alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 218.6 Computation of time periods. ( a ) *Computation.* All time periods are computed using calendar days, including Saturdays, Sundays, and Federal holidays. However, when the time period expires on a Saturday, Sunday, or Federal holiday, the time is extended to the end of the next Federal working day as stated in the legal notice (11:59 p.m. in the time zone of the receiving office for objections filed by electronic means such as email or facsimile).
( b ) *Starting date.* The day after publication of the legal notice required by § 218.7(c) is the first day of the objection-filing period.
( c ) *Publication date.* The publication date of the legal notice of the EA or final EIS in the newspaper of record or, when the Chief is the responsible official, the Federal Register, is the exclusive means for calculating the time to file an objection. Objectors may not rely on dates or timeframe information provided by any other source.
( d ) *Extensions.* Time extensions are not permitted except as provided at paragraph (a) of this section, and § 218.26(b).
§ 214.16 Oral presentation. ( a ) *Purpose.* The purpose of an oral presentation is to provide parties to an appeal with an opportunity to discuss their concerns regarding the appealable decision with the Appeal Deciding Officer.
( b ) *Procedure.* Oral presentations are not evidentiary proceedings involving examination and cross-examination of witnesses and are not subject to formal rules of procedure.
( c ) *Scope.* Oral presentations shall be conducted in an informal manner and shall be limited to clarifying or elaborating upon information that has already been filed with the Appeal Deciding Officer. New information may be presented only if it could not have been raised earlier in the appeal and if it would be unfair and prejudicial to exclude it.
( d ) *Requests.* A request for an oral presentation included in an appeal shall be granted by the Appeal Deciding Officer unless the appeal has been dismissed under § 214.10.
( e ) *Availability.* Oral presentations may be conducted during appeal of a decision, but not during discretionary review.
( f ) *Scheduling and rules.* The Appeal Deciding Officer shall conduct the oral presentation within 10 days of the date a reply to the responsive statement is due. The Appeal Deciding Officer shall notify the parties of the date, time, and location of the oral presentation and the procedures to be followed.
( g ) *Participation.* All parties to an appeal are eligible to participate in the oral presentation. At the discretion of the Appeal Deciding Officer, non-parties may observe the oral presentation, but are not eligible to participate.
( h ) *Summaries and transcripts.* A summary of an oral presentation may be included in the appeal record only if it is submitted to the Appeal Deciding Officer by a party to the appeal at the end of the oral presentation. A transcript of an oral presentation prepared by a certified court reporter may be included in the appeal record if the transcript is filed with the Appeal Deciding Officer within 10 days of the date of the oral presentation and if the transcript is paid for by those who requested it.
EXHIBIT 31.1



CERTIFICATION OF JOSEPH R. ROZELLE, PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER, PURSUANT TO RULE 13a-14(a) UNDER THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934



I, Joseph R. Rozelle, certify that:



1.   I have reviewed this Annual Report on Form 10-K/A of Emerald Acquisition Corporation;



2.    Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;



3.    Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;



4.   The registrant's other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:



(a)  Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;



(b)  Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and



(c)  Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant's internal control over financial reporting; and



5.   The registrant's other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of the registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):



(a)  All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and



(b)  Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal control over financial reporting.





Date:  January 9, 2009



| |                                
| | -------------------------------
| | /s/ Joseph R. Rozelle          
| | Joseph R. Rozelle              
| | Principal Executive Officer    
| | and Principal Financial Officer
#### Bush v. Romer *et al.,*appellants.

*Common, currier—delivery by to wrong person.*

Defendants, common carriers, delivered *by*mistake, to a person who had no authority to receive them, goods shipped hy and consigned to plaintiff. *Held*(following *Viner*v. ¿V. *T. Steamboat Co.,*50 N. T. *2^),*that they were liable to the plaintiff for the value of such goods.

Appeal from a judgment of the Dutchess county court upon the verdict of a jury in favor of the plaintiff, in an action originating in a justice’s court.

The defendants, William F. Romer and Jacob Tremper, were, in the spring of 1873, common carriers, doing business under the firm name of Romer & Tremper, and running a line of steamers between Albany and Newburgh, on the Hudson river, stopping at intermediate places, of which Hyde Park was one. Plaintiff, John W. Bush, who was a dealer in trees, on the 25th of April, 1873, shipped, at Waterloo, N. Y., a box of trees, of the value of $140.10, marked “ J. W. Bush, Hyde Park, N. Y., by steamer *Eagle,*from Albany.” This box was received on board the steamer named, which was one belonging to defendants’ line, April 30, 1873, and landed at Hyde *598Park the same day. A few days afterward the box was delivered by defendants’ agent having charge of their business at Hyde Park, to one Witherwax, who had no authority from plaintiff to receive it.

