non-Federal sources.
<PAGE>




                                                                      Exhibit 23




                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS


         We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration
statement of Aloette Cosmetics, Inc. and Subsidiaries on Form S-8 (File No.
33-4918) of our report dated February 13, 1997, on our audits of the
consolidated financial statements and financial statement schedule of Aloette
Cosmetics, Inc. and Subsidiaries as of December 31, 1996 and 1995 and for the
years ended December 31, 1996, 1995 and 1994, which report is included in this
Form 10-KSB.

Coopers & Lybrand L.L.P.
2400 Eleven Penn Center
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
March 27, 1997
EXHIBIT 11-1

THE NAVIGATORS GROUP, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES

COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE EARNINGS

Earnings Per Share of Common Stock and Common Stock Equivalents

($ in thousands, except per share data)

|                                                                   |  | Year Ended December 31,
|------------------------------------------------------------------ |  | -----------------------
|
|Net income applicable to common stock                              |  | $                      
|Average number of common shares outstanding                        |  |                        
|Net income per shareBasic                                         |  | $                      
|Average number of common shares outstanding                        |  |                        
|Add: Assumed exercise of stock options and vesting of stock grants |  |                        
|                                                                   |  |                        
|Common and common equivalent shares outstanding                    |  |                        
|                                                                   |  |                        
|Net income per shareDiluted                                       |  | $                      

---
```

[109th Congress Public Law 211]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office]

[DOCID: f:publ211.109]

[[Page 120 STAT. 320]]

Public Law 109-211
109th Congress

                                 An Act

 
  To extend the educational flexibility program under section 4 of the 
    Education Flexibility Partnership Act of 1999. <<NOTE: Mar. 24, 
                          2006 -  [S. 2363]>> 

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

SECTION 1. <<NOTE: 20 USC 5891b note.>> EDUCATIONAL FLEXIBILITY PROGRAM 
            EXTENSION.

    (a) Extension Authority.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
law, the Secretary of Education is authorized to carry out the 
educational flexibility program under section 4 of the Education 
Flexibility Partnership Act of 1999 (20 U.S.C. 5891b), until the date of 
enactment of an Act that reauthorizes programs under part A of title I 
of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 6311 et 
seq.), for any State that was an Ed-Flex Partnership State on September 
30, 2004.
    (b) Designation.--
            (1) In general.--Any designation of a State as an Ed-Flex 
        Partnership State that was in effect on September 30, 2004, 
        shall be extended until the date of enactment of an Act that 
        reauthorizes programs under part A of title I of the Elementary 
        and Secondary Education Act of 1965, if the Secretary of 
        Education makes the determination described in paragraph (2).
            (2) Determination.--The determination referred to in 
        paragraph (1) is a determination that the performance of the 
        State educational agency, in carrying out the programs for which 
        the State has received a waiver under the educational 
        flexibility program, justifies the extension of the designation.

    Approved March 24, 2006.

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY--S. 2363:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 152 (2006):
            Mar. 2, considered and passed Senate.
            Mar. 14, considered and passed House.

                                  <all>
```
#### Josephine Aversa, Appellant, v. Walter M. Ruhtz et al., Respondents.

*Per Curiam.*

There is some indication that the trial court had not intended the dismissal, upon plaintiff’s attorney’s failure to appear at the time fixed for trial, to be upon the merits; at the most, the trial court, when asked, failed to make clear whether or not that was its intent. In any event, and under all the circumstances, we conclude that proper exercise of the trial court’s discretion required dismissal on terms (CPLR 3216) and that the orders and judgment appealed from should be modified, on the law and the facts and in the exercise of discretion, by deleting therefrom the provisions for dismissal upon the merits and so as to provide that such dismissal be without prejudice to the commencement of a new action for the same cause upon payment of defendants’ costs and disbursements in the prior action, including costs upon this appeal; and, as so modified, affirmed. The circumstances were somewhat unusual and our conclusion does not by any means suggest a policy that dismissals should not be upon the merits in cases more aggravated than this. Gibson, P. J., Herlihy, Reynolds, Aulisi and Hamm, JJ., concur.
Skip Links

USGS HomeContact USGSSearch USGS

U.S. Geological Survey Geologic Investigations Series I–2662

Pubs Warehouse

# Map Showing Quaternary Geology and Geomorphology of the Granite Park Area, Grand Canyon, Arizona

#### By Richard Hereford, Kelly J. Burke, and Kathryn S. Thompson

#### 2000

Last modified March 21, 2012 First posted July 20, 2000

-  **Map** PDF (~39" x ~42"; 7 MB) 

- This report is also available in print from:    USGS Information Services, Box 25286,   Federal Center, Denver, CO 80225  telephone: 888 ASK-USGS; e-mail:  infoservices@usgs.gov 

**For additional information:**Contact Information, Western Region Geology and Geophysics Science Center—Menlo ParkU.S. Geological Survey345 Middlefield Road, MS-973Menlo Park, CA 94025-3591http://geomaps.wr.usgs.gov/

This report is presented in Portable Document Format (PDF); the latest version of Adobe Reader or similar software is required to view it. Download the latest version of Adobe Reader, free of charge.

