alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit
10.16


CANCELLATION
AGREEMENT and ASSIGNMENT


THIS CANCELLATION
AGREEMENT and ASSIGNMENT is made as of the 27th day of April 2006 between Isonics Corporation (“Isonics”), a California corporation
whose principal place of business is 5906 McIntyre Street, Golden, CO 80403, IUT Detection Technologies, Inc. (“IUTDT”), a Colorado
corporation whose address is identical to Isonics, and Institut für
Umwelttechnologien GmbH (“IUT”), a company duly organized and
existing under the laws of the Federal Republic of Germany and having its
office at Volmerstrasse 9 B, D-12489 Berlin-Adlershof, Federal Republic of
Germany.


RECITALS


A.             Isonics and IUT entered into an
Agreement dated December 4, 2002 for research and development activities (the “2002
Agreement”), which agreement Isonics intended to and did assign to IUTDT; and


B.             IUTDT and IUT entered into a
Confidential Research and Development Agreement dated June 8, 2004 (the “2004
Agreement”).


C.             The parties desire to cancel and
terminate both the 2002 Agreement and the 2004 Agreement, and to replace such
agreements with a new agreement being entered into simultaneously herewith
between IUT and Isonics Homeland Security & Defense Corporation, a Delaware
corporation (the “2005 Agreement”).


NOW THEREFORE, it
is hereby agreed that, subject to IUT and Isonics Homeland Security &
Defense Corporation entering into the 2005 Agreement:


1.             Isonics
and IUTDT each hereby assign all of their rights, interest, assets, and other
things of value owned, received or that may be received under the 2002
Agreement and the 2004 Agreement to Isonics Homeland Security & Defense
Corporation; and


2.             Isonics,
IUTDT, and IUT each further agree that:


(i)                                     The
2002 Agreement be and hereby is cancelled and terminated and is of no further
force or effect;


(ii)                                  The
2004 Agreement be and hereby is cancelled and terminated and is of no further
force or effect; and


(iii)                               Each of the undersigned
releases each other from any obligations remaining due under either the 2002
Agreement or the 2004 Agreement.


(Signatures on the following page)



 1
 






 



(Signatures to Cancellation Agreement and Assignment)


 


	
  Isonics Corporation

  	
   

  	
  Institut für Umwelttechnologien GmbH

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Boris Rubizhevsky, Senior

  	
   

  	
  Prof. Dr. Jurgen Leonhardt, Managing Director

  
	
  Vice President

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  IUT Detection Technologies, Inc.

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Boris Rubizhevsky, Vice President

  	
   

  	
   

  
					



 



 2
Exhibit 32



                       President's Written Certification
                            Of Financial Statements
                       Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Statute 1350



    Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Statute 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 907 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned hereby certifies in his capacity
as president of Ridgefield Acquisition Corp. (the "Company") that

    (a) the Quarterly Report of the Company on Form 10-Q for the period Ended
        June 30, 2008 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of
        the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and

    (b) the information contained in such report fairly presents, in all
        material respects, the financial condition of the Company at the end of
        such period and the results of operations of the Company for such
        period.


Dated: August 14, 2008

                                           /s/ Steven N. Bronson
                                           ----------------------------------
                                           Steven N. Bronson, President
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-6166

GARY WAITERS,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

DR. CROSS; MR. BENJAMIN; MRS. SPIKE; MR. MARSHALL; MR. 

QUMBLEY, official and individual capacities,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Columbia. J. Michelle Childs, District 

Judge. (3:09-cv-02686-JMC)

Submitted: May 19, 2011 Decided: May 24, 2011

Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, and AGEE and KEENAN, Circuit 

Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Gary Waiters, Appellant Pro Se. Marshall Hodges Waldron, Jr., 

GRIFFITH & SADLER, PA, Beaufort, South Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Gary Waiters appeals the district court’s order 

denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) complaint. The 

district court referred this case to a magistrate judge pursuant 

to 28 U.S.C.A. § 636(b)(1)(B) (West 2006 & Supp. 2010). The 

magistrate judge recommended that relief be denied and advised 

Waiters that failure to timely file specific objections to this 

recommendation could waive appellate review of a district court 

order based upon the recommendation.

The timely filing of specific objections to a 

magistrate judge’s recommendation is necessary to preserve 

appellate review of the substance of that recommendation when 

the parties have been warned of the consequences of 

noncompliance. Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th

Cir. 1985); see also Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985). 

Waiters has waived appellate review by failing to timely file 

specific objections after receiving proper notice. Accordingly, 

we affirm the judgment of the district court.

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and 

legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials 

before the court and argument would not aid the decisional 

process.

