alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0000868373
<NAME> DIGITAL BIOMETRICS INC
<MULTIPLIER> 1
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                         840,616
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                4,648,780
<ALLOWANCES>                                   296,583
<INVENTORY>                                  2,848,421
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             8,255,793
<PP&E>                                       2,410,172
<DEPRECIATION>                               1,355,161
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               9,418,461
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        4,472,392
<BONDS>                                        884,840
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       136,618
<OTHER-SE>                                   3,811,494
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 9,418,461
<SALES>                                      8,078,333
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            11,322,691
<CGS>                                        5,973,043
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                8,516,958
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             7,081,579
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             594,430
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             (4,888,432)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                         (4,888,432)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                (4,888,432)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (0.38)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (0.38)
        


</TABLE>
Exhibit 10.3


 


PROMISSORY
NOTE

(this “Note”)  


 





	Borrower:
    	Petrai
    Acquisition Inc. of 5 West 21st Street New York, NY 10010 (the “Borrower”)
	 	 
	Lender:	Petra
    Investment Holdings LLC of 5 West 21st Street New York, NY 10010  (the “Lender”)


 


Principal
Amount:      $150,000.00 USD


 


		1.	FOR
VALUE RECEIVED, The Borrower promises to pay to the Lender at such address as may be provided in writing to the Borrower, the
principal sum of $150,000.00 USD, without interest payable on the unpaid principal.



 


		2.	This
Note is repayable within 15 day(s) of the Lender providing the Borrower with written notice of demand or December 31, 2021 whichever
comes first.



 


		3.	The
Borrower shall be liable for all costs, expenses and expenditures incurred including, without limitation, the complete legal costs
of the Lender incurred by enforcing this Note as a result of any default by the Borrower and such costs will be added to the principal
then outstanding and shall be due and payable by the Borrower to the Lender immediately upon demand of the Lender.



 


		4.	If
any term, covenant, condition or provision of this Note is held by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, void or unenforceable,
it is the parties’ intent that such provision be reduced in scope by the court only to the extent deemed necessary by that
court to render the provision reasonable and enforceable and the remainder of the provisions of this Note will in no way be affected,
impaired or invalidated as a result.



 


		5.	This
Note will be construed in accordance with and governed by the laws of the State of New York.



 


		6.	This
Note will enure to the benefit of and be binding upon the respective heirs, executors, administrators, successors and assigns
of the Borrower and the Lender. The Borrower waives presentment for payment, notice of non-payment, protest and notice of protest.



 






    


     


    

 


IN
WITNESS WHEREOF the parties have duly affixed their signatures under seal


  


	SIGNED,
    SEALED, AND DELIVERED	 
	this
    4th day of June, 2020.	Petra
    Acquisition Inc.
	 	 
	 	Per:
    /s/ Andreas Typaldos
	 	Andreas
    Typaldos


  


	SIGNED,
    SEALED, AND DELIVERED	 
	this
    4th day of June, 2020.	Petra
    Investments Holdings LLC
	 	 
	 	Per:
    /s/ Andreas Typaldos
	 	Andreas
    Typaldos, as Manager/Member
EXHIBIT 4.4


     FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE 
1999 STOCK INCENTIVE PLAN OF 
TARO PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRIES LTD.


     THIS FIRST AMENDMENT is made effective May 30, 2002, by TARO PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRIES LTD. (the “Company”), a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the Country of Israel.


W I T N E S S E T H:


     WHEREAS, the Company maintains the 1999 Stock Incentive Plan of Taro Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. (the “Plan”), which was adopted by the Board of Directors of the Company on March 10, 1999, and approved be the stockholders of the Company on July 20, 1999.


     WHEREAS, the Company desires to amend the Plan to increase the maximum number of shares which may be issued as stock incentives under the Plan.


     WHEREAS, the Company’s shareholders, at the Annual General Meeting held on June 27, 2002, approved an increase of 500,000 of the Company’s Ordinary Shares to the maximum number of shares which may be issued as stock incentives under the Plan.


     NOW, THEREFORE, the Plan is hereby amended, effective as of May 30, 2002, by deleting from paragraph 2 the number “800,000” and substituting therefore “2,100,000”.


