alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
exh10-4.htm




Exhibit 10.4







Idaho North


Resources


2555 W. Palais Drive


Coeur d’Alene, ID


83815


(509) 928-7604

















November 17, 2011







Erik Panke


P.O. Box 142


Kellogg, Idaho


83837

















Dear Erik,












Appointment letter for accounting services







Idaho North Resources is pleased to appoint you the company bookkeeper/accountant effective immediately.  INR will pay you 10,000 shares per year of non-registered stock with a cost basis of $.05.







If you have any questions please contact me at anytime.  Thank you.












Sincerely,






















MARK FRALICH


Mark Fralich


President


Idaho North Resources
Exhibit 13.1



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION
1350



AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection
  with the Annual Report on Form 20-F of Safe Bulkers, Inc. (the “Company”)
  for the fiscal year ending December 31, 2012 as filed with the Securities and
  Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned
  officer of the Company certifies 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 as of, and for, the periods presented in the
report.



The foregoing certification is provided solely for purposes of complying
with the provisions of Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and is not intended to be used or relied upon for any other
purpose.



|Date: February 28, 2013 | /s/ POLYS HAJIOANNOU                
|----------------------- | ------------------------------------
|                        |                                     
|                        | Polys Hajioannou                    
|                        | Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
|                        | (Principal Executive Officer)
From: billbeck2@sbcglobal.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 9:35:28 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing today to ask in the strongest way possible that you rescind the unjust and coercive

mandate that all "contraceptives" and sterilization procedures be covered by private health insurance

with no co-pay to patients. If you do not reverse course I ask you to expand conscience protections for

any organizations that provide individual and group insurance and have moral or religious objections. I

strongly oppose the government forcing free insurance coverage on Americans especially for drugs and

devices that I oppose because some of these can cause an abortion (such as ella and Plan B).

I also ask you to reconsider your definition of religious employer and offer an authentic conscience

protection for any organization and business that has moral or religious objection to providing such

insurance to their employees. This legal mandate clearly violates the spirit of conscience laws which

prohibit government discrimination against those who object to various health services on moral or

religious grounds. The definition of "religious employer" in the regulation is so narrow as to only include

churches, but will still mean that a host of businesses and organizations that have conscience objections

will be required to choose between either violating their conscience or not being able to offer employees

health insurance.

Please protect the conscience rights of insurers, providers and people like me who object to being

forced by the federal government to offer or subsidize contraceptives and sterilization services, especially

when some of these drugs can take the life of early unborn children. No Americans should be forced by

the federal government to essentially subsidize services they object to. I again urge you in the strongest

way possible to reverse course and remove contraceptives and sterilizations from the list of mandatory

preventive services.

Sincerely,

Wilfred Riller

Hewitt, TX 76643
EX-10.7(a)



 Exhibit 10.7(a) 

522 Fifth Avenue                 

New York, NY 10036         
  





 
 June 1, 2017 

PGR Capital LLP 
 Liberty House

 222 Regent Street 
 London
W1B STR, 
 UK 
 Attention:
Casey Grylls 
 Re:   Management Agreement Renewals 

Dear Mr. Grylls: 
 We are writing with
respect to your management agreements concerning the commodity pools to which reference is made below (the “Management Agreements”). We are extending the term of the Management Agreements through June 30, 2018 and all other provisions of
the Management Agreements will remain unchanged. 
  

	 	•	 	 PGR Master Fund L.P. 



 

	 	•	 	 Diversified 2000 Futures Fund L.P. 



 

	 	•	 	 MSSB Spectrum Strategic L.P. 



Please acknowledge receipt of this modification by signing one copy of this letter and returning it to the attention of Mr. Patrick T. Egan at 522
Fifth Avenue – 7th Floor, New York, NY 10036 or fax to 866-428-9026. If you have any questions, I can be reached at 212-296-6808 or contact Jack Yuen at
212-296-1320. 
 Very truly yours, 

CERES MANAGED FUTURES LLC 
  

			
	 By:
	 	 /s/ Patrick T. Egan

		 	 Patrick T. Egan

		 	 President and Director


 PGR CAPITAL LLP 
  

			
	 By:
	 	 /s/ Casey Grylls

	 Print Name:   CASEY GRYLLS

	 PE/kg             PARTNER
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANTTO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

** **

In connection with the Quarterly Report of NorthernTechnologies International Corporation (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q forthe period ending February 28, 2009 as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Matthew C. Wolsfeld,Chief Financial Officer and Corporate Secretary of the Company, certify,pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge andbelief:

 

(1)                                                     The Reportfully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

(2)                                                     The informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 
|                                                            |   |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
| Matthew C. Wolsfeld, CPA                                        |   |
| Chief Financial Officer and Corporate Secretary                 |   |
| (principal financial officer and principal accounting  officer) |   |

 

CirclePines, Minnesota

April 14, 2009

 

----
(R.D. 11501)

#### Associated Dry Goods Corp., d/b/a J. W. Robinson & Co. (International Customs Service) *v.*United States

Entry No. 248278, etc.

