alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
QuickLinks
 -- Click here to rapidly navigate through this document

 
 

Exhibit 10.8    
    


Villa
Guardia, 24th March 2004 



	

 	
 	

Messrs.
	Administration and Finance	 	SIRTON PHARMACEUTICALS S.p.A.
	 	 	Piazza XX Settembre 2

22079 VILLA GUARDIA COMO
	SC/vs	 	 





        With
reference to the investment programmes under way, for an improved management of the bank loans granted, we are writing to request you to grant us a loan of Euro 1,000,000 in the
ways and under the conditions you suggest. 


        We
trust we will receive your positive reply on this matter, 


Your
sincerely, 


   

    



	 	 	Gentium S.p.A.

Administration and Finance

/s/  Sauro Carsana      
 Dr. Sauro Carsana











	

Villa Guardia, 28th March 2004	
 	

 
	 	 	Messrs.

GENTIUM S.p.A.

Piazza XX Settembre, 2

22079 VILLA GUARDIA—COMO
	

Deputy Chairperson's Office	 	 
	

LIF/vs	
 	

 





        In
reply to your letter of 24/03/2004, we wish to inform you that we are willing to put at your disposal the sum of Euro 1,000,000 by way of loan under the following conditions: 


	1.
	Duration






        Until
1/10/2008 



	2.
	Reimbursement




        In
a single payment, with the faculty of the borrower to return the sum in advance with 30 days' written notice. 



	3.
	Remuneration




        Fixed
rate of 3.5%. 



	4.
	Payment




        Deferred
annual. 




        Confident
that we have fulfilled your request in the best ways possible, we would be grateful if, for formal regularity, you confirm this letter in full. 



	Yours sincerely,	 	 
	

 	
 	

Sirton Pharmaceuticals S.p.A.
	 	 	The Deputy Chairperson

/s/  Laura Iris Ferro      
 Dr. Laura Iris Ferro











	

 	
 	

 
	Villa Guardia, 29th March 2004	 	 
	 	 	Messrs.

SIRTON PHARMACEUTICALS S.P.A.

Piazza XX Settembre, 2

22079 VILLA GUARDIA—COMO
	Administration and Finance	 	 
	

CS/vs	
 	

 





        In
reply to your letter of 26/03/2004, please find below its full contents which we accept: 


        "In
reply to you letter of 24/03/04, we wish to inform you that we are willing to put at your disposal the sum of Euro 1,000,000 by way of loan under the following conditions: 


	1.
	Duration




        Until
1/10/2008 



	2.
	Reimbursement 





        In
a single payment, with the faculty of the borrower to return the sum in advance with 30 days' written notice. 



	3.
	Remuneration




        Fixed
rate of 3.5%. 



	4.
	Payment




        Deferred
annual. 




        Confident
that we have fulfilled your request in the best ways possible, we would be grateful if, for formal regularity, you confirm this letter in full." 


        Thanking
your for your helpfulness, 



	Yours sincerely,	 	 
	

 	
 	

Gentium S.p.A.

Administration and Finance

/s/  S. Carsana      
 Dr. Sauro Carsana













QuickLinks



Exhibit 10.8
- 2388
- 2389
- 2390
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 32.2

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                                   AS ADDED BY
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

         In connection with the Quarterly Report of Florida Business BancGroup,
Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended September 30, 2003 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), I, Marti J.
Warren, Principal Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. Section 1350, as added by 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.       To my knowledge, the information contained in the Report fairly
         presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results
         of operations of the Company as of and for the period covered by the
         report.

Date: November 5, 2003                     By: /s/ Marti J. Warren
                                               ---------------------------------
                                               Marti J. Warren, Principal
                                                Financial Officer
§ 193.15-25 Discharge outlets. ( a ) Discharge outlets shall be of an approved type.
#### Black Hills Mercantile Co. *v.*Gardiner *et al.*

Appeal from circuit court, Lawrence county. Hon. Chas. M. Thomas, Judge.

Action in attachment by the Black Hills Mercantile Company against Charles J. Gardiner and another. The writ issued was dissolved, and plaintiff appeals.

Affirmed.

