alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit-10.20







September 13, 2000


Mr. Ronald L. Krutzman
Treasurer and Assistant Secretary
Laclede Gas Company
720 Olive Street
St. Louis, MO  63101

Dear Ron:

Firstar Bank, N.A. is pleased to provide a $20,000,000 line of credit
maturing September 12, 2001 to Laclede Gas Company for general corporate
purposes and for commercial paper backup.

All borrowings will be priced at your option, at Firstar's Prime Rate,
floating, LIBOR adjusted +1/4% for available maturities to 90 days.  Notes
issued under this line shall not exceed 90 days.  No note shall have a
maturity date after September 12, 2001.

Interest shall be payable at the end of each calendar quarter beginning
September 30, 2000 and at maturity.  Interest shall be computed on the basis
of actual 365/366 for prime borrowings and actual 360 basis for LIBOR.
Notes issued may be prepaid at any time without penalty, subject to standard
funding loss provisions for LIBOR loans.

We may terminate this agreement at any time if we determine, in good faith,
that we are not satisfied with your conditions, operations or performance,
financial or otherwise.

It is understood that any loans obtained by any subsidiary of Laclede Gas
Company, whether or not they are guaranteed by Laclede Gas Company, are
excluded from this agreement and shall not be charged against the line of
credit described above.

Nothing in this letter is intended to alter the arrangements set forth in
the agreement dated October 22, 1999 or the availability of $50,000,000 of
advances thereunder from Firstar Bank, N.A. on the terms set forth in said
October 22, 1999 agreement.


















                                 90
<PAGE>
<PAGE>

Page 2
Laclede Gas Company
September 13, 2000


We appreciate the opportunity to serve Laclede's needs and to continue the
long standing relationship between our companies.  If the foregoing is
acceptable to you, please sign below.


                                       FIRSTAR BANK, N.A.


                                       By:   /s/Eric Hartman
                                       Name:  Eric Hartman
                                       Title:  AVP


Accepted this 13th day of September, 2000

LACLEDE GAS COMPANY

By:  /s/Ronald L. Krutzman
Name:  Ronald L. Krutzman
Title:  Treasurer and Asst. Secretary







































                                 91
<PAGE>   1

                                                                     EXHIBIT 6.1


                             [ADSMART NETWORK LOGO]


                                  AMENDMENT #1
                         ADVERTISING ALLIANCE AGREEMENT


This amendment agreement ("Amendment") is entered into on this 1st day of
December, 1999 (the "Effective Date"), by and between Adsmart Corporation, as
successor in interest to 2CAN Media, Inc. ("Adsmart"), with offices at 100
Brickstone Square, Andover, MA 01810 and FreeRealTime.com, Inc. ("FRT"), with
offices at 3333 Michelson Drive, Suite 430, Irvine, California 92612.

                                    RECITALS

A.   Adsmart and FRT entered into an Advertising Alliance Agreement ("the
     Agreement"), dated March 10, 1999, in which FRT appointed Adsmart as its
     exclusive third-party sales representative.

B.   The parties desire to amend the agreement as indicated below.

For good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are
hereby acknowledged, the parties agree as follows:

1.   Exclusivity. ADSMART is appointed a non-exclusive third-party sales
     representative for FRT for the Initial Term and all Renewal Terms of this
     Agreement.

2.   Ad-Serving Fees - Specific Requests. If FRT requests that specific paid or
     non-paid Campaigns, including, without limitation, house banners, which are
     not sold by ADSMART, be served by ADSMART, FRT shall pay ADSMART $0.40 per
     thousand impressions for all costs associated with serving, auditing and
     reporting with respect to such Campaigns ("Serving Fee"). ADSMART shall
     deduct such fees from payments owed to FRT for advertising revenue.

3.   All other provisions and covenants of the Agreement remain in full force
     and effect.

IN WITNESS OF THE FOREGOING, the parties have caused this agreement to be
signed as of the Effective Date set forth above.

Adsmart Corporation                          FreeRealTime.com, Inc.


