alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 226.54 Limitations on the imposition of finance charges. ( a ) *Limitations on imposing finance charges as a result of the loss of a grace period* — ( 1 ) *General rule.* Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, a card issuer must not impose finance charges as a result of the loss of a grace period on a credit card account under an open-end (not home-secured) consumer credit plan if those finance charges are based on: ( i ) Balances for days in billing cycles that precede the most recent billing cycle; or
( ii ) Any portion of a balance subject to a grace period that was repaid prior to the expiration of the grace period.
( 2 ) *Definition of grace period.* For purposes of paragraph (a)(1) of this section, “grace period” has the same meaning as in § 226.5(b)(2)(ii)(B)( 3 ).
( b ) *Exceptions.* Paragraph (a) of this section does not apply to: ( 1 ) Adjustments to finance charges as a result of the resolution of a dispute under § 226.12 or § 226.13; or
( 2 ) Adjustments to finance charges as a result of the return of a payment.
Exhibit 99.1




				Exhibit 99(i)

		 	   CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
			       18 U.S.C. ss.1350
			    AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
		 SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

         In connection with the Quarterly Report of  Nutek, Inc. (the "Company")
on  Form  10-QSB for the quarter ended  September 30,  2003  as  filed  with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date  therein specified (the "Report")
"Report"),  I,  Murray N. Conradie, 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 to the best of my knowledge:

         (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 financial condition and  results of  operations  of  the
Company.

                                     /s/ Murray N. Conradie
                                     ------------------------------------------

                                    MURRAY N. CONRADIE, Chief Executive Officer

Dated: November 14, 2003
#### Louis Shafarman, Appellant, *v.*Susan E. Loman, Respondent.

Appeal from a judgment of the Municipal Court of the city of New York, fifth district, borough of Manhattan. Action for goods sold.

Max Silverstein, for appellant.

George W. Gibbons, for respondent.

*Per Curiam.*

At the close of the plaintiff’s case a motion was made by the counsel for the defendant to dismiss the complaint, which was granted without further remark by the trial justice. No grounds whatever were specified for the motion, nor was any reason therefor given by the trial justice in announcing his decision. "We are, therefore, bound to consider all the evidence in the case in a manner and from a standpoint most favorable to the support of the plaintiff’s claim, and to uphold the decision of the trial court only where it is apparent that the plaintiff’s case is utterly destitute of any legal foundation.

Taking the contract as it was testified to by the plaintiff and his witnesses, we are of opinion that the transaction between the plaintiff and the defendant" was a sale, with the right, however, on the part of the defendant to terminate the contract in whole or in part by a return of the goods within a specified time. Such a transaction has been defined to be a conditional sale, and if the right of return is not duly exercised and the property is retained after the time specified or after the lapse of a reasonable time, if no time is specified, the right is forfeited and the sale becomes absolute like any other sale. Costello v. Herbst, 18 Misc. Rep. 176. In the case at bar the goods were not returned within the specified period, and the plaintiff had a right to bring his action, as for goods sold and delivered for the recovery of the price *727which had been agreed upon between the parties. The trial court, therefore, erred in dismissing the complaint, and a new trial should be ordered.

Present: Beekman, P. J., Giegerich and O’Gorman, JJ.

Judgment reversed and new trial ordered, with costs to appellant to abide event.
<PAGE>   1
                                                               Exhibit 10.1.13.a


June 15, 2000


Mr. David H. Biggs
896 Bollen Circle
Gardnerville, Nevada 89410


Dear David:

I am pleased to offer you some changes in the status in your exempt position of
Vice-President, Chief Technical Officer for Telxon Corp. in The Woodlands, Texas
office. Effective 15 June 2000, the terms of the agreement between you and
Telxon are:

1.   Starting on 7 August 2000, your bi-weekly salary will be $9,615.38, which
     equates to $250,000.00 annualized.

2.   You will continue to report to Ken Cassady, President & COO.

3.   Telxon Corporation is in the process of revising its corporate incentive
     compensation program based on overall company profitability and increased
     revenue. As Vice-President, Chief Technical Officer, you would be eligible
     under such a plan, after final approval, for an annual incentive
     compensation opportunity of 35%.

4.   You are eligible to receive a grant of 50,000 options under the Telxon
     Corporate Stock Option Plan, which options shall vest in equal amounts
     over a three year period from the initial grant date. The options are
     subject to the approval of the Chairman of the Board and the Compensation
     Committee of the Board of Directors.

5.   You are eligible to participate in Telxon's insurance plans, including
     medical, dental, accident and life, upon hire. You are also eligible to
     participate in Telxon's profit sharing 401(k) plan during the next open
     enrollment period.