*257*Wood & Buell*and *McLaughlin &*McLaughlin, for appellant.

*Martin & Mason,*for respondents.

Kellam, J.

Tbe issues, both of law and fact, are tbe same in tbis case as in an action of the same title, in which a decision and an opinion were filed this term. 5 S. D. 250, 58 N. W. 557. It is submitted on tbe same briefs, and must be controlled by tbe opinion in the former case. Tbe order discharging the attachment is affirmed.
Compensation


Exhibit 10.1


Synovus Financial Corp.

Board of Directors Compensation

Approved January 19, 2005




	 	 	 	 	 
	Cash Compensation	 	 	 	 
	Annual Board Retainer
	 	$	35,000	 
	 
	Annual Committee Member Retainers
	 	 	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 
	Compensation
	 	$	5,000	 
	Corporate Governance & Nominating
	 	$	5,000	 
	Audit
	 	$	10,000	 
	Executive
	 	$	10,000	 
	 
	Annual Committee Chair Retainers *
	 	 	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 
	Compensation
	 	$	5,000	 
	Corporate Governance & Nominating
	 	$	5,000	 
	Audit
	 	$	10,000	 
	 
	Annual Lead Director Retainer
	 	$	5,000	 







* Note: The committee chair will receive both an annual committee member retainer and an annual
committee chair retainer.


	 	 	 	 	 
	Equity Compensation	 	 	 	 
	Annual restricted stock award
	 	500 shares
	in the form of a grant from the
Synovus 2002 Long Term Incentive
Plan, 3 year 	 	 	 	 
	
cliff vesting

No equity awards to employee directors	 	 	 	 
	 
	Director Stock Purchase Plan	 	 	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 
	Annual maximum company cash	 	$	10,000	 
	contribution per director participant
to company-sponsored open market
stock purchase	 	 	 	 
	 plan, with company’s
contribution equal to 50% of director participant’s cash contribution, subject
to annual maximum contribution limit
by director of $20,000
#### § 189.01-1 Preemptive effect.

The regulations in this part have preemptive effect over State or local regulations in the same field.

[USCG-2006-24797, 77 FR 33892, June 7, 2012]
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

MARY ANN MCBRIDE, et al., ) 

 ) 

Plaintiffs, ) 

 ) Civil Action No. 2:15-cv-11222 

v. ) 

 ) Hon. Sean F. Cox 

MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF ) Mag. David R. Grand

CORRECTIONS, et al., ) 

 ) 

Defendants. ) 

 ) 

ORDER GRANTING THE PARTIES’ JOINT MOTION FOR FINAL 

APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT 

The Court, having reviewed the Parties’ Joint Motion for Final Approval of 

Class Action Settlement (“Motion”), the supporting memorandum of law and 

accompanying declaration, the Proposed Settlement Agreement (“Agreement”), 

and all objections submitted to the Court, and having held a fairness hearing 

regarding the Agreement on March 28, 2019, hereby GRANTS the Motion, and 

ORDERS that: 

1. The Agreement is approved as fair, reasonable, adequate, and in the 

best interests of the class pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(e); 

2. The award of fees and costs referenced in Section XVII.C of the 

Agreement is approved as reasonable given the rates charged, the size, reputation, 

Case 2:15-cv-11222-SFC-DRG ECF No. 120 filed 03/29/19 PageID.4464 Page 1 of 2
2

and experience of counsel, and the hours reasonably expended during this 

litigation. 

3. Pursuant to Section XVII of the Agreement and Federal Rule of Civil 

Procedure 41(a)(2), Plaintiffs’ claims in this action are DISMISSED with 

prejudice, but this Court retains jurisdiction over this action to enforce the terms 

of the Agreement as needed. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: March 29, 2019 s/Sean F. Cox 

 Sean F. Cox 

 U. S. District Judge 

The parties, through their respective counsel, stipulate to the entry of the above 

order. 