----

### Suggested citation:

Hereford, R., Burke, K.J., and Thompson, K.S., 2000, Map showing Quaternary geology and geomorphology of the Granite Park area, Grand Canyon, Arizona:  U.S. Geological Survey Geologic Investigations Series I–2662, scale 2,000, available at https://pubs.usgs.gov/imap/i2662/.

----

AccessibilityFOIAPrivacyPolicies and Notices

U.S. Department of the Interior |            U.S. Geological Survey           	URL: *http://pubsdata.usgs.gov/pubs/imap/i2662/index.html*            Page Contact Information: GS Pubs Web Contact           	Page Last Modified: Wednesday, 30-Nov-2016 17:39:06 EST
BILL OF COSTS

TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, SEVENTH DISTRICT, AT AMARILLO

No. 07-14-00050-CV

Dennis Helbert, Individually and as Independent

Executor of the Estate of Norma Irene Helbert

v.

Gary Helbert

(No. B36605-0904 IN 242ND DISTRICT COURT OF HALE COUNTY)

Type of Fee Charges Paid By

Motion fee

Motion fee

Motion fee

Statewide efiling fee

Indigent

Filing

Supreme Court chapter 51 fee $10.00

$10.00

$10.00

$20.00

$25.00

$100.00

$50.00 E-PAID

E-PAID

E-PAID

E-PAID

E-PAID

E-PAID

E-PAID Stephen E Haynes

Stephen E Haynes

Melanie Calfin

Stephen E Haynes

Stephen E Haynes

Stephen E Haynes

Stephen E Haynes

Balance of costs owing to the Seventh Court of Appeals, Amarillo, Texas: $0.00

Court costs in this cause shall be paid as per

the Judgment issued by this Court.

I, VIVIAN LONG, CLERK OF THE SEVENTH COURT OF APPEALS OF THE

STATE OF TEXAS, do hereby certify that the above and foregoing is a true and correct copy of

the cost bill of THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS,

showing the charges and payments, in the above numbered and styled cause, as the same appears

of record in this office.

IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, witness my hand

and the Seal of the COURT OF APPEALS for the

Seventh District of Texas on March 10, 2015

.



# Vivian Long

VIVIAN LONG, CLERK
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Justice

###### Antitrust Division

                    Notice is hereby given that, on October 14, 2010, pursuant to Section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301*et seq.*                     (“the Act”), Open SystemC Initiative (“OSCI”) has filed written notifications simultaneously with the Attorney General and the Federal Trade Commission disclosing changes in its membership. The notifications were filed for the purpose of extending the Act's provisions limiting the recovery of antitrust plaintiffs to actual damages under specified circumstances. Specifically, Kasura Technologies Private Limited, Bangalore, INDIA, has been added as a party to this venture.                

                    No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned activity of the group research project. Membership in this group research project remains open, and OSCI intends                           ( print page 70031)                        to file additional written notifications disclosing all changes in membership.                

                    On October 9, 2001, OSCI filed its original notification pursuant to Section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice published a notice in the                     **Federal Register**                     pursuant to Section 6(b) of the Act on January 3, 2002 (67 FR 350).                

                    The last notification was filed with the Department on June 4, 2010. A notice was published in the                     **Federal Register**                     pursuant to Section 6(b) of the Act on July 14, 2010 (75 FR 40852)                

Patricia A. Brink,

Deputy Director of Operations, Antitrust Division.

[FR Doc. 2010-28559 Filed 11-15-10; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4410-11-M
Exhibit 21.1
                                                                    ------------




List of Subsidiaries of Blue Dolphin Energy Company:


o    Blue Dolphin Exploration Company, a Delaware corporation,

o    American Resources, subsidiary of Blue Dolphin Exploration;

o    Blue Dolphin Pipe Line Company, a Delaware corporation;

o    Blue Dolphin Services Co., a Texas corporation;

o    New Avoca Gas Storage,  LLC, a Texas limited liability company in which the
     Company owns a 25% interest;

o    Petroport, Inc., a Delaware corporation; and

o    Drillmar,  Inc., a Delaware  corporation in which the Company owns a 12.8 %
     interest.
§ 1776.16 Loan servicing. ( a ) If RUS determines that DWS loans may be serviced by CSC, then the grant recipient will enter into an agreement with the Centralized Servicing Center for servicing all DWS loans made from the revolving loan fund. All DWS loan payments will be received by and processed at the Centralized Servicing Center. The grant recipient will be charged a fee for this service, and such fee should be included in the projected financial statements and work plan submitted as part of the grant application. This fee may be reimbursed as an administrative expense as provided in § 1776.13.
( b ) If RUS determines that CSC is not able to service DWS loans, then the grant recipient shall be responsible for servicing, or causing to be serviced, all DWS loans. Servicing will include preparing loan agreements, processing loan payments, reviewing financial statements and debt reserves balances, and other responsibilities such as enforcement of loan terms. Loan servicing will be in accordance with the work plan RUS approved when the grant was awarded. It will continue as long as any loan made in whole or in part with RUS grant funds is outstanding.
Exhibit 99.2
                                                                    ------------