(Decided March 14, 1968)

*Glad & Tuttle*for the plaintiff.

*Edioin L. Weisl, Jr.,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Rao, Chief Judge:

The appeals for reappraisement listed in the schedule of cases annexed to this decision and made a part hereof have been submitted for decision upon the following stipulation:

> IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by and between counsel for the respective parties hereto, subject to the approval of the Court:

> 1. That the merchandise covered by the appeals for reappraisement enumerated in the attached Schedule of Cases, exported from Hong-kong, B.C.C., consists of women’s and children’s wearing apparel, pewter plates, bags, plastic and wooden toys, and plastic flowers, and that, at the time of exportation thereof to the United States, the market value or the price at which such or similar merchandise was freely offered for sale to all purchasers in the principal markets of the country from which exported, in the usual wholesale quantity and in the ordinary course of trade, for exportation to the United States, including the cost of all containers and coverings of whatever nature and all other costs, charges and expenses incident to placing the merchandise in condition packed ready for shipment, to the United States, were the invoice unit prices, net packed.

> 2. That all the merchandise covered by the appeals for reappraisement was entered subsequent to February 27,1958.

> 3. That the merchandise the subject of this stipulation is not included in the list of articles designated by the Secretary of the Treasury in T. D. 54521, as provided for in Sec. 6(a) of the Customs Simplification Act of 1956, Public Law 927, 84th Congress, and that said merchandise is subject to appraisement under Sec. 402 of the Tariff Act of 1930 as amended by the Customs Simplification Act of 1956.

> 4. That the appeals for reappraisement enumerated in the attached Schedule of Cases may be deemed submitted for decision on the foregoing stipulation.

Upon the agreed facts, I find export value, as that value is defined in section 402 (b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended by the Customs Simplification Act of 1956, to be the proper basis for the determi*798nation of the value of the merchandise covered by said appeals for reappraisement and that such prices were the invoice unit prices, net packed.

Judgment will be entered accordingly.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Larry Nestman, Appellant.

[633 NYS2d 2]

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Edward Sheridan, J.), rendered March 24, 1993, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of burglary in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of 31/2 to 7 years, unanimously affirmed.

Viewed in a light most favorable to the People, defendant’s guilt was proven by legally sufficient evidence. Defendant was crouching on top of an air-conditioner above the doorway of a store with his left leg positioned through a broken window that had activated the alarm system *(see, People v King,*61 NY2d 550, 555). The issues raised by defendant concerning the *233credibility of the police officer who testified that he was able to see defendant’s foot inside the window were properly placed before the jury, and we find no reason to disturb its determination. The court’s *Sandoval*ruling, which permitted the People to inquire into some of defendant’s prior theft-related convictions without eliciting that any involved breaking and entering, gave appropriate weight to the particular relevance of theft-related convictions on the issue of credibility *(People v Lewis,*196 AD2d 742, *Iv denied*82 NY2d 898), while assuring that defendant would not be convicted because of a propensity to commit burglaries. That defendant may have been the only witness in support of his defense is not dispositive *(supra,*at 742). Defendant’s claim that having been deterred from testifying by the court’s *Sandoval*ruling, he was denied a fair trial by the prosecutor’s summation comments to the effect that the People’s proof was "undisputed” and that there was "no evidence” to support defendant’s claims is unpreserved for appellate review with respect to the "no evidence” comments, and in any event without merit. The comments were proper responses to defendant’s summation hypothesis that he was arrested simply because he happened to be next to a store that appeared to have just been burglarized, and that the police officer did a "little fudging” in testifying that he saw defendant’s foot through the window *(see, People v Ovalle,*162 AD2d 156, *Iv denied*76 NY2d 862; *People v Watson,*188 AD2d 315, *Iv denied*81 NY2d 849; *People v West,*160 AD2d 301, 302, *Iv denied*76 NY2d 798). We perceive no abuse of sentencing discretion. Concur—Murphy, P. J., Ellerin, Kupferman, Asch and Mazzarelli, JJ.
Case No. 6,496.