6.   You are eligible for four weeks of vacation, annually. Your vacation
     allocation for calendar year 2000 will be pro-rated accordingly.

7.   Your living expenses will continue to be covered in accordance with your
     original employment agreement, dated June 7, 1999.

8.   You will receive a one-year severance ($250,000.00) in the event of a
     "Change-in Control" as defined in section 4.c.ii. of your original
     employment agreement, dated June 7, 1999.

9.   You will receive a six-month severance ($125,000.000) if you should leave
     Telxon after 7 August 2001. The six-month severance will be paid only if
     you assist Telxon in finding and training a qualified replacement for Vice
     President, Chief Technical Officer.

10.  You have discussed this position with Ken Cassady and understand the duties
     and responsibilities associated with it. It is Telxon's intention and
     expectation that you will fulfill those duties and responsibilities without
     violating any legal obligations you may have to your former employers.

<PAGE>   2
We look forward to the prospect of your continued relationship with Telxon
Corporation, David. Should you have any questions or need additional
information, please contact me at (800) 800-8013, Extension 5815.

Sincerely,


/s/ Ken Cassady
Ken Cassady
President & COO


Enclosure

cc:    John Paxton
       Cecile Hickman
       Mitch Herrod


I accept the terms of this agreement.


Signature /s/ David H. Biggs.
          -----------------------------
NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

SCHOOL BUS RETROFIT, STATEWIDE

RACM Analysis

Control Measure:

School Bus Retrofit

Description:

Older, higher-emitting buses will be fitted with emissions reducing retrofit technology.

Documentation:

 Environmental Protection Agency, Clean School Bus USA: 

http://www.epa.gov/cleanschoolbus/index.htm

 School Bus Transportation News, K-12 Enrollment / Transportation Data, 2002-03 

School Year: http://www.stnonline.com/stn/data_statistics/2002-03_schoolyear.htm

Methodology:

All model year 1992-2002 buses in the fleet will be equipped with retrofit technology.

Retrofitting model year 1992-2002 buses is assumed to have the greatest potential to reduce 

emissions due to existing regulations and fleet age.

Inputs/Assumptions:

 A Lubrizol Engine Control Systems, Purifilter Diesel Particulate Filter would be used to 

retrofit the buses. 

o This filter is a verified EPA retrofit technology and is estimated to reduce VOC 

emissions by 85% and PM emissions by 90%. 

o The filter has no affect on NOx emissions.

 All model year 1992-2002 buses in the fleet will be equipped with retrofit technology.

 Retrofitting model year 1992-2002 buses is assumed to have the greatest potential to

reduce emissions due to existing regulations and fleet age.

 58.1% of all school bus VMT can be attributed to model year 1992-2002 buses.

 Because no estimates could be found on the affect of retrofit technology on SO2 

emissions, a zero benefit was assumed.

 MOBILE6.2 was used to generate emission factors and VMT.

 The expected useful life of retrofit equipment is 6 years.

 School buses operate 180 days per year.

 It costs an average of $7,500 to retrofit one school bus.

 There are 21,228 buses operating in the state of NJ.

 58.1% of the operating school buses are assumed to be MY 1992-2002.

Results:

Total Affected VMT:

Daily

Model Years 1992-2002 = 76,659 miles/day

Annual

Model Years 1992-2002 = 28,881,989 miles/year
NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

SCHOOL BUS RETROFIT, STATEWIDE

RACM Analysis

Statewide Benefits (Emission Reductions):

Pollutant

Type

Analysis Year 2009

tons/day tons/year

VOC 0.03 NA

NOx 0.00 0.00

PM2.5 NA 10.50

SO2 NA 0.00

*Statewide emission benefits include counties not included below

Ozone Analysis – Daily Benefits (tpd) in New Jersey:

Benefits 

(Reductions)

Ozone Non-Attainment Area

NY-NJ-CT PA-NJ-MD-DE

VMT 37,432 28,515

VOC (Tons/Day) 0.02 0.01

NOx (Tons/Day) NA NA

PM2.5 Analysis – Annual Benefits (tpy) in New Jersey:

Benefits 

(Reductions)

PM2.5 Non-Attainment Area

NY-NJ-CT PA-NJ-DE

VMT 14,639,546 11,060,764

NOx (Tons/Year) NA NA

PM2.5 (Tons/Year) 5.32 4.02

SO2 (Tons/Year) NA NA

Cost Benefit Results:

Nonattainment Area

Ozone ($/tpd)

VOC NOx

NY-NJ-CT $ 3,049,989 NA 

PA-NJ-MD-DE $ 3,050,055 NA 

Statewide $ 3,050,018 NA 

Nonattainment Area

PM2.5 ($/tpy)