AFFIRMED
§ 603.660 Other audit requirements. If an expenditure-based TIA provides for audits of a for-profit participant by an IPA, the contracting officer also must specify: ( a ) What periodic audits are to cover. It is important to specify audit coverage that is only as broad as needed to provide reasonable assurance of the participant's compliance with award terms that have a direct and material effect on the RD&D project.
( b ) Who will pay for periodic and award-specific audits. The allocable portion of the costs of any audits by IPAs may be reimbursable under the TIA. The costs may be direct charges or allocated indirect costs, consistent with the participant's accounting system and practices.
( c ) The auditing standards that the IPA will use. The contracting officer must provide that the IPA will perform the audits in accordance with the Generally Accepted Government Auditing Standards.
( d ) The available remedies for noncompliance. The agreement must provide that the participant may not charge costs to the award for any audit that the contracting officer determines was not performed in accordance with the Generally Accepted Government Auditing Standards or other terms of the agreement. It also must provide that the Government has the right to require the participant to have the IPA take corrective action and, if corrective action is not taken, that the agreements officer has recourse to any of the remedies for noncompliance identified in 10 CFR 600.352(a).
( e ) Where the IPA is to send audit reports. The agreement must provide that the IPA is to submit audit reports to the contracting officer. It also must require that the IPA report instances of fraud directly to the Office of Inspector General (OIG), DOE.
( f ) The retention period for the IPA's working papers. The contracting officer must specify that the IPA is to retain working papers for a period of at least three years after the final payment, unless the working papers relate to an audit whose findings are not fully resolved within that period or to an unresolved claim or dispute (in which case, the IPA must keep the working papers until the matter is resolved and final action taken).
( g ) Who will have access to the IPA's working papers. The agreement must provide for Government access to working papers.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 9

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                          16,167
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                               0
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                   224
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                    220,767
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                               0
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                                 0
<LOANS>                                        388,327
<ALLOWANCE>                                    (3,543)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 656,361
<DEPOSITS>                                     382,783
<SHORT-TERM>                                   105,654
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                              3,974
<LONG-TERM>                                    122,200
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                           11,991
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           683
<OTHER-SE>                                      29,276
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                 656,361
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                 20,548
<INTEREST-INVEST>                               10,442
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                    32
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                31,022
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                               8,459
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              16,731
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                           14,291
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                      450
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                 557
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                 14,221
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  4,960
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                       4,960
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     3,176
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .96
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .91
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    7.10
<LOANS-NON>                                        648
<LOANS-PAST>                                         8
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                 3,077
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                      181
<RECOVERIES>                                       197
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                3,543
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                             2,039
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                          1,504


</TABLE>
§ 1136.405 Content of OAR Article IV. ( a ) *Requirement.* The DoDGARs at 32 CFR 22.815 require DoD Components' general terms and conditions to incorporate the procedures set forth in that section for processing claims and disputes and deciding appeals of grants officer's decisions.
( b ) *Award terms and conditions* — ( 1 ) *General.* To implement the requirement in paragraph (a) of this section, a DoD Component's general terms and conditions must use the wording appendix D to this part provides for OAR Article IV, with wording inserted in lieu of the reserved paragraph A.2 to identify the Component's cognizant Grant Appeal Authority and provide his or her mailing or email address.
( 2 ) *Exception.* A DoD Component may add one or more sections to the wording appendix D to this part provides for OAR Article IV to state a requirement that recipients must provide opportunities to subrecipients for hearings, appeals, or other administrative proceedings with respect to claims, disputes, remedies for noncompliance, or other matters if: ( i ) That requirement is in a statute or regulation adopted in the Code of Federal Regulations after opportunity for public comment; and
( ii ) The statutory or regulatory requirement applies to awards using the DoD Component's general terms and conditions.
Exhibit 32








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


(Adopted Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002)





Securities and Exchange Commission


100 F Street, N.E.


Washington, D.C. 20549





In connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Gulf Coast Ultra Deep Royalty Trust (the “Trust”) for the year ended December 31, 2022, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned, not in its individual capacity but solely as the trustee of the Trust, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of its 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, distributable income and changes in trust corpus of the Trust.