*A. Wager,*for appellant.

*H. H. Morse,*for respondent.

Barnard, P. J.

This is a plain case. The defendants are common carriers. As such, they undertook to transport for the plaintiff, from Albany to Hyde Park, a quantity of trees, and deliver them to the plaintiff there. They did not so deliver them; but did deliver them to a Mr. Witherwax, who had no authority to receive them for the plaintiff. Hnder this state of facts, the plaintiff is entitled to recover the value of the trees.

The case of *Viner*v. *New York, etc., Steamboat Co.,*50 N. Y. 23, is a decisive authority. That case holds, that the liability of the carrier continues until the property is delivered according to the consignee’s order; and it is no answer for a wrong delivery to say, that it was done by mistake, and with no bad intent. The judge-who tried this case charged in the language of that case, and the defendants excepted to it; and it is claimed in the points by the defendants, that it was in effect directing a verdict for the plaintiff. It is, notwithstanding its effect, a legal charge. No question is raised as to the freight in the pleadings, and none was suggested on the trial.

The judgment should be affirmed, with costs.

*Judgment affirmed.*
* Senior Judge Hall participated in the consideration of this case but died prior to the time the decision was filed. The decision is filed by a quorum of the panel pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 46(d). UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-4715

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus WILLIAM F. PRIOR, M.D., Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Aiken. Charles E. Simons, Jr., Senior District Judge. (CR-97-1048) Submitted: May 28, 1999 Decided: September 23, 1999 Before WIDENER and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges, and HALL, * Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.William F. Prior, Appellant Pro Se. Eric William Ruschky, Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.2 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM:William Prior appeals the district court’s judgment and resulting sentence entered pursuant to a guilty plea for dispensinga controlled substance with an expired Drug Enforcement Administration registration number in violation of 21 U.S.C.A. §§ 843(a)(2), (d)(1) (West Supp. 1999), and 18 U.S.C . § 2 (1994). Prior argues that the court erred in accepting his guilty plea. We find that the court fully complied with Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 and properly determined that Prior’s guilty plea was knowing and voluntary. See North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25 (1970); United States v. DeFusco , 949 F.2d 114, 116-17 (4th Cir. 1991). Accordingly, we affirm Prior’s conviction and sentence. We deny Prior’s motion to “remand request for amendment of transcript.” 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
EXHIBIT 32.2 SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATION Pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, I, Jane Morlok, Chief Financial Officer of Breda
Telephone Corp., certify that to my knowledge (i) Breda Telephone Corp.s
Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended (the Report) fully
complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, and (ii) the information contained in the Report fairly
presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
of Breda Telephone Corp. Date: August
 14, 2008/s/ Jane
 MorlokJane Morlok,
 Chief Financial Officer E-6
Document

Exhibit 10.02





SECOND AMENDMENT 
TO LOAN AGREEMENT 


THIS AMENDMENT TO AMENDMENT TO LOAN AGREEMENT (the “Second Amendment Agreement”), is made and entered into, as of April 3, 2020 (the “Effective Date”) by and between Nikko Chemicals Co., Ltd. (“Lender”) and Amyris, Inc. (“Borrower”). Except as otherwise defined herein, all capitalized terms in this Amendment have the same meaning as set forth in the Loan Agreement as amended by the First Amendment Agreement (as defined below).
WHEREAS, the parties hereto entered into a Loan Agreement dated December 19, 2019 (the “Loan Agreement”); 
WHEREAS, the parties hereto entered into an Amendment to Loan Agreement dated March 12, 2020 (the “First Amendment Agreement”); and 
WHEREAS, the parties hereto desire to confirm and amend certain terms of the Loan Agreement and the First Amendment Agreement.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the agreements and obligations set forth herein and for other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are here acknowledged, the parties hereto hereby agree and confirm as follows:
1.  Payment. The repayment date of the Principal under Section 3(1) of the Loan Agreement shall be “April 30, 2020” (the “Maturity Date”), rather than March 31, 2020. Upon the execution of this Amendment, Borrower shall make an outstanding payment of all of the Interest under the Loan Agreement and the First Amendment Agreement which shall be US$55,718.74. Any Interest on the Second Amendment Agreement shall be payable on the Maturity Date. Notwithstanding above, all outstanding Loan and Interest shall be prepaid upon closing of the Borrower’s fundraising in the amount of $70,000,000.00 or more.