NOx PM2.5 SO2

NY-NJ-CT NA $ 2,840,463 NA 

PA-NJ-DE NA $ 2,840,465 NA 

Statewide NA $ 2,840,464 NA
IIB 

108TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2755

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

OCTOBER 14, 2003

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Armed Services 

AN ACT

To authorize the President to issue posthumously to the 

late William ‘‘Billy’’ Mitchell a commission as major 

general, United States Army.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
2

HR 2755 RFS 

1 SECTION 1. POSTHUMOUS COMMISSION OF WILLIAM 

2 MITCHELL IN THE GRADE OF MAJOR GEN3 ERAL IN THE ARMY. 

4 (a) AUTHORITY.—The President may issue post5 humously a commission as major general, United States 

6 Army, in the name of the late William Mitchell, formerly 

7 a colonel, United States Army, who resigned his commis8 sion on February 1, 1926. 

9 (b) DATE OF COMMISSION.—A commission issued 

10 under subsection (a) shall issue as of the date of the death 

11 of William Mitchell on February 19, 1936. 

12 SEC. 2. PROHIBITION OF BENEFITS. 

13 No person is entitled to receive any bonus, gratuity, 

14 pay, allowance, or other financial benefit by reason of the 

15 enactment of this Act.

Passed the House of Representatives October 8, 

2003. 

Attest: JEFF TRANDAHL, 

Clerk.
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 11.1


                        IMAGINON, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
                   COMPUTATION OF NET INCOME (LOSS) PER SHARE

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>


                                                                                Year ended December 31,
                                                                             -----------------------------
                                                                                 1999            1998
                                                                             -------------   -------------
<S>                                                                          <C>             <C>

Net loss                                                                      $(7,047,082)    $(1,740,202)

Amortization of discount on preferred stock                                    (1,255,319)
Series F preferred stock dividend                                                (297,868)
Series E preferred stock dividend                                                 (42,000)
                                                                              -----------     -----------
Net loss applicable to common shareholders                                    $(8,642,269)    $(1,740,202)
                                                                              ===========     ===========

Weighted average number of common shares outstanding                           39,006,214      20,483,093

Common equivalent shares representing shares issuable upon exercise of
     outstanding options and warrants and conversion of preferred stock               -*-             -*-
                                                                              -----------     -----------

Basic and diluted loss per common share                                       $     (0.22)    $     (0.08)
                                                                              ===========     ===========
</TABLE>

*  No impact to weighted average number of shares as the inclusion of additional
shares assuming the exercise of outstanding options and warrants and conversion
of preferred stock would have been antidilutive.

     Diluted and supplementary net loss per share are not presented as the
amounts are not dilutively or incrementally different from basic net loss per
share amounts.
# C_2022398EN.01000702.xml

| 17.10.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 398/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.10.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 398/7

---

Designation of a Judge to replace a Judge who is prevented from acting

(2022/C 398/08)

1.

At its plenum on 23 September 2022, the General Court decided that, from 23 September 2022, in cases in which a Judge is prevented from acting, referred to in the second sentence of Article 17(2), and the second sentence of Article 24(2), respectively, of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, the President of the General Court shall replace the Judge prevented from acting.

2.

If the President of the General Court is prevented from acting, he shall designate the Vice-President of the General Court to replace him, in accordance with Article 11(1) of the Rules of Procedure.

3.

If the Vice-President of the General Court is prevented from acting, the President of the General Court shall designate the Judge to replace him, according to the order of precedence laid down in Article 8 of the Rules of Procedure, with the exception of the Presidents of Chambers.

4.

If the Judge designated in accordance with paragraph 3 is prevented from acting and the case in which the Judge is prevented from acting is a civil service case, as defined in the decision of the General Court of 23 September 2022 on the criteria for assignment of cases to Chambers, or a case concerning intellectual property rights referred to in Title IV of the Rules of Procedure, the President of the General Court shall designate, following the order of precedence laid down in Article 8 of the Rules of Procedure, a Judge assigned to a Chamber examining the same type of cases as the Chamber to which the Judge prevented from acting belongs, in order to replace him.

5.

In order to ensure a balanced distribution of the caseload, the President of the General Court shall be able to deviate from the order of precedence laid down in Article 8 of the Rules of Procedure, as referred to in paragraphs 3 and 4 of the present decision.