Date: March 14, 2019 Date: March 14, 2019 

/s/ A. Peter Govorchin

A. Peter Govorchin (P31161) 

Assistant Attorney General 

MI Dept of Attorney General 

Complex Litigation Division 

P.O. Box 30736 

Lansing, MI 48909 

(517) 373-6434 

govorchinp@michigan.gov 

Counsel for Defendants 

/s/ Andrew D. Lazerow

Andrew D. Lazerow 

Stephen C. Bartenstein 

Philip J. Levitz 

Covington & Burling LLP 

One CityCenter 

850 Tenth Street, NW 

Washington, DC 20001 

(202) 662-6000 

alazerow@cov.com 

sbartenstein@cov.com 

plevitz@cov.com 

 

Counsel for Plaintiffs 

Case 2:15-cv-11222-SFC-DRG ECF No. 120 filed 03/29/19 PageID.4465 Page 2 of 2
Document headings vary by document type but may contain
                    the following: the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document
the number of the CFR title and the number of each part
                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly
                      related to
the agency docket number / agency internal file number
the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in
                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory
                      Actions See the
                    Document Drafting Handbook
                    for more details.
 Department of Transportation Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
 AGENCY: Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), DOT.
 ACTION: List of applications delayed more than 180 days.
 SUMMARY: In accordance with the requirements of 49 U.S.C. 5117(c), PHMSA is publishing the following list of special permit applications that have been in process for 180 days or more. The reason(s) for delay and the expected completion date for action on each application is provided in association with each identified application.
 FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Delmer Billings, Office of Hazardous Materials Special Permits and Approvals, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, East Building, PHH-30, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, Southeast, Washington, DC 20590-0001, (202) 366-4535. Key to “Reason for Delay” 1. Awaiting additional information from applicant. 2. Extensive public comment under review. 3. Application is technically complex and is of significant impact or precedent-setting and requires extensive analysis. 4. Staff review delayed by other priority issues or volume of special permit applications. Meaning of Application Number Suffixes N—New application. M—Modification request. PM—Party to application with modification request. Issued in Washington, DC, on May 7, 2007. Delmer Billings, Director, Special Permits & Approvals Programs, Office of Hazardous Materials, Special Permits & Approvals.
 Modification to Special Permits
Application No.
Applicant
Reason for delay
Estimated date of completion10481-M
M-1 Engineering Limited,  Bradford, West Yorkshire
4
05-31-200714167-M
Trinityrail, Dallas, TX
1,3,4
06-30-2007
 New Special Permit Applications
Application No.
Applicant
Reason for delay
Estimated date of completion14343-N
Valero St. Charles Norco, LA
1
05-31-200714423-N
Accutest Laboratories,  Dayton, NJ
4
05-31-200714436-N
BNSF Railway Company,  Topeka, KS
4
06-30-200714385-N
Kansas City Southern Railway,  Company Kansas City, MO
4
06-30-200714402-N
Lincoln Composites, Lincoln, NE
1
12-31-2007


[FR Doc. 07-2343 Filed 5-11-07; 8:45am] BILLING CODE 4910-60-M
§ 189.25-47 Chemical and explosive hazards. ( a ) The marine inspector shall inspect every chemistry laboratory, scientific laboratory, and chemical storeroom during each inspection for certification and periodic inspection.
( b ) Magazines, vans, and chests shall be inspected during each inspection for certification and periodic inspection.
[CGFR 67-83, 33 FR 1118, Jan. 27, 1968, as amended by USCG-1999-4976, 65 FR 6509, Feb. 9, 2000; 65 FR 11904, Mar. 7, 2000]
#### NORMAN POTTLE, PLAINTIFF, v. LINDE & GRIFFITH COMPANY, INCORPORATED, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.

Argued May term, 1929

Decided August 8, 1929.

Before Justices Tkenciiaed, Kallscti and Lloyd.

For the rule, *Kellogg & Chance.*

Pee Ctieiam.

Defendant applies for a second rule for new trial; the first rule having been argued before the court and discharged. The present application is based on what is alleged to be newly-discovered evidence, bearing on the credibility of the plaintiff and the measure of damages. An examination of the affidavits upon which this application is based discloses, we think, that a new rule should not be granted. The averments therein are wholly hearsay based upon statements alleged to have been made by strangers to the litigation and are as we think wholly inadequate to invite further consideration of the case under a rule to show cause.