     Except as specifically amended hereby, the Plan shall remain in full force and effect as prior to this First Amendment.


     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company has caused this First Amendment to be executed, effective as of the day and year first above written.



		TARO PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRIES LTD. 
		 
		By: /s/ Kevin Connelly 
		 
		Title: Senior Vice President & Chief Financial Officer
P.1 

OAR Box 1830 

Prepped by Ollie Stewart 

Document Number: 

108) IV-C-74 

Docket Number: 

A-87-11 

Printed 11/13/2008 7:20:57 AM Sheet 108 of 232 
P.2 

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460 

IT 

OFFICE OF 

AIR AND RADIATION 

Honorable D. Prench Slaughter 

House of Representatives 

Washington, D. C. 20515 

Dear Mr. Slaughter: 

Thank you for your letter forwarding the concerns of your 

constituent, Charles G. Turner, Jr., about our proposed gasoline 

volatility regulations and proposed regulations to control vapors 

generated during the refueling of motor vehicles by the use of 

onboard canisters. You asked us to forward to you any information 

we have on these topics. 

As you know, we are proposing to control gasoline 

volatility as one means of reducing the emissions of volatile 

organic compounds (VOCs). These compounds are a major 

precursor of ozone, which is this nation's most widespread 

and intractable air pollution problem. Over 60 urban areas 

currently do not meet the air quality standard established 

for ozone. Motor vehicles account for one-third to one-half 

of the total VOC emissions, and gasoline volatility reductions 

represent the single largest remaining source of VOC control 

available. 

There are a number of complex issues that must be analyzed 

when volatility control is considered. We have spent a great 

deal of time analyzing these issues and making our findings 

available to all interested parties for critique and comment. 

We held a public hearing in October and expect to receive 

numerous additional comments on this rulemaking before the end 

of the comment period (February 11, 1988). We will fully 

consider all of these comments in developing our final regulatory 

analysis. 

With reference to Mr. Turner's comments regarding Stage II 

versus onboard canister controls, Section E (pages 31177-31182) 

of the August 19, 1987 Federal Register explains EPA's overall 

rationale for proposing onboard controls. If you would like 

further details of our analysis, please contact Mr. Philip 

Carlson of the Standards Development and Support Branch of the 

Emission Control Technology Division, 2565 Plymouth Road, Ann 

Arbor, MI 48105 (FTS 374-8270 or Commercial (313) 668-4270). 
P.3 

^ ' .<" ' 

- 2 -

We will" place the letter from Mr. Turner in our public 

docket and fully consider his comments in the next phase of 

our rulemaking process. 

Let me know if we can be of further assistance. 

Sincerely yours, 

••' '• 0. V'0;;:n 3Y 

, . . , . £, _* y. 

Richard D. Wilson 

Director, Office of Mobile Sources 

cc: Docket A-87-11 

Docket A-85-21
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

September 10, 2021

No. 04-21-00169-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF I.I.T., J.J.T., AND R.A.T., III, CHILDREN,

From the 150th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2020PA00154

Honorable Susan D. Reed, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

Appellee’s second motion for extension of time to file Appellee’s brief is GRANTED. 

Appellee’s brief is due September 17, 2021. No further extensions will be granted absent 

extenuating circumstances. 

_________________________________

Liza A. Rodriguez, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 10th day of September, 2021.

___________________________________

MICHAEL A. CRUZ, Clerk of Court
EX-10.23



 





Exhibit 10.23






UNITED STATES TRUST COMPANY, N.A.

600 114th Street, N.W.

Washington, DC 20005




February 6, 2007




Wheeling-Pittsburgh Corporation

1134 Market Street

Wheeling, WV 26003




Ladies and Gentlemen:




     Reference is made to the Stock Transfer Restriction and Voting Agreement, dated as of
 August 1, 2003 (the “STA”), by and among the Wheeling-Pittsburgh Corporation (the “Company”),
United States Trust Company, N.A. (“UST”), as independent fiduciary for the Wheeling-Pittsburgh
Steel Corporation Retiree Benefits Plan and associated VEBA Trust (the “VEBA”) and Wesbanco Bank,
Inc. as trustee of the VEBA.