By:  /s/ JOHN FEDERMAN                       By:  /s/ BRAD G. GUNN
   ---------------------------------            --------------------------------
Name: John Federman                          Name: Brad G. Gunn
     -------------------------------              ------------------------------
Title: CEO                                   Title: President & CEO
      ------------------------------               -----------------------------
Date: 12/8/99                                Date: 12/02/1999
     -------------------------------              ------------------------------


                                                                     Page 1 of 1
#### § 2.35 [Reserved]
#### §§ 1420.6-1420.7 [Reserved]
§ 1603.206 Consolidation and severance of hearings. ( a ) The administrative law judge may, upon motion by a party or upon the administrative law judge's own motion, after providing reasonable notice and opportunity to object to all parties affected, consolidate any or all matters at issue in two or more adjudications docketed under this part where common parties or common factual or legal questions exist; where such consolidation would expedite or simplify consideration of the issues; or where the interests of justice would be served. For purposes of this section, no distinction is made between joinder and consolidation of adjudications.
( b ) The administrative law judge may, upon motion of a party or upon the administrative law judge's own motion, for good cause shown, order any adjudication severed with respect to some or all parties, claims, or issues.
[62 FR 17543, Apr. 10, 1997, as amended at 89 FR 47853, June 4, 2024]
#### Miller *v.*The State.

Assault and Battery.

(Decided June 30, 1916.

72 South. 506.)

1. Charge of Court; Unintelligible. — Charges which use words improperly for other words, and are thus rendered unintelligible, are properly refused.

2. Appeal and Error; Review; Instructions. — Where the record does not contain the bill of exceptions, and the oral charge is not set out, no sufficient data is presented, upon which to base a review of the charges refused.

Appeal from Walker Law and Equity Court.

Heard before Hon. T. L. Sowell.

Oscar Miller was convicted of assault and battery, and appeals.

Affirmed.

The charge referred to is as follows:

The court charges you, gentlemen of the jury, if there is a reasonable doubt of the defendant’s innocence, then should find this defendant not guilty, after conceding all the evidence.

Leith & GUNN, for appellant.

W. L. Martin, Attorney General, and P. W. Turner, Assistant Attorney General, for the State.

PELHAM, P. J.

(1) The defendant’s refused charge, set out in the record, that it is insisted shows error requiring a reversal of the case, was properly refused. It does not assert a correct proposition of law, uses patently inapt words, and is confusing and unintelligible. Charges which use words improperly for other words and are thereby rendered unintelligible are properly *refused.*— Gaston *v. State,*161 Ala. 37, 49 South. 876.

(2) The record does not contain a bill of exceptions or the oral charge of the court, and if the charge was not rendered unintelligible by the use of improper terms, the court would not have the necessary data before it upon which to *properly*review the action of the lower court in passing on the *charge.*— Mitchell *v. State,*14 Ala. App. 104, 71 South. 982.

We have examined the record and it shows no error requiring reversal.

Affirmed.
#### SIOUX TRIBE OF INDIANS v. UNITED STATES

[Ante, p. 181;

302 U. S. 717]

Petition for writ of certiorari *denied*by Supreme Court October 11, 1937.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v James Merrifield, Appellant.

[698 NYS2d 181]

—Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: We reject the contention of defendant that the plea colloquy is insufficient because County Court failed to advise him of his privilege against compulsory self-incrimination or his constitutional right to confront his accusers *(see, People v Harris,*61 NY2d 9, 16-19). The record establishes that defendant’s guilty plea was knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily entered *(see, People v Harris, supra,*at 19-21). (Appeal from Judgment of Jefferson County Court, Clary, J. — Criminal Sale Controlled Substance, 5th Degree.) Present — Green, J. P., Lawton, Pigott, Jr., Hurl-butt and Callahan, JJ.
#### § 1471.1015 Suspension.

*Suspension* is an action taken by a suspending official under subpart G of this part that immediately prohibits a person from participating in covered transactions and transactions covered under the Federal Acquisition Regulation (48 CFR chapter 1) for a temporary period, pending completion of an agency investigation and any judicial or administrative proceedings that may ensue. A person so excluded is suspended.
#### In the Matter of New York Credit Men’s Association, Inc., Appellant, against Jacob Schneider et al. Defendants, and Dora Schneider, Respondent.

Argued April 19, 1937;

decided June 11, 1937.