The application is denied.
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 of Thinkpath, Inc. (the "Company")
on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2004 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Declan A. French,
Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350,
as adopted pursuant to ss. 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.



     August 23, 2004                        By: /s/ Declan A. French
                                            Name: Declan A. French
                                            Title: Chief Executive Officer
#### § 201.141 Stipulations.

The parties may, by stipulation in writing filed at the prehearing conference, or by written or oral stipulation presented at the hearing or by written stipulation subsequent to the hearing, agree upon any facts involved in the proceeding and include them in the record with the consent of the presiding officer. Proposed written stipulations shall be subscribed by the sponsors and served upon all parties of record. Only upon acceptance by all parties to the proceeding may a stipulation be noted for the record or received as evidence.
#### FREDERICK F. KLAWSON AND CAROLINE KLAWSON, HIS WIFE, PLAINTIFFS-RESPONDENTS, v. JOSEPH MAYO, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

Decided October 16, 1929.

Before Gun mere, Chief Justice, and Justices Parker and Bodine.

For the defendant-appellant, *John A. Matthews.*

For the plaintiffs-respondents, *Messrs. King & O’Brien.*

Per Curiam.

The plaintiffs recovered judgments against the defendant.

Our examination of the testimony in this case leads us to the conclusion that there were disputed questions of fact *888which were properly submitted to the jury by the trial judge, and that hence there was no error in refusing to nonsuit the plaintiffs nor in refusing to direct a verdict for the defendant. *Rush*v. *Commercial Realty Co.,*7 *N. J. Mis. R.*337.

The judgment will be affirmed.
Appendix C PICTURES FROM THE SAMPLING EPISODEC

- 1 Figure C - 1. Sampler Working Inside a “Cleanbox”C

- 2 Figure C - 2 . Sample Tap and Tubing at the Influent to the FGD Wastewater Treatment SystemC

- 3 Figure C - 3 . Sample Collection Set Up at the Pump - Off StationC

- 4 Figure C - 4 . Composite Sample Collection Set Up at the Influent to the Bioreactor SystemC

- 5 Figure C - 5 . Composite Sample Collection Set Up at the Effluent from the Bioreactor System
# C_2011130EN.01002402.xml

| 30.4.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 130/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.4.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 130/24

---

Action brought on 14 March 2011 — Kassarate v Council

(Case T-144/11)

2011/C 130/48

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Tiapé Edouard Kassarate (Abidjan, Côte d’Ivoire) (represented by: G. Collard and L. Aliot, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | declare that, concerning the applicant, Mr Tiapé Edouard KASSARATE, Council Regulation (EU) No 25/2011 of 14 January 2011 and Council Decision 2011/18/CFSP of 14 January 2011, published on 15 January 2011 in the Official Journal of the European Union, are not justified in fact, |
| --- | --- |

—

declare that, concerning the applicant, Mr Tiapé Edouard KASSARATE, Council Regulation (EU) No 25/2011 of 14 January 2011 and Council Decision 2011/18/CFSP of 14 January 2011, published on 15 January 2011 in the Official Journal of the European Union, are not justified in fact,

| — | consequently,






  — | annul Council Regulation (EU) No 25/2011 of 14 January 2011 and Council Decision 2011/18/CFSP of 14 January 2011; |
| --- | --- | --- |

—

consequently,

—

annul Council Regulation (EU) No 25/2011 of 14 January 2011 and Council Decision 2011/18/CFSP of 14 January 2011;

| — | alternatively, order that the name of Mr Tiapé Edouard KASSARATE be removed from the lists annexed to that regulation and to that decision. |
| --- | --- |

—

alternatively, order that the name of Mr Tiapé Edouard KASSARATE be removed from the lists annexed to that regulation and to that decision.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

The pleas in law and main arguments raised by the applicant are, in essence, identical or similar to those raised in Case T-137/11 Guiai Bi Poin v Council.