     Pursuant to the STA, the Company contributed 4,000,000 shares (the “Initial Shares”) of the
Company’s common stock (the “Common Stock”) to the VEBA on or about November 1, 2003. Subsequent
to November 2003, the Company has contributed an additional 659,339 shares of Common Stock (the
“Additional Shares”) to the VEBA. The Additional Shares are not subject to the STA. Of the
Additional Shares, 365,620 have been held by the VEBA for more than one year and are eligible for
sale by the VEBA pursuant to Rule 144 of the Securities Act of 1933.



     Pursuant to Section 2.2 of the STA, the Company, in its reasonable discretion, may authorize
the disposition of a greater number of Initial Shares than are otherwise permitted by the express
terms of the STA.



     UST, in its capacity as the independent fiduciary for the VEBA, intends to seek to sell
365,620 shares of Common Stock. Because the Additional Shares are in certificated form and have
restricted legends, it will be necessary to remove the legends before Additional Shares may be
sold.



     In order to expedite the sale of the 365,620 shares of Common Stock, UST has requested that
the Company permit UST to cause the VEBA to sell up to 365,620 of the Initial Shares. If the
Company consents to such sale, UST has agreed that 365,620 of the Additional Shares referenced
above which could be sold by the VEBA shall be treated as “Initial Shares” for all purposes under
the STA.



     Please countersign this letter in the space below as evidence of the Company’s acknowledgement
and agreement to the foregoing.



	 	 	 	 	 
	 	UNITED STATES TRUST COMPANY, N.A.

as Independent Fiduciary for the Wheeling-Pittsburgh
Steel Corporation Retiree Benefits Plan and
associated VEBA Trust

 	 
	 	By:  	/s/ Norman P. Goldberg	 
	 	 	Name:  	Norman P. Goldberg 	 
	 	 	Title:  	Authorized Agent 	 
	 



	 	 	 	 	 
	 	AGREED TO AND ACCEPTED:


WHEELING-PITTSBURGH CORPORATION

 	 
	 	By:  	/s/ 
Craig T. Bouchard	 
	 	 	Name:  	Craig T. Bouchard 	 
	 	 	Title:  	President
Case 16-23692 Doc 9 Filed 07/27/16 Entered 07/28/16 09:05:06 Desc Main

 Document Page 1 of 1
§ 63.02 Exemptions for extensions of lines and for systems for the delivery of video programming. ( a ) Any common carrier is exempt from the requirements of section 214 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, for the extension of any line.
( b ) A common carrier shall not be required to obtain a certificate under section 214 of the Communications Act of 1934 with respect to the establishment or operation of a system for the delivery of video programming.
[64 FR 39939, July 23, 1999]
----

            DECISION No 2/2005 OF THE EC-EFTA JOINT COMMITTEE ON COMMON TRANSIT         

of 17 June 2005         

amending the Convention of 20 May 1987 on a common transit procedure

(2005/559/EC)

THE JOINT COMMITTEE,

Having regard to the Convention of 20 May 1987 on a common transit procedure (1), and in particular Article 15(3)(a) thereof,

Whereas:

HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:

Article 1

Annex A7 of Appendix III to the Convention of 20 May 1987 on a common transit procedure shall be amended in accordance with the Annex to this Decision.

Article 2

This decision shall enter into force on the day it is adopted.

It shall apply from 1 July 2005.

Done at Bern, 17 June 2005.

For the Joint Committee

The Chairman

Rudolf DIETRICH            

----

(1)OJ L 226, 13.8.1987, p. 2. Convention as last amended by Decision No 2/2002 (OJ L 4, 9.1.2003, p. 18).

----

ANNEX

In Annex A7 to Appendix III, Title II, Point I of the Convention of 20 May 1987 on a common transit procedure, the following shall be inserted as a second subparagraph in the explanatory note for box 18:

            ‘However, where goods are carried in containers that are to be transported by road vehicles, competent authorities may authorise the principal to leave this box blank where the logistical pattern at the point of departure may prevent the identity and nationality of the means of transport to be provided at the time of establishment of the transit declaration, and where they can ensure that the proper information concerning the means of transport shall be subsequently entered in box 55.’         