                            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 Annual Report of Blue Dolphin  Energy  Company (the
"Company") on Form 10-KSB for the period ended December 31, 2002 (the "Report"),
as filed with the Securities and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof,  I, G.
Brian Lloyd, Vice President,  Treasurer  (Principal  Accounting  Officer) of the
Company,  certify,  pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.1350, as adopted pursuant to ss.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, as amended; 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/ G. Brian Lloyd
-------------------
G. Brian Lloyd
Vice President, Treasurer



March 21, 2003
**Exhibit32.1**

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

The undersigned, the Chief Executive Officer andChairman of the Board of Gladstone Investment Corporation (the “Company”), herebycertifies on the date hereof, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350(a), as adoptedpursuant to Section 906 of The Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the QuarterlyReport on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended December 31, 2006 (“Form 10-Q”),filed concurrently herewith by the Company, fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Actof 1934, as amended, and that the information contained in the Form 10-Q fairlypresents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results ofoperations of the Company.

Dated: February 5, 2007
| /s/ David Gladstone                |   |   |
|------------------------------------|--------|--------|
| David Gladstone                    |   |   |
| Chief Executive Officer and        |   |   |
| Chairman of the Board of Directors |   |   |

 

1

----
#### Sheree L. Yong Chang, Respondent, v James Min Chi Chang, Appellant.

— In a matrimonial action, the defendant husband appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County, dated March 28, 1979, which, after a nonjury trial, *inter alia,*(1) granted plaintiff a divorce based on cruel and inhuman treatment, (2) awarded plaintiff custody of the parties’ two children and ordered the defendant to pay plaintiff $40 per week for the support of each child, and (3) awarded plaintiff a counsel fee of $1,500. Judgment affirmed, with costs. The record amply supports Special Term’s findings. The issue was solely one of credibility and Special Term was in the best position to determine that issue. Mollen, P. J., Lazer, Gibbons and Margett, JJ., concur.
(December 14, 1966)

#### In the Matter of Frances Kahn, Petitioner, v. Supreme Court of the County of New York et al., Respondents.

Petition dated December 9, 1966, pursuant to CPLR article 78 dismissed, without costs or disbursements. Attention of counsel is called to section 722-e of the County Law. Concur -—Botein, P. J., Breitel, Rabin, Steuer and Capozzoli, JJ.
§ 1739.11 Eligible Community Connect Competitive Grant Project. To be eligible for a Community Connect competitive grant, the Project must: ( a ) Serve a PFSA in which Broadband Service does not currently exist;
( b ) Offer service at the Broadband Grant Speed to all residential and business customers within the PFSA ;
( c ) Offer free service at the Broadband Grant Speed to all Critical Community Facilities located within the PFSA for at least 2 years starting from the time service becomes available to each Critical Community Facility;
( d ) Provide a Community Center with at least two (2) Computer Access Points and wireless access at the Broadband Grant Speed, free of all charges to all users for at least 2 years; and
( e ) Not overlap with the service areas of current RUS borrowers and grantees.
118 So.2d 130

#### STATE of Louisiana v. R. H. PERRY.

No. 44956.

Feb. 15, 1960.

W. Sartis Bassett, Oak Grove, for defendant-appellant.

Jack P. F. Gremillion, Atty. Gen., M. E. Culligan, Asst. Atty. Gen., Carey J. Ellis, Jr., Dist, Atty., Rayville, James D. McIntosh, Asst. Dist. Atty., Oak Grove, for appellee.

HAWTHORNE, Justice.

Appellant, charged with the crime of extortion denounced by R.S. 14:66, was placed on trial before a jury, convicted of attempted extortion, and sentenced to a term in the penitentiary. From this conviction and sentence he has perfected this appeal.

During the course of the proceeding in the court below several bills of exception were reserved and perfected. On the day the case was fixed for argument before this court, however, appellant made no appear*133anee in person or through counsel, and no brief has been filed in his behalf. Under these circumstances the hills of exception are considered to be abandoned. State v. De Soto, 221 La. 624, 60 So.2d 65; State v. Weaver, 222 La. 148, 62 So.2d 255; State v. Carter, 226 La. 57, 74 So.2d 902; State v. Brumfield, 226 La. 103, 75 So.2d 23. This appeal therefore presents nothing for our consideration except a determination of whether there is error patent on the face of the record. The record in the instant case shows no such error, and accordingly the conviction and sentence will be affirmed.

For the reasons assigned the conviction and sentence are affirmed.