---
# EUR-Lex - E2002C0272 - EN

Important legal notice

*|*

# E2002C0272

**2002/272/: EFTA Surveillance Authority Decision No 272/02/COL of 18 December 2002 amending for the third time the Rules of Procedure of the EFTA Surveillance Authority **

*
Official Journal L 080 , 27/03/2003 P. 0034 - 0034 *

EFTA Surveillance Authority Decision

No 272/02/COL

of 18 December 2002

amending for the third time the Rules of Procedure of the EFTA Surveillance Authority(1)

THE EFTA SURVEILLANCE AUTHORITY,

Having regard to the Agreement between the EFTA States on the Establishment of a Surveillance Authority and a Court of Justice, and in particular Article 13 thereof,

Considering the Rules of Procedure of the EFTA Surveillance Authority,

Whereas certain adjustments are needed to these Rules of Procedure,

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

1. In Article 2, the first paragraph shall be replaced by the following text:"In the performance of its official functions, the College shall be assisted by four departments, namely two Directorates, Legal & Executive Affairs and Administration."

2. Article 21 shall as follows:

"Article 21

Save as otherwise decided by the College, where a Director is prevented from exercising his/her functions or duties, they shall be exercised by a subordinate official(s) in the order laid down by the Director."

3. This Decision shall apply as from 1 January 2003.

4. This Decision, which is authentic in the English language, shall be published in the EEA Section of, and the EEA Supplement to the Official Journal of the European Union.

Done at Brussels, 18 December 2002.

For the EFTA Surveillance Authority

The President

Einar M. Bull

(1) Adopted by the Authority on 7 January 1994, Decision No 1/94/COL (OJ L 113, 4.5.1994, p. 19 and EEA Supplement No 6, 4.5.1994), amended for the first time by Decision 18/95/COL of 17 March 1995 and for the second time by Decision 71/95/COL of 5 July 1995.
Exhibit 32(a)


              CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
                 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 IGENE Biotechnology, Inc. (the "Company")
Quarterly  Report  on Form 10-QSB/A for the period  ended  March  31,
2007,  as  filed  with  the Securities and Exchange  Commission  (the
"Report"),  I,  Stephen  F. Hiu, President of  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  the  best  of  my
knowledge:

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


Date: December 11, 2007                 By:  /S/STEPHEN F. HIU
                                             ________________________
                                                STEPHEN F. HIU
                                                President


A  signed original of this written statement required by Section  906
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.
Exhibit 32.1

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 TurboSonic Technologies Inc., (the Company), on Form 10-K for
the year ending June 30, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission, (the Report), I, Edward F. Spink, Chief Executive Officer of the
Company, certify, pursuant to 18U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 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.

/s/ EDWARD F.
SPINK Edward F. Spink
Chief Executive Officer (Principal Executive Officer) September 24,
2009

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 TurboSonic Technologies
Inc., (the Company), on Form 10-K for the year ending June 30, 2009, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission, (the Report), I, Carl A. Young,
Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18U.S.C. § 1350, as
adopted pursuant to § 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.

/s/ CARL A.
YOUNGCarl
A. Young Chief Financial Officer (Principal Financial Officer)
September 24, 2009

---
EXHIBIT 15


Securities and Exchange Commission
450 Fifth Street, N.W.
Washington, DC  20549


We are aware that our report dated April 27, 1999, on our review of interim
financial information of UNUM Corporation for the three month period ended March
31, 1999, and 1998, and included in the Company's quarterly report on Form 10-Q
for the quarters then ended is incorporated by reference in the following
Registration Statements:

  o  Form S-8 No. 33-31270 pertaining to the UNUM Employees 401(k) Plan
     (formerly the UNUM Employees Retirement Savings Plan and Trust)

  o  Form S-8 No. 33-19090 pertaining to the 1987 Executive Stock Option Plan

  o  Form S-8 No. 33-38225 pertaining to the 1990 Long-Term Stock Incentive Plan

  o  Form S-8 No. 33-52741 pertaining to the 1990 Long-Term Stock Incentive Plan
     (additional shares)

  o  Form S-3 No. 33-36873 pertaining to the 1990 Debt Securities

  o  Form S-3 No. 33-69132 pertaining to the 1993 Debt Securities, Preferred
     Stock, Common Stock and Warrants

  o  Post-Effective Amendment No. 1 on Form S-8 to Registration Statement on
     Form S-4 No. 33-55870 pertaining to the issuance of UNUM Corporation shares
     upon the exercise of stock options granted under the Colonial plans as
     defined therein

  o  Form S-3 No. 333-08187 pertaining to the 1996 Debt Securities, Preferred
     Stock, Common Stock and Warrants

  o  Form S-8 No. 333-41917 pertaining to the 1998 Goals Stock Option Plan

  o  Form S-8 No. 333-41897 pertaining to the 1996 Long-Term Stock Incentive 
     Plan


Pursuant to Rule 436 (c) under the Securities Act of 1933, this report should
not be considered a part of the registration statements prepared or certified by
accountants within the meaning of Sections 7 and 11 of that Act.


/s/ PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS  LLP