2.  Effective Date. This Agreement shall be effective as of the Effective Date (subject to Borrower’s full payment under Paragraph 4 to Lender). Except as expressly amended in this Agreement, any other terms and conditions shall remain unchanged and continue to be in full force and effect.












IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed and delivered this Agreement as of the date first above written. 
												
	 NIKKO CHEMICALS CO., LTD.			 
	

 By: /s/ Shizuo Ukaji___________________
			 
	 Name: Shizuo Ukaji			 
	 Title: President & Chief Executive Officer			 
	 			 
	 			 
	

AMYRIS, INC.
			
	By:	 	

_/s/ John Melo_________________
	
	Name:	 	John Melo	
	Title:	 	President & Chief Executive Officer
NASA LogoNTRSNTRS - NASA Technical Reports ServerSearchmore_vertCollectionsAboutNewsHelpLogin Back to ResultsIndependent Orbiter Assessment (IOA): CIL issues resolution report, volume 2The results of the Independent Orbiter Assessment (IOA) of the Failure Modes And Effects Analysis (FMEA) and Critical Items List (CIL) are presented. This report contains IOA assessment worksheets showing resolution of outstanding IOA CIL issues that were summarized in the IOA FMEA/CIL Assessment Interim Report, dated 9 March 1988. Each assessment worksheet has been updated with CIL issue resolution and rationale. Volume 2 contains the worksheets for the following subsystems: Nose Wheel Steering Subsystem; Remote Manipulator Subsystem; Atmospheric Revitalization Subsystem; Extravehicular Mobility Unit Subsystem; Power Reactant Supply and Distribution Subsystem; Main Propulsion Subsystem; and Orbital Maneuvering Subsystem.Document ID19900001639Acquisition SourceLegacy CDMSDocument TypeContractor Report (CR)Date AcquiredSeptember 6, 2013Publication DateSeptember 16, 1988Subject CategorySpace TransportationReport/Patent NumberNAS 1.26:185524-VOL-2NASA-CR-185524-VOL-2Accession Number90N10955Funding Number(s)CONTRACT_GRANT: NAS9-17650Distribution LimitsPublicCopyrightWork of the US Gov. Public Use Permitted.Available DownloadsNameType19900001639.pdfSTIcloud_downloadcontent_copyvisibilityRelated RecordsThere are no records associated with this record.visibility_offNo Preview Available
 No Fear Act | Freedom of Information Act | Office of the Inspector General | Agency Financial ReportsNASA Web Privacy Policy and Important Notices | NASA Guidelines for Quality of InformationDisclaimers, Copyright, Terms of Use | Accessibility | NASA OCIO | USA.gov | NASA.govContact Us | Site MapSTI LogoNASA Official: JoAnne R. Calhoun Site Curator: STI Compliance and Distribution Services Last Modified: September 12, 2024
# Journal officiel C 94A/28 a

| | ISSN 1725-2431 |
| --- | --- |
| Journal officiel
  de l'Union européenne | C 94A |
| | |
| Édition de langue française | Communications et informations | 50e année28 avril 2007 |

ISSN 1725-2431

Journal officiel

de l'Union européenne

C 94A

Édition de langue française

Communications et informations

50e année28 avril 2007

---

| Numéro d'information | Sommaire | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | Rectificatifs |
| 2007/C 094A/01 | Rectificatif à l'avis de concours général: Directeur de recherche — expert en prévisions — Référence EF/TA/07/02 (JO C 68 A du 24.3.2007) | 1 |

Numéro d'information

Sommaire

page

Rectificatifs

2007/C 094A/01

Rectificatif à l'avis de concours général: Directeur de recherche — expert en prévisions — Référence EF/TA/07/02 (JO C 68 A du 24.3.2007)

1

| FR | |
| --- | --- |

FR

---

Rectificatifs

| 28.4.2007 | FR | Journal officiel de l'Union européenne | CA 94/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.4.2007

FR

Journal officiel de l'Union européenne

CA 94/1

---

Rectificatif à l'avis de concours général: Directeur de recherche — expert en prévisions — Référence EF/TA/07/02

(
  «Journal officiel de l'Union européenne» C 68 A du 24 mars 2007
  )

(2007/C 94 A/01)

À la page 4, titre V. Dépôt des candidatures:

au lieu de:

«[...] 20 avril 2007 [...]»,

lire:

«[...] 1er juin 2007 [...]».