Date:  March 15, 2023





/s/ Sarah C. Newell


Sarah C. Newell


Vice President


The Bank of New York Mellon Trust Company, N.A.,


as Trustee of Gulf Coast Ultra Deep Royalty Trust











The above certification is furnished solely pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350) and is not being filed as part of the Form 10-K or as a separate disclosure document.
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REGION IX 75 Hawthorne Street San Francisco, CA 94105 

## FEB 2 7 2012 Mr. S. W. Norquist Director, Environmental Security United States Marine Corps Marine Corps Installations West Post Office Box 555200 Camp Pendleton, California 92055-5200 Re: Potential classification ofSan Diego as serious for the 1997 ozone national ambient air quality standard DearMr. Norquist: Thankyou for your letterto the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Region 9 Regional AdministratorJared Blumenfeld dated January 11, 2012 (your additional reference infonnation: 5090, ES). Your letter requests that EPA not classifythe San Diego nonattainmentas serious for the 1997 ozone national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS) and instead find that the area has attained the standard based on 2009-2011 data. We appreciate hearing your concerns about a serious ozone nonattainment classification and the potential impacts on pennitting and general confonnityfor activities at Marine Corps Installations West. We have been working closelywith you and with staffat the San Diego CountyAir Pollution Control District (SDAPCD) and EPA's national Office ofAir QualityPlanning and Standards to address your issues. We thank you for taking the time to discuss your concerns with us. We will keep you infonned as ourrulemaking proceeds. Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me or AmyZimpfer, Associate Director, AirDivision, ofmy staffat415-947-4146 or zimpfer.amy@epa.gov. Sincerely,

eborah Jordan Director, AirDivision

cc: RobertJ. Kard, SanDiego County Air Pollution Control District
#### § 719.33 In what circumstances must the contractor seek permission from the Department to enter a settlement agreement?

The contractor must obtain permission from Department Counsel to enter a settlement agreement if the settlement agreement requires contractor payment of $25,000 or more. Obtaining this approval does not represent a determination that the settlement amount and/or the legal costs incurred in connection with the underlying legal matter will be determined to be allowable.
Fw: Slides for tomorrow's briefing

Michael Stewart to: Tricia Crabtree 04/29/2010 04:48 PM

Michael J. Stewart, Ph.D.

Environmental Protection Specialist

Health and Environmental Impacts Division

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Research Triangle Park, NC 27711

(919) 541-7524

stewart.michael@epa.gov

----- Forwarded by Michael Stewart/RTP/USEPA/US on 04/29/2010 04:48 PM -----

From: Lydia Wegman/RTP/USEPA/US

To: "Heid King" <hking@omb.eop.gov>

Cc: Michael Stewart/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, "Karen Martin" <martin.karen@epa.gov>, "Nealson 

Watkins" <Watkins.Nealson@epamail.epa.gov>

Date: 04/29/2010 04:45 PM

Subject: Slides for tomorrow's briefing

Heidi,

Here are the slides we plan to use in tomorrow's 9 AM briefing on SO2. 

Lydia

Michael Stewart

 ----- Original Message -----

 From: Michael Stewart

 Sent: 04/29/2010 04:38 PM EDT

 To: Lydia Wegman; Rosalina Rodriguez

 Cc: Karen Martin; Kristal Mozingo; Margaret Morrison

 Subject: Fw: Slides for tomorrow's OMB briefing

The file attached below has all the slides that will be used at tomorrow's OMB meeting. This is the same 

file I sent to Karen and cc'd you on at 12:42- there haven't been any other changes. I've already sent to 

Nealson, Larry and others.

Thanks,

Mike 

Michael J. Stewart, Ph.D.

Environmental Protection Specialist

Health and Environmental Impacts Division

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Research Triangle Park, NC 27711

(919) 541-7524

stewart.michael@epa.gov
#### In the Matter of Anthony O. Westchester County Department of Social Services, Respondent; Lillian O., Appellant.

[813 NYS2d 664]

In a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 10, the maternal grandmother appeals from an order of the Family Court, Westchester County (Schauer, R.), dated April 18, 2005, which, after a hearing, extended the placement of the child Anthony O. with the Westchester County Depart*592ment of Social Services for a period of one year. Assigned counsel has submitted a brief in accordance with *Anders v California*(386 US 738 [1967]), in which he moves to be relieved of the assignment to prosecute this appeal.

Ordered that the appeal from so much of the order as extended the placement of the child is dismissed as academic, without costs or disbursements; and it is further,

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as reviewed, without costs or disbursements.