#### HILL v. MYERS.

[5 Cranch, C. C. 484.] 1

Circuit Court, District of Columbia.

Nov. Term, 1838.

Capias — Apfidavit.

The affidavit to hold to bail must show that the debt was due at the time of issuing the capias.

[This was a proceeding by Michael Hill against John Myers.)

The affidavit, made after the return of the writ, stated that the debt was “now” due, and did not state that any thing was due at the time of issuing the capias.

THE COURT,

at the motion of W. L. Brent, permitted him to appear for the defendant without special bail.

MORSELL, Circuit Judge, absent.
No. 58696.

protest 222710-K (Los Angeles).

#### Guy B. Barham Company *v.*United States,

Johnson, Judge:

It is claimed in the protest herein that certain items, consisting of lubricating oil, valves, and a detector, are free of duty under paragraph 1615 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended by the Customs Administrative Act of 1938, as American goods returned. At the trial, the claims were “waived,” except as to the lubricating oil.

In support of its claim as to the lubricating oil, plaintiff called Prank Schoeppe, liquidator in the office of the collector of customs at Los Angeles, who testified as follows: The documents required to be filed with the collector in conjunction with a claim for exemption from duty under paragraph 1615, as amended, comprise customs Form No. 3311 (affidavit of owner), customs Form No. 4467 (certificate of exportation), and customs Form No. 129 (shipper’s affidavit). In the instant case, Form No. 4467, relating to the lubricating oil, was first filed on August 8, 1952 (2 months after liquidation), but did not get into the proper jacket. It was filed again on August 20, 1954, and reached the proper jacket. Form No. 129 was filed with the invoice, and Form No. 3311 was filed on June 27, 1950 (prior to liquidation). On liquidation, the merchandise was classified as lubricating oil under paragraph 1733, and internal revenue tax was assessed under section 3422 of the Internal Revenue Code at 2 cents per gallon.

According to the witness, had the document that was subsequently filed on August 20, 1954, been with the papers at the time the collector had jurisdiction over the entry and protest, there would have been sufficient facts before him to satisfy him that the lubricating oil was American merchandise, free of duty under paragraph 1615, as amended.

*264On the record presented, we hold that the lubricating oil involved herein is free of duty under paragraph 1615 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended by the Customs Administrative Act of 1938, as American goods returned.

To that extent, the protest is sustained and judgment will be rendered directing the collector to reliquidate the entry and make refund accordingly. As to all other items and in all other respects, the protest is overruled.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Ivan Valentine, Appellant.

[633 NYS2d 945]

—Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Steven Barrett, J.), rendered on or about June 10, 1994, unanimously affirmed.

Application by appellant’s counsel to withdraw as counsel is granted. *(See, Anders v California,*386 US 738; *People v Saunders,*52 AD2d 833.) We have reviewed this record and agree with appellant’s assigned counsel that there are no non-frivolous points which could be raised on this appeal.

Pursuant to CPL 460.20, defendant has the right to apply for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals by making application to the Chief Judge of that Court and by submitting such application to the Clerk of that Court or to a Justice of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of this Department on reasonable notice to the respondent within thirty (30) days after service of a copy of this order, with notice of entry.

Denial of the application for permission to appeal by the Judge or Justice first applied to is final and no new application may thereafter be made to any other Judge or Justice. Concur—Murphy, P. J., Sullivan, Rosenberger, Ross and Tom, JJ.
No. 67568.

#### Advance Pet Supply Co. *v.*United States

protests 62/14150 and 62/14151 (New York).

*256Opinion by

Oliver, C.J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the items marked “A” consist of plastic articles similar in all material respects to those the subject of Abstract 67011, the claim at 10 percent under the provision in paragraph 1558, as modified by the Torquay Protocol to the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (T.D. 52739), supplemented by Presidential proclamation (T.D. 52827), for nonenumerated manufactured articles, was sustained. The items marked “B,” stipulated to consist of plastic articles, were held dutiable at 17 percent under the provision in paragraph 31(a) (2), as modified by the Sixth Protocol to the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (T.D. 54108), for compounds of cellulose, by similitude, as claimed.
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

ORDER GRANTING STIPULATED MOTION TO CONTINUE

U.S. v. O’Bryant, CR05-5681RBL - 1

UNITED STATES ATTORNEY

1201 PACIFIC AVENUE, SUITE 700

TACOMA, WASHINGTON 98402-4305

(253) 428-3800

Judge Ronald B. Leighton

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT TACOMA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )

) NO. CR05-5681RBL 

Plaintiff, )

