alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    EXHIBIT 10.3

                              MUSI INVESTMENTS S.A.
                            231 VAL DES BONS MALADES
                           L-2121 LUXEMBOURG-KIRCHBERG

                                  May 14, 2001


Frisby Technologies, Inc.
3195 Centre Park Boulevard
Winston-Salem, N.C. 27107
Attention: Greg Frisby, Chairman

Dear Greg:

                  Reference is made to that certain letter agreement, dated
January 12, 2001 (the "L/C Letter Agreement"), between MUSI Investments S.A.
("MUSI") and Frisby Technologies, Inc. (the "Company"), relating to the
provision by MUSI of a $1,500,000 letter of credit to secure the Company's
obligations to Bank of America, N.A. ("BofA") under the terms of that certain
commercial loan agreement dated February 20, 2000 (as amended, the "BofA
Facility"). Reference is further made to that certain Loan Agreement, dated as
of the date hereof between MUSI and the Company (the "Loan Agreement"), relating
to the $1,500,000 term loan to be provided by MUSI to the Company, the proceeds
of which will be utilized to pay-off the outstanding principal balance of the
BofA Facility.

                  MUSI hereby (a) releases the Company from its obligations
under the L/C Letter Agreement to deliver to MUSI the convertible note in the
principal amount of $1,500,000 (the "L/C Loan Note") as provided for Paragraph 3
of the L/C Letter Agreement, and (b) releases Greg Frisby from his obligations
set forth in Paragraph 5 of the L/C Letter Agreement. The foregoing releases
shall not be deemed to release the Company and/or Mr. Frisby from any of their
respective obligations under the Loan Agreement and the other loan documents
entered into in connection with the transactions contemplated by the Loan
Agreement.

                  MUSI hereby authorizes the escrow agent named under the L/C
Letter Agreement to release from escrow and deliver to the Company the L/C Loan
Note.



<PAGE>   2

Frisby Technologies, Inc.
May 14, 2001
Page 2



                  Please indicate your agreement to the foregoing by signing the
enclosed copy of this letter agreement and returning the same to the
undersigned.

                  Very truly yours,

                  MUSI INVESTMENTS S.A.


                  By: /s/ Luca Bassani Antivari
                     ---------------------------
                  Name: Luca Bassani Antivari

                  Accepted and Agreed:

                  FRISBY TECHNOLOGIES, INC.


                  By:/s/ Gregory S. Frisby
                     -----------------------
                  Name: Gregory S. Frisby
                  Title:   Chairman and CEO



                  /s/ Greg Frisby
                  Greg Frisby, individually


                  RUSKIN, MOSCOU, EVANS & FALTISCHEK, PC, as escrow agent


                  By:______________________
                  Name:  Norman Friedland
                  Title: Partner

                                       2
No. 55868.

protests 170393-K and 170394-K (New York).

#### Kossmann & Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Mollison, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of reptile skins the same in all material respects as those passed upon in *Fleming-Joffe, Ltd.*v. *United States*(25 Cust. Ct. 56, C. D. 1263), the claim for free entry under paragraph 1765 was sustained.
# Exhibit 7
Letter from Charles M. Jones, Solvay Solexis, Inc., to Mike James, EPA (Feb. 15, 2008) Case: 10-1347 Document: 1287346 Filed: 01/11/2011 Page: 1Case: 10-1347 Document: 1287346 Filed: 01/11/2011 Page: 2Case: 10-1347 Document: 1287346 Filed: 01/11/2011 Page: 3Case: 10-1347 Document: 1287346 Filed: 01/11/2011 Page: 4Case: 10-1347 Document: 1287346 Filed: 01/11/2011 Page: 5

# Exhibit 8
Letter from Chuck Jones, Solvay Solexis, Inc., to Mike James, EPA (Mar. 4, 2008) Case: 10-1347 Document: 1287346 Filed: 01/11/2011 Page: 1Case: 10-1347 Document: 1287346 Filed: 01/11/2011 Page: 2Case: 10-1347 Document: 1287346 Filed: 01/11/2011 Page: 3Case: 10-1347 Document: 1287346 Filed: 01/11/2011 Page: 4Case: 10-1347 Document: 1287346 Filed: 01/11/2011 Page: 5

# Exhibit 9
Non-Objection Notice from Ross Brennan, EPA, to Charles Jones, Solvay Solexis, Inc., and Don Magid, Solvay Fluorides, LLC, concerning transfer dated Feb. 15, 2008 Case: 10-1347 Document: 1287346 Filed: 01/11/2011 Page: 1Case: 10-1347 Document: 1287346 Filed: 01/11/2011 Page: 2Case: 10-1347 Document: 1287346 Filed: 01/11/2011 Page: 3

# Exhibit 10 Non-Objection Notice from Ross Brennan, EPA, to Charles Jones, Solvay Solexis, Inc., and Don Magid, Solvay Fluorides, LLC, concerning transfer dated Mar. 5, 2008 Case: 10-1347 Document: 1287346 Filed: 01/11/2011 Page: 1Case: 10-1347 Document: 1287346 Filed: 01/11/2011 Page: 2Case: 10-1347 Document: 1287346 Filed: 01/11/2011 Page: 3
Case No. 9,734.