The appeal from so much of the order as extended the placement of the child must be dismissed as academic because the order appealed from expired by its own terms on February 5, 2006 *(see Matter of Anthony O.,*22 AD3d 670 [2005]; *Matter of Anthony O.,*8 AD3d 573 [2004]). We have reviewed the record and agree with the appellant’s assigned counsel that there are no nonfrivolous issues which could be raised on the appeal from so much of the order as approved the permanency plan. Accordingly, counsel’s application for leave to withdraw as counsel is granted *(see Anders v California,*386 US 738 [1967]). Florio, J.P., Crane, Goldstein and Spolzino, JJ., concur.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA )

)

vs. ) Case No. 1:06CR170-WHA

)

ROY DALE WALLCE )

PRETRIAL CONFERENCE ORDER

A pretrial conference was held on December 15, 2006 before the undersigned

Magistrate Judge. Present at this conference was the Honorable James Cooper, counsel

for the defendant, and Assistant United States Attorney A. Clark Morris, counsel for the

government. As a result of the conference, it is

ORDERED as follows:

1. Jury selection is set for January 8, 2007. The trial of this case is set for the

trial term commencing on January 8, 2007 before Senior United States District Judge

W. Harold Albritton and is expected to last three (3) trial days.

2. There are no motions currently pending.

3. Proposed voir dire questions shall be filed on or before January 2, 2007.

Counsel should not include questions seeking information which is provided in the jury

questionnaire.

4. All Motions in Limine shall be filed on or before January 2, 2007. Motions in

Limine must be accompanied by a brief. Failure to file a brief will result in denial of the

motion.

Case 1:06-cr-00170-WHA-CSC Document 269 Filed 12/19/2006 Page 1 of 2
5. Proposed jury instructions shall be filed on or before January 2, 2007.

6. The court will not consider a plea pursuant to Rule 11(c) (1)(A) or (C) unless

notice is filed on or before noon on December 27, 2006. The government and defendant

are informed that if a defendant waits until the last minute to enter a plea, and if that plea,

for whatever reason, is not accepted by the court, the defendant and the government will

be expected to be prepared to go to trial on January 8, 2007. The court will not continue

the trial of this case as to any defendant because a defendant’s plea was not accepted. In

other words, the defendant and the government should not wait until the last minute for a

defendant to enter a guilty plea, and both the defendant and the government should all be

ready to go to trial on January 8, 2007, as to all defendants, even though a particular

guilty plea was not accepted by the court.

Done this 19 day of December, 2006. th

 /s/Charles S. Coody 

CHARLES S. COODY

CHIEF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:06-cr-00170-WHA-CSC Document 269 Filed 12/19/2006 Page 2 of 2
#### GRANT, Respondent, v. KIRKMAN & SON, Inc., Appellant.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.

July 31, 1914.)

Action by Edmund M. Grant against Kirkman & Son, Incorporated.

No opinion. Judgment and order unanimously affirmed, with costs.
MISCELLANEOUS DISMISSALS

2007-2171.

#### Jones v. Akron Hous. Appeals Bd.

Summit App. No. 23934. This cause is pending before the court as a discretionary appeal and claimed appeal of right. Upon consideration of appellant’s emergency motion for stay of demolition of the house at 444 Blairwood Drive,

It is ordered by the court that the motion is denied.

Furthermore, it appears from the records of the court that the appellant has not filed a memorandum in support of jurisdiction, due December 17, 2007, in compliance with the Rules of Practice of the Supreme Court and therefore has failed to prosecute this cause with the requisite diligence. Upon consideration thereof,

It is ordered by the court that this cause is dismissed sua sponte.
IV 

109TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. RES. 745 

Supporting the goals and ideals of Pancreatic Cancer Awareness Month. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 29, 2006 

Mr. PLATTS submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the 

Committee on Government Reform 

RESOLUTION 

Supporting the goals and ideals of Pancreatic Cancer 

Awareness Month. 

Whereas over 33,730 people will be diagnosed with pancreatic 

cancer this year in the United States; 

Whereas the mortality rate for pancreatic cancer is 99 percent, the highest of any cancer; 

Whereas pancreatic cancer is the 4th most common cause of 

cancer death in the United States; 

Whereas there are no early detection methods and minimal 

treatment options for pancreatic cancer; 

Whereas when symptoms of pancreatic cancer generally 

present themselves, it is too late for an optimistic prognosis, and the average survival rate of those diagnosed 

with metastasis disease is only 3 to 6 months; 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with BILLS
2 

•HRES 745 IH 

Whereas pancreatic cancer does not discriminate by age, gender, or race, and only 4 percent of patients survive beyond 5 years; 

Whereas the Pancreatic Cancer Action Network (PanCAN), 

the first national patient advocacy organization serving 

the pancreatic cancer community, focuses its efforts on 

public policy, research funding, patient services, and public awareness and education related to developing effective treatments and a cure for pancreatic cancer; and 

Whereas the Pancreatic Cancer Action Network has requested that the Congress designate November as Pancreatic Cancer Awareness Month in order to educate 

communities across the Nation about pancreatic cancer 

and the need for research funding, early detection methods, effective treatments, and prevention programs: Now, 

therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That the House of Representatives supports 

2 the goals and ideals of Pancreatic Cancer Awareness 

3 Month. 

Æ 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with BILLS