Motion to vacate order of dismissal denied. (See 273 N. Y. 625.)
#### JOHN KOSKO and Another v. LAWRENCE HAY.1

October 22, 1896.

Nos. 10,304 — (180).

Findings Sustained.

Evidence considered, and *held*sufficient to justify the finding of the trial court.

Appeal by defendant from an order of the district court for Hennepin county, Belden, J., denying a motion for a new trial, after a finding in favor of plaintiff for $51.85.

Affirmed.

*J. N. Becomes,*for appellant.

*Albert H. Hall,*for respondents.

1

 Reported in 68 N. W. 607.

BUCK, J.

This action was brought in justice court to recover damages for alleged negligence in partially destroying a buggy of the plaintiffs. Upon trial the defendant had judgment in his favor, but upon appeal to the district court, and a trial therein without a jury, the plaintiffs obtained an order for judgment in their favor. *114There are no material questions of law raised by the appeal; and the. weight of evidence, in the absence of manifest error, was a matter for the trial court to decide. Its finding was clearly supported by the evidence, and the order denying the motion for a new trial is affirmed.
Editorial Note on Part 1926
Editorial Notes: 1. At 44 FR 8577, Feb. 9, 1979, and corrected at 44 FR 20940, Apr. 6, 1979, OSHA reprinted without change the entire text of 29 CFR part 1926 together with certain General Industry Occupational Safety and Health Standards contained in 29 CFR part 1910, which have been identified as also applicable to construction work. This republication developed a single set of OSHA regulations for both labor and management forces within the construction industry. 2. Nomenclature changes to part 1926 appear at 84 FR 21597, May 14, 2019.

§ 1926.1210 Duties of entry supervisors. The entry employer must ensure that each entry supervisor: ( a ) Is familiar with and understands the hazards that may be faced during entry, including information on the mode, signs or symptoms, and consequences of the exposure;
( b ) Verifies, by checking that the appropriate entries have been made on the permit, that all tests specified by the permit have been conducted and that all procedures and equipment specified by the permit are in place before endorsing the permit and allowing entry to begin;
( c ) Terminates the entry and cancels or suspends the permit as required by § 1926.1205(e);
( d ) Verifies that rescue services are available and that the means for summoning them are operable, and that the employer will be notified as soon as the services become unavailable;
( e ) Removes unauthorized individuals who enter or who attempt to enter the permit space during entry operations; and
( f ) Determines, whenever responsibility for a permit space entry operation is transferred, and at intervals dictated by the hazards and operations performed within the space, that entry operations remain consistent with terms of the entry permit and that acceptable entry conditions are maintained.
#### § 101.32 Investigation of charges; withdrawal of charges; dismissal of charges and appeals to Board.

These matters are handled as described in §§ 101.4 to 101.7, inclusive. Cases involving violation of paragraph (4)(D) of section 8(b) in which it is deemed appropriate to seek injunctive relief of a district court pursuant to section 10(1) of the Act are given priority over all other cases in the office except other cases under section 10(1) of the Act and cases of like character.
[No. 47115-5-I.

Division One.

December 23, 2002.]

#### The State of Washington, *Respondent,*v. Terry Lamont Jackson, *Appellant.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for King County, No. 97-1-05897-6, Jay V. White, J., entered July 5, 2002. *Affirmed*by unpublished per curiam opinion.
J. S25014/16

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION – SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

IN THE INTEREST OF: L.K., A MINOR :

:

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA

APPEAL OF: C.K. :

: No. 1458 WDA 2015

Appeal from the Order, August 27, 2015,

in the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County

Orphans’ Court Division at No. CP-02-AP-0000077-2015

BEFORE: FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E., MUNDY AND JENKINS, JJ. 

JUDGMENT ORDER BY FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E.: FILED JULY 08, 2016

Father appeals the termination of his parental rights to his daughter, 

L.K. born in December of 2009. The trial court terminated Father’s rights 

under 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 2511(a)(2), (a)(5), and (b). We affirm on the trial 

court’s findings and its thorough and comprehensive opinion filed on 

November 20, 2015.