Guiai Bi Poin

Council

---
§ 176.114 Alternative requirements for a vessel operating as other than a small passenger vessel. ( a ) When authorized by the cognizant OCMI by an endorsement of the vessel's Certificate of Inspection, a small passenger vessel carrying six or less passengers, or operating as a commercial fishing vessel or other uninspected vessel, or carrying less than twelve passengers and operating as a recreational vessel, need not meet requirements of: ( 1 ) Subparts C, D, and E, of part 180 of this chapter if the vessel is in satisfactory compliance with the lifesaving equipment regulations for an uninspected vessel or recreational vessel in a similar service;
( 2 ) Subpart C of part 177, and parts 178 and 179 of this chapter if the vessel is in satisfactory compliance with applicable regulations for an uninspected vessel or recreational vessel in a similar service or if the owner of the vessel otherwise establishes to the satisfaction of the cognizant OCMI that the vessel is seaworthy for the intended service; and
( 3 ) Sections 184.404 and 184.410 of this chapter providing the vessel is in satisfactory compliance with applicable regulations for an uninspected or recreational vessel in a similar service.
( b ) A vessel operating under the alternative regulations of paragraph (a) of this section must: ( 1 ) Not alter the arrangement of the vessel nor remove any equipment required by the certificate for the intended operation, without the consent of the cognizant OCMI;
( 2 ) Comply with the minimum manning specified on the Certificate of Inspection, which may include reduced manning depending on the number of passengers and operation of the vessel;
( 3 ) When carrying from one to six passengers, except for a vessel being operated as a recreational vessel, make the announcement required by § 185.506(a) of this chapter before getting underway; and
( 4 ) If a vessel of more than 15 gross tons, not carry freight for hire.
( c ) The endorsement issued under paragraph (a) of this section must indicate the route, maximum number of passengers, and the manning required to operate under the provisions of this section.
[CGD 85-080, 61 FR 953, Jan. 10, 1996, as amended by CGD 97-057, 62 FR 51049, Sept. 30, 1997]
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



This certification is provided pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. § 1350, and accompanies the quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June
30, 2013 (the "Form 10-Q") of Community Shores Bank Corporation (the "Issuer").



I, Heather D. Brolick, President and Chief Executive Officer
of the Issuer, certify that to my knowledge:



| | (i) | the Form 10-Q fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;
and
| | --- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (ii) | the information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
operations of the Issuer.
| | ---- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|Dated: August 13, 2013 |                                      
|---------------------- | -------------------------------------
|                       |                                      
|                       | /s/ Heather D. Brolick               
|                       | Heather D. Brolick                   
|                       | President and Chief Executive Officer
N. Y. SUPERIOR COURT.

#### Samuel Lederer, Jr., agt. Joseph Ehrenfeld.

*Special Term, Chambers,*

*September*24, 1875.

*Supplementary proceedings against an infant judgment debtor.*

Supplementary proceedings, under section 292 of the Code, are authorized when the execution against the property of the judgment debtor is returned unsatisfied; and this applies to an infant judgment debtor equally with any other.

The regularity of the judgment cannot he questioned in these proceedings.

The plaintiff, who was an infant of about nineteen years of age, commenced an action against the defendant, after a guardian had been duly appointed, for said plaintiff. On the trial of said action the complaint was dismissed, and the defendant asked to have judgment entered against the plaintiff for his costs, and also that the guardian of the plaintiff pay the costs, or on default that an attachment issue against said guardian. On that motion judgment was directed to be entered against the infant plaintiff, and judgment was thereafter so entered. The defendant issued an execution against the property of the plaintiff, and after the return thereof obtained an order for the examination of the plaintiff. The plaintiff moved to set aside and vacate the order on the ground that he was an infant at the time the judgment was entered.

*Kinzman & Yeaman,*for motion.

*A. C. Anderson,*opposed.

*404Van Vorst, *J.*

By order of March 30, 1872, the judgment was ordered to be entered against the plaintiff personally, and it was accordingly so entered. The plaintiff, Samuel Lederer, jr., is the judgment debtor. ■ The proceedings under section 292 of the Code, are authorized when the execution against the property of the judgment debtor is returned unsatisfied.

This step having been taken the supplementary proceedings are regular.

The regularity of the judgment cannot be questioned in this proceeding.

In *Grantman*agt. *Thrall*(31 *How.,*464), it is suggested that the reasonable and better practice is to issue the execution against the infant in the first instance, before proceeding ' against the guardian. Motion denied.