#### The MONTGOMERY v. The BETSEY.

[1 Gall. 416.] 1

Circuit Court, D. Massachusetts.

May Term, 1813.

Appeal — Abandonment bt Appellant — Apfib-mation — Prize Case.

If, in a prize cause, the claimant appeal and desert his appeal, the circuit court may affirm the decree of the district court, with costs.

[Cited in U. S. v. Haynes, Case No. 15,335; U. S. v. Certain Hogsheads of Molasses, Id. 14,766; U. S. v. The Glamorgan, Id. 15,214: Folger v. The Robert G. Shaw, Id. 4,899.]

See The Elizabeth, 1 Hagg. Adm. 226: The San Juan Nepomuerno, 1 Hagg. Adm. 267.

[This was a libel by the privateer Montgomery (Holton J.- Breed, commander) against the schooner Betsey (William Young, late master).]

On trial of this cause in the district court on a prize allegation, one George Moreton claimed $500, part of the cargo of the said schooner, as his property; and after a full hearing, the judge rejected the claim and decreed the same money good and lawful prize to the captors, from which decree the claimant interposed an appeal to this court, and, having failed to enter or prosecute his appeal, Pitman, Jun., for the captors, by petition, prayed the-court to affirm the decree of the court below, with costs.

Cummings, Sprague, and Pitman, for captors.

1

 [Reported by John Gallison, Esq.]

STORY, Circuit Justice.

As by the 21st section ' of the judiciary act of 24th September, 1789, c. 20 [1 Stat. 83], appeals from the district court must be prosecuted at the next circuit court held after pronouncing the decree, it is clear that this appeal must be pronounced to be deserted. The only question is whether the principal cause shall be remitted to the district court for final proceedings, or the de*628.cree' shall be affirmed in this court On examination of the authorities and consideration of the peculiar organization of this court, I am satisfied that on a failure of the appellant to enter and prosecute his appeal, the appeal may be pronounced to be deserted, and the principal cause remitted to the court below for final proceedings; and in such case the taxation of the costs may be retained in the circuit court, or directed to be made in the court below; or the appellant may produce the record and have the principal cause retained here, and, upon a hearing ex parte, claim an affirmation of the original decree, with costs. The appellant may therefore elect to proceed as he may deem most for his interest. I understand that an affirmation of the decree, in cases like the present, has been an unquestionable practice of this court.

Decree affirmed, with costs.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<PAGE>

<ARTICLE>           5
<LEGEND>
                    The Schedule contains summary financial 
                    information extracted from the financial
                    statements for World Monitor Trust-Series C
                    and is qualified in its entirety by reference
                    to such financial statements
</LEGEND>

<RESTATED>          

<CIK>               1051824

<NAME>              World Monitor Trust-Series C
<MULTIPLIER>        1

<FISCAL-YEAR-END>               Dec-31-1998

<PERIOD-START>                  Jun-10-1998

<PERIOD-END>                    Sep-25-1998

<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-Mos

<CASH>                          672,381

<SECURITIES>                    7,879,638

<RECEIVABLES>                   32,216

<ALLOWANCES>                    0

<INVENTORY>                     0

<CURRENT-ASSETS>                8,584,235

<PP&E>                          0

<DEPRECIATION>                  0

<TOTAL-ASSETS>                  8,584,235

<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>           144,279

<BONDS>                         0

<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>           0

<PREFERRED>                     0

<COMMON>                        0

<OTHER-SE>                      8,439,956

<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>    8,584,235

<SALES>                         0

<TOTAL-REVENUES>                694,896

<CGS>                           0

<TOTAL-COSTS>                   0

<OTHER-EXPENSES>                292,729

<LOSS-PROVISION>                0

<INTEREST-EXPENSE>              0

<INCOME-PRETAX>                 0

<INCOME-TAX>                    0

<INCOME-CONTINUING>             0

<DISCONTINUED>                  0

<EXTRAORDINARY>                 0

<CHANGES>                       0

<NET-INCOME>                    402,167

<EPS-PRIMARY>                   5.85

<EPS-DILUTED>                   0

</TABLE>
----

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.4226 — DSGI/Fotovista)

(2006/C 177/15)

(Text with EEA relevance)

On 29 June 2006, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

----
Part 1

SUPPLEMENT

Fiscal Year 2014 Reporting

Section V

Bulletin No. 2015-03 Draft V-140 IRC Handout December 2, 2014

Line

No.