) ORDER 

v. ) GRANTING STIPULATED

) MOTION TO CONTINUE

BENJAMIN P. O’BRYANT, ) TRIAL DATE AND PRETRIAL

) MOTIONS DATE

Defendant. ) )

Upon the stipulation of the parties to continue the trial and pretrial motions due

date in the above-captioned case, and based upon the facts set forth in the stipulated

motion of the parties, which are hereby incorporated by reference, the Court finds that

such a continuance would serve the ends of justice and outweigh the best interests of the

public and the defendant in a speedy trial; therefore,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the trial date be continued to February 27, 2006, at

9:00 a.m. The period of delay resulting from this continuance from October 31, 2005, to

the new trial date of February 27, 2006, is hereby excluded for speedy trial purposes under

18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(8)(A) and (B) for the purpose of computing the time limitations

imposed by the Speedy Trial Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3161-3174.

//

//

//

Case 3:05-cr-05681-RBL Document 10 Filed 10/03/05 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

ORDER GRANTING STIPULATED MOTION TO CONTINUE

U.S. v. O’Bryant, CR05-5681RBL - 2

UNITED STATES ATTORNEY

1201 PACIFIC AVENUE, SUITE 700

TACOMA, WASHINGTON 98402-4305

(253) 428-3800

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the pretrial motions due date be extended to

January 9, 2006, and the pretrial conference set for February 14, 2006, at 9:00 a.m.

IT IS SO ORDERED this 3rd day of October, 2005. ARONALD B. LEIGHTON

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Presented by:

s/ Stephan Illa * 

STEPHAN ILLA

Attorney for Defendant

Benjamin P. O’Bryant

*Telephonic Approval

s/ Michael Dion 

MICHAEL DION

Assistant United States Attorney

WSBA #31239

United States Attorney’s Office

1201 Pacific Avenue, Suite 700

Tacoma, Washington 98402-4305

Telephone: (253) 428-3824

Facsimile: (253) 428-3826

E-mail: michael.dion@usdoj.gov

Case 3:05-cr-05681-RBL Document 10 Filed 10/03/05 Page 2 of 2
No. 76-849.

#### Woodmar Realty Corp. et al. *v.*Samuel C. Ennis & Co., Inc., et al.

C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.
p. 1 

# OAR Box 1796 Prepped byKeeia Richards

Document

Number: 

# 63)VI-B-1 4 Docket Number: 

# A-90-3 7

Printed 10/31/2008 4:20:38 PM

Sheet 63 of 107P. 2 A-90-3 7 VI-B-1 4 Thi s documen t

ha s bee nmove dt o IV-D-32 6 a t th e reques t

o f th e projec t officer . I t

wa s incorrectl y categoriz eoriginally .
#### Nathaniel H. JONES, a/k/a Nathaniel Hampton Jones, a/k/a Nathaniel Jones, a/k/a Nathaniel Hampton, Petitioner—Appellant, v. STATE of South Carolina; Henry Dargan McMaster, Attorney General of South Carolina, Respondents—Appellees.

Nos. 05-6101, 05-6114, 05-6143.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: July 27, 2005.

Decided: Aug. 16, 2005.

Nathaniel H. Jones, Appellant Pro Se. Henry Dargan McMaster, Attorney General, William Edgar Salter, III, Office of the Attorney General of South Carolina, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.

Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM:

In these consolidated appeals, Nathaniel H. Jones, a South Carolina prisoner, seeks to appeal the district court’s order accept*162ing the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000). An appeal may not be taken from the final order in a § 2254 proceeding unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue for claims addressed by a district court absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find both that his constitutional claims are debatable and that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or wrong. *See Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 336, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003); *Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); *Rose v. Lee,*252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir.2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Jones has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeals. 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.

*DISMISSED*
EXHIBIT 32.1

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

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Osteotech, Inc. (the "Company") on
Form 10-Q/A for the period ended March 31, 2003 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Richard W. Bauer,
Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.ss.1350,
as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

      (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/ Richard W. Bauer
                                               --------------------------------
                                               Richard W. Bauer
                                               Chief Executive Officer
                                               (Principal Executive Officer)
                                               April 23, 2004

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to and will be retained by Osteotech, Inc. and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Case 3:05-cr-05747-RBL Document 74 Filed 03/22/06 Page 1 of 2
Case 3:05-cr-05747-RBL Document 74 Filed 03/22/06 Page 2 of 2
Case 3:05-cv-05306-RBL Document 301 Filed 01/12/07 Page 1 of 2
Case 3:05-cv-05306-RBL Document 301 Filed 01/12/07 Page 2 of 2