This is not a close case, and clear and convincing evidence for 

termination is beyond question based on Father’s physical injury to L.K. 

when she was an infant and for which he has since been incarcerated. L.K. 

is doing very well in foster placement with her aunt, and her emotional and 

physical needs are being cared for.

Order affirmed.
J. S25014/16

- 2 -

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 7/8/2016
## SCOTT' S HELICOPTE RSERVICE S FAAApprove dRepai r

Statio n C.R.S . #CUH R150 S 780 S . Elmwoo dAve . P.O . Bo x 92 , L ESUEUR , M N5605 8 507-665-406 4 FAX #507-665-368 0 Jun e 15 , 201 1 FA ADru g Abatemen tDivisio n (AAIVI-800 ) 80 0 Independenc e Avenu e SW , Roo m 80 6 Washington , DC 2059 1 DearSirorlVladam , .- o > o O : O 

### :z . 

## ^ Q . W e are"reeyoesting^ n exemptio n fro m needin g t & mamtajft-tw a Alcnhn l anr i nri) g Prpvpntln n Programs , W e have a smal l FA

R 135 , "O n Demand " Charte roperatio n an d a FA R 9 1 "Loca l Tour

^ operation . Bot h operat e unde rScott' s Helicopte rServic e Inc . W e hav e 2 aircraf ti n th e FA R 13 5 operatio n an d 6 i n th e FA R 9 1 operation . Ou rpilo tcoun tcarde d fo rbot h FA R 13 5 an d FA

R 9 1 operation s i s 4 . Thi s situatio n give s thes e pilot s th e possibilit yo fbein g randoml yselecte d fo rtestin g fo rbot h operation s a tth e sam e time . I ta

s wel l mor e tha n double s th e expens e t o th e compan yt o maintai n bot h programs . I n tha tw e ar e a smal l operation , thi s amount s t o a financia l hardshi p fo rus . I personall yhav e direc toversigh to fth e Alcoho l an d Dru g Preventio n Program s an d ca n mor e tha n adequatel ymanag e al l personne l unde ron e program . I believ e thi s wil l stil l mee tth e intende d goal s o f th e Alcoho l an d Dru g preventio n an d monitorin g fo rth e Federa l Aviatio n Administration . W e ar e therefor e requestin g tha ta n exemptio n b e given , allowin g u s t o hav e al l compan ypersonne l i n on e Alcoho l an d Dru g Preventio n Program . I fyo u hav e an yconcern s o rquestion , pleas e fee l fre e t o contac tm e a tan yo fth e following : Office : 507-665-406 4 Email : acctshs@mvclearwave.ne t T^ompanyTSata : ~ ~ —— ^ ^ —^

-^---_—-__—-

__-^.^_ ^ _ _ Scott' s Helicopte rServices , Inc. , L e Sueur , M N 5605 8 (FA ACertificat e # CUHA150S ) Thanl < yo u fo ryou rtim e an d consideratio n o fthi s report . I lool < forwar d t o hearin g fro m yo u soon . Respectfully , Ann-Mari e Sl<ubitz Huma n Resourc e Manager Scott' s Helicopte rServices , inc .
<PAGE>

                                                                    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 quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Student
Advantage, Inc. (the "Company") for the period ended June 30, 2003 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), the undersigned, Raymond
V. Sozzi, Jr., President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby
certifies, pursuant to Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States
Code, 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 results of operations of
         the Company.

Dated: August 14, 2003                   /s/ Raymond V. Sozzi, Jr.
                                         ---------------------------------------
                                         Raymond V. Sozzi, Jr.
                                         President and Chief Executive Officer
#### § 71.15 Designation of jet routes and VOR Federal airways.

Unless otherwise specified, the place names appearing in the descriptions of airspace areas designated as jet routes in subpart A of FAA Order JO 7400.11J, and as VOR Federal airways in subpart E of FAA Order JO 7400.11J, are the names of VOR or VORTAC navigation aids. FAA Order JO 7400.11J is incorporated by reference in § 71.1.