----
#### CORNELIUS C. VAN SANTEN, Respondent, *v.*THE STANDARD OIL COMPANY, Appellant.

*Action far money had and*received— *when maintainable.*

Defendant, having’ at the request of one Sohns loaded a vessel with petroleum, represented that he had put in 110 barrels more than he had in fact, and.thereby induced the master of the vessel to give a bill of lading for that amount to Sohns, who paid defendant for that amount, and sold the bill of lading to a firm in Antwerp. Upon the arrival of the vessel at Antwerp, the master was compelled to pay the consignees for the deficiency.

In an action by the plaintiff, as assignee of the master, *held,*that he was entitled to recover the amount so paid from the defendant.

Appeal from an order made at Special Term overruling a demurrer to the complaint herein, and from a judgment in favor of the plaintiff entered thereon.

*Geo. A. Blade,*for the appellant.

*Alfred G.*Ohapin, for the respondent.

Barnard, P. J.:

The plaintiff is the assignee of one Schulte. Schulte was the master of a vessel known as “The Laura and Gertrude.” The defendant, at the request of Edward Sohns, loaded this vessel with. *141refined petroleum for him. The defendant after the loading was completed represented to Sohns and to Schulte that it had put in the vessel 110 barrels more than was in fact put in. Sohns paid for this excess to defendant, and by means of the representation of defendant, Schulte signed a bill of lading, reciting that a quantity of petroleum was loaded in the ship, which included this excess. Sohns transferred the bill of lading to Born & Sons, Antwerp, Belgium. When the vessel arrived at Antwerp, the error was discovered and the captain paid the value of the 110 barrels, and made good the bill of lading. I think this action is properly brought by the captain’s assignee. The defendant has received money to which it is not entitled. This came from Sohns,' but Sohns has received it from the consignee, who parted with his money on the faith of the bill of lading. The bill of lading as between the master and Born *&*Sons, who had thus parted with their property on the faith- of the bill of lading, becomes conclusive and not subject to explanation. *(Dickerson*v. *Seelye,*12 Barb., 99; *Ellis*v. *Willard,*9 N. Y., 529.) The master was liable upon this bill of lading. ( *Watkinson*v. Laughton, 8 Johns. R., 213; *Elliott*v. Rossell, 10 Johns. R., 1.) The case thus stands as follows :

The defendant, by a misrepresentation, obtained of plaintiff’s assignee a bill of lading that 110 barrels of petroleum had been placed by defendant upon the vessel of which he was master. , He gave a bill of lading based upon this misrepresentation. By means of it the defendant obtained money. of Sohns, and Sohns reimbursed himself by selling the false bill to Born *&*Sons. Born *&*Sons compelled the master to make good the 110 barrels. Upon what principle the defendant is to keep the money, as against the master, I am unable to perceive.

The order overruling the demurrer should be affirmed, with costs.

Gtlbekt and DykmaN, JJ., concurred.

Order overruling demurrer, and judgment in favor of plaintiff affirmed, with costs.
#### § 23.2 How do I decide if these regulations apply to my shipment or me?

If you are engaging in activities with specimens of CITES-listed species these regulations apply to you.

[79 FR 30419, May 27, 2014]
#### § 226.204 Critical habitat for Sacramento winter-run chinook salmon.

The following waterways, bottom and water of the waterways and adjacent riparian zones: The Sacramento River from Keswick Dam, Shasta County (River Mile 302) to Chipps Island (River Mile 0) at the westward margin of the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, all waters from Chipps Island westward to Carquinez Bridge, including Honker Bay, Grizzly Bay, Suisun Bay, and Carquinez Strait, all waters of San Pablo Bay westward of the Carquinez Bridge, and all waters of San Francisco Bay (north of the San Francisco/Oakland Bay Bridge) from San Pablo Bay to the Golden Gate Bridge.

[58 FR 33218, June 16, 1993. Redesignated and amended at 64 FR 14067, Mar. 23, 1999]
In The Matter Of: 

SERVED: December 17,.2015 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS. 