---
# EUR-Lex - 12004V373 - EN

Important legal notice

*|*

# 12004V373

**Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe - PART III — THE POLICIES AND FUNCTIONING OF THE UNION - TITLE VI — THE FUNCTIONING OF THE UNION - CHAPTER I — PROVISIONS GOVERNING THE INSTITUTIONS - Section 1 — The institutions - Subsection 5 — The Court of Justice of the European Union - Article III-373 **

*
Official Journal 310 , 16/12/2004 P. 0162 - 0162 *

Article III-373

The Court of Justice of the European Union shall, within the limits hereinafter laid down, have jurisdiction in disputes concerning:

(a) the fulfilment by Member States of obligations under the Statute of the European Investment Bank. In this connection, the Board of Directors of the Bank shall enjoy the powers conferred upon the Commission by Article III-360;

(b) measures adopted by the Board of Governors of the European Investment Bank. In this connection, any Member State, the Commission or the Board of Directors of the Bank may institute proceedings under the conditions laid down in Article III-365;

(c) measures adopted by the Board of Directors of the European Investment Bank. Proceedings against such measures may be instituted only by Member States or by the Commission, under the conditions laid down in Article III-365, and solely on the grounds of non-compliance with the procedure provided for in Article 19(2), (5), (6) and (7) of the Statute of the Bank;

(d) the fulfilment by national central banks of obligations under the Constitution and the Statute of the European System of Central Banks and of the European Central Bank. In this connection, the powers of the Governing Council of the European Central Bank in respect of national central banks shall be the same as those conferred upon the Commission in respect of Member States by Article III-360. If the Court of Justice of the European Union finds that a national central bank has failed to fulfil an obligation under the Constitution, that bank shall be required to take the necessary measures to comply with the judgment of the Court.

--------------------------------------------------
**Annual
      Statement of Compliance**







VIA:
      EMAIL




Merrill
      Lynch Mortgage Investors, Inc.


250
      Vesey
      Street


4
      World
      Financial Center, 10th Floor


New
      York,
      New York10080




Litton
      Loan Servicing LP


4828
      Loop
      Central Drive


Houston,
      Texas77081




Re:
            Pooling and Servicing Agreement (the
      "Agreement"), dated as of June 1,  2006, among Merrill Lynch  Mortgage
      Investors, Inc., as depositor, Litton Loan Servicing LP, as servicer, and
      LaSalle Bank National Association, as trustee (the “Trustee”), relating to Ownit
      Mortgage Loan Trust, Mortgage Loan Asset-Backed Certificates, Series
      2006-4




I,
      Barbara L. Marik, a First Vice President of LaSalle Bank National Association,
      as Trustee hereby certify that:




(1) A review of the activities of the Trustee during the preceding calendar
      year
      and of the performance of the Trustee under the Agreement has been made under
      my
      supervision; and




(2) To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Trustee has fulfilled
      all its obligations under the Agreement in all material respects throughout
      such
      year or a portion thereof.






Date: February
      1, 2007




LaSalle
      Bank National Association, as Trustee




/s/
      Barbara L Marik


Barbara
      L. Marik


First
      Vice President
**EXHIBIT 32**

 

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Integrated Environmental Technologies, Ltd. (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended September 30, 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, William E. Prince, President and Chief Executive Officer 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:

 

|   | (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. |
|--------|-----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

 

|   | /s/ William E. Prince                                   			

William E. Prince |
|--------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | President and Chief Executive Officer |
|--------|---------------------------------------|

|   | November 20, 2006 |
|--------|-------------------|
## SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

## Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

**327 CA 15-00105**  PRESENT: SMITH, J.P., CARNI, LINDLEY, CURRAN, AND TROUTMAN, JJ.

GENERATIONS CHILD CARE, INC., PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT,

V ORDER

LIVING WORD TEMPLE OF RESTORATION AND WILLIAM R. TURNER, JR., DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS.

KAMAN, BERLOVE, MARAFIOTI, JACOBSTEIN & GOLDMAN, LLP, ROCHESTER (RICHARD GLENN CURTIS OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS.

LECLAIR KORONA GIORDANO COLE LLP, ROCHESTER (JEREMY M. SHER OF COUNSEL), FOR PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT.

Appeal from an order and judgment (one paper) of the Supreme Court, Monroe County (Thomas A. Stander, J.), entered October 8, 2014. The order and judgment determined the rights and obligations of the parties pursuant to a certain lease agreement.
It is hereby ORDERED that the order and judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs for reasons stated at Supreme Court.

Entered: April 29, 2016 Frances E. Cafarell Clerk of the Court