[Doc. No. 29334, 73 FR 54495, Sept. 22, 2008, as amended by Amdt. 71-40, 73 FR 60940, Oct. 15, 2008; Amdt. 71-41, 74 FR 46490, Sept. 10, 2009; Amdt. 71-42, 75 FR 55268, Sept. 10, 2010; Amdt. 71-43, 76 FR 53329, Aug. 26, 2011; Amdt. 71-44, 77 FR 50908, Aug. 23, 2012; Amdt. 71-45, 78 FR 52848, Aug. 27, 2013; Amdt. 71-46, 79 FR 51888, Sept. 2, 2014; Amdt. 71-47, 80 FR 51937, Aug. 27, 2015; Amdt. 71-48, 81 FR 55372, Aug. 19, 2016; Amdt. 71-49, 82 FR 40068, Aug. 24, 2017; Amdt. 71-50, 83 FR 43757, Aug. 28, 2018; Docket FAA-2019-0627, Amdt. 71-51, 84 FR 45652, Aug. 30, 2019; Amdt. 71-52, 85 FR 50780, Aug. 18, 2020; Amdt. No. 71-53, 86 FR 46963, Aug. 23, 2021; Docket No. FAA-2022-1022, Amdt. No. 71-54, 87 FR 54878, Sept. 8, 2022; Docket No. FAA-2023-1785; Amendment No. 71-55, 88 FR 58072, Aug. 25, 2023; Docket No. FAA-2024-2061; Amendment No. 71-56, 89 FR 68339, Aug. 26, 2024]

###### Effective Date Note

#### Effective Date Note:

By Docket No. FAA-2024-2061; Amendment No. 71-56, 89 FR 68339, Aug. 26, 2024, § 71.15 was amended by removing the words “FAA Order JO 7400.11H” everywhere that they appear and adding, in their place, the words “FAA Order JO 7400.11J, effective Sept. 15, 2024 through Sept. 15, 2025.
# EUR-Lex - 31999R0921 - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 31999R0921

**Commission Regulation (EC) No 921/1999 of 30 April 1999 providing for special measures to distribute fruit and vegetables withdrawn from the market to refugees from Kosovo **

*
Official Journal L 114 , 01/05/1999 P. 0046 - 0046 *

COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 921/1999

of 30 April 1999

providing for special measures to distribute fruit and vegetables withdrawn from the market to refugees from Kosovo

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 2200/96 of 28 October 1996 on the common organisation of the market in fruit and vegetables(1), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 857/1999(2), and in particular Article 30(7) thereof,

(1) Whereas Commission Regulation (EC) No 659/97(3), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 729/1999(4), lays down detailed rules for applying Regulation (EC) No 2200/96 as regards intervention arrangements in the fruit and vegetables sector and especially the free distribution of products withdrawn from the market as humanitarian aid outside the Community;

(2) Whereas Article 14(3) and Article 16(2) of that Regulation lay down a number of conditions and require a Commission Decision before each free distribution operation outside the Community;

(3) Whereas the urgent need to get food aid to the refugee victims of the Kosovo crisis and to their host families is well known;

(4) Whereas, to facilitate aid to these people, some provisions of Article 14(3) and Article 16(2) of Regulation (EC) No 659/97 should be derogated from, until further notice;

(5) Whereas the areas to which this derogation applies should be demarcated;

(6) Whereas the measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for Fresh Fruit and Vegetables,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

Article 14(3) and Article 16(2) of Regulation (EC) No 659/97 shall not apply to free distribution operations involving Kosovo refugees and their host families in the territory of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro), Albania, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria and Romania.

For these operations, the Member States shall send to the Commission:

- on the first working day of each month, the information stipulated in Annex VI to Regulation (EC) No 659/97 on the operations completed,

- a copy of the notification sent to the FAO Subcommittee on Surplus Disposal.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on the day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Communities.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 30 April 1999.

For the Commission

Franz FISCHLER

Member of the Commission

(1) OJ L 297, 21.11.1996, p. 1.

(2) OJ L 108, 27.4.1999, p. 7.

(3) OJ L 100, 17.4.1997, p. 22.

(4) OJ L 93, 8.4.1999, p. 11.
#### § 1979.114 Special circumstances; waiver of rules.

In special circumstances not contemplated by the provisions of this part, or for good cause shown, the administrative law judge or the Board on review may, upon application, after three days notice to all parties and interveners, waive any rule or issue any orders that justice or the administration of the Act requires.