WASHINGTON, DC ... _:; 

Docket No. FAA-2014-0867 

BIRMINGHAM 

FLIGHT CENTER, INC. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Case No. 2012S0090053 

Respondent 

ORDER GRANTING THE RESPONDENT'S REQUEST TO 

FILE A REPLY, BUT DENYING MOTIONS FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER AND 

LEAVE TO TAKE DEPOSITIONS BEFORE FILING A REPLY 

On December 16,2015, an Order Striking the Respondent's Untimely Response to the 

FAA's Motion to Deem Admitted, and Granting/Denying Other Relief was filed. 

That same day, on December 16, 2015, the Respondent, Birmingham Flight Center, Inc., 

filed Respondent's Motion for Protective Order and Request to Delay the Filing of a Reply to the 

Administrator's Response [sic] Respondent's Motion for Sanctions ("Motion and Request"). 

Among other things, this Motion and Request seeks "leave to file a reply" (Mot. and Req., 2), but 

also seeks "leave to depose the FAA's three declarants" before filing a Reply, as well as a 

"protective Order extending the date ... [of] the reply" until 30 days after the third deposition is 

taken. (!d.) 

Pursuant to 14 C.P.R. § 13.205(a)(6) and (8), and after reviewing all relevant caselaw, 

regulation, statutory authority, and being fully advised; 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 

I. The Respondent's request to file a Reply to the FAA's December 14, 2015 Response is 

granted. 
2. The Respondent's motion for a Protective Order, seeking to extend the time to file a 

Reply thirty days beyond the last deposition of the three FAA declarants is denied. 

3. The Respondent's request for leave to depose the three FAA declarants, prior to filing a 

Reply, is denied. 

4. The deadline for the Respondent to file a Reply to FAA's December 14,2015 Response 

is January 13, 2016. 

Attachment: Service List 

Page 2 of2 
' . 

Docket No. FAA-2014-0867 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

SERVICE LIST- BY U.S. MAIL 

ORIGINAL & ONE COPY 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence A venue, S. W. 

Washington, DC 20591 

Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2W1 0001 

Mr.· Christopher R. Stevenson 

Complainant's Counsel 

Federal Aviation Administration 

Office of the Regional Counsel, AS0-7 

Southern Region 

1701 Columbia A venue 

College Park, GA 30337 

TEL: 404-305-5200 

FAX: 404-305-5223 

Mr. Paul R. Borth 

Respondent's Counsel 

Barnett & Borth, LLC 

800 Waukegan Road, Suite 200 

Glenview, IL 60025-4387 

TEL: 847-724-5520 

FAX: 815-356-7042 

Judge J.E. Sullivan 

U.S. Administrative Law Judge 

Office of Hearings, M-20 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

ONE COPY 

Birmingham Flight Center, Inc. 

Respondent 

4243 East Lake Blvd. 

Birmingham, AL 35217 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. (E11-310) 

· Washington, DC 20590 

TEL: 202-366-6941 

FAX: 202-366-7536 

1 Service was by U.S. Mail. For service in person or by expedited courier, use the following address: Federal 

Aviation Administration, 600 Independence Avenue, S.W., Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2Wl000, Washington, 

DC 20591; Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430.
§ 217.106 Letters of Authorization. ( a ) To incidentally take marine mammals pursuant to this subpart, UCSC/PISCO must apply for and obtain an LOA.
( b ) An LOA, unless suspended or revoked, may be effective for a period of time not to exceed the expiration date of this subpart.
( c ) If an LOA expires prior to the expiration date of this subpart, UCSC/PISCO may apply for and obtain a renewal of the LOA.
( d ) In the event of projected changes to the activity or to mitigation and monitoring measures required by an LOA, UCSC/PISCO must apply for and obtain a modification of the LOA as described in § 217.107.
( e ) The LOA shall set forth: ( 1 ) Permissible methods and numbers of incidental taking;
( 2 ) Means of effecting the least practicable adverse impact (*i.e.,* mitigation) on the species, its habitat, and on the availability of the species for subsistence uses; and
( 3 ) Requirements for monitoring and reporting.
( f ) Issuance of the LOA shall be based on a determination that the level of taking will be consistent with the findings made for the total taking allowable under this subpart.
( g ) Notice of issuance or denial of an LOA shall be published in the Federal Register within 30 days of a determination.
#### § 95.759 [Reserved]