USSGL

Acct. USSGL Account Title Begin/

End

Debit/

Credit

Reimb 

Flag

Apport 

Cat

Auth 

Type 

Code

Avail 

Time

BEA 

Cat

Borrow 

Source

Fed/Non

Fed

Year of 

BA

PY 

Adj

Reduction 

Type

TAS 

Status

Trans. 

Code

Fund Type Financing 

Account 

Code

Debit Credit Addl. 

Info.

1011

1011 417600 Allocation Transfers of Prior-Year Balances E D P/S F X U X/K/N EC/EG/EM/EP/ER/ES/ET/TR N + -

1011 419000 Transfers - Prior-Year Balances E D P/S F X U X/K/N EC/EG/EM/EP/ER/ES/ET/TR N + -

1011 419000 Transfers - Prior-Year Balances E D S F X U K/N EP G + -

1811

1811 417000 Transfers - Current-Year Authority E D S M F X U X/K/N EC/EG/EM/EP/ER/ES/ET/TR N + -

1811 417000 Transfers - Current-Year Authority E D S M F X U K/N EP G + -

1811 417500

Allocation Transfers of Current-Year 

Authority for Noninvested Accounts E D S M F X U X/K/N EC/EG/EM/EP/ER/ES/ET/TR N + -

1811 419300

Balance Transfers - Unobligated Balances - 

Legislative Change of Purpose E D S M F X U X/K/N EC/EG/EM/EP/ER/ES/ET/TR N + -

USSGL Crosswalk - Budget Program and Financing 

Unobligated balance transferred from other 

Spending authority from offsetting collections 

transferred from other accounts
### steam

_ record - Re: Questionnaire for th e Steam Electric Power Generatin g Guidelines..Extension

Request

Greetings,

This e-mail is a confirmation that your exte nsion request for the steam electric effluent

guidelines questionnaire was received. Extension requests will be evaluated on a case-by-case

basis. Please be aware that submittal of an ex tension request to EPA does not alter the due date

of your questionnaire unless and until EPA agre es to the extension and establishes a new date.

Sincerely,

-----JR Richardson <jr.richardson@traxys.com> wrote: -----

To: Jezebele Alicea/DC/USEPA/US@EPA

From: JR Richardson <jr. richardson@traxys.com>

Date: 06/28/2010 02:20PM

cc: Mike Reid <mike.reid@traxys.com>, Zach Halkola <zach.halkola@traxys.com> 

### From: <Alicea.Jezebele@epamail.epa.gov>

To: JR Richardson < j r.richardson @ trax y s.com>

Date: 6/28/2010 4:04 PM

Sub j ect: Re: Questionnaire for the Steam Electric Po wer Generatin g Guidelines..Extension Reques t Pa g e 1 of 2

2/23/2011 file://C:\Documents and Settin g s\TMedle y \Local Settin g s\Tem p \XP g r p wise\4C28C81DD

...Subject: Questionnaire for the Steam Electric Power Generating Guidelin es..Extension Request

Good afternoon, The White Pine Power Plant received the Questionnaire for Steam Electric Power plants on

June 24, 2010. We are respectively requesting a 60 day extension based on our current permit activity and

staffing constraints. We appreciate your consideration on this matter. Our Plant ID is 00444 and we are

located at White Pine Electric Power 33707 Power Plant Road White Pine Mi. 49971. Thank you in advance for

you understanding. 

### Pa g e 2 of 2

2/23/2011 file://C:\Documents and Settin g s\TMedle y \Local Settin g s\Tem p \XP g r p wise\4C28C81DD

...
**EXHIBIT 32.2**

 

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350As Adopted Pursuant toSection 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

 

In connectionwith the Annual Report of Badger State Ethanol, LLC (the “Company”) on Form10-KSB for the period ending December 31, 2003 as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof, (the “Report”), I, James Leitzinger,Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, asadopted pursuant to 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

1.                                       TheReport fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

2.                                       Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.

 

 

February 24, 2005

 
|   | /s/ James Leitzinger     |
|--------|--------------------------|
|   | James  Leitzinger        |
|   | Chief  Financial Officer |

 

----
Letter Agreement dated October 10, 2007



 EXHIBIT 10.41 
  

					
	U.S. Department of Labor	  	 Office of the Solicitor
 Washington, D C.
20210
	  	



 October 10, 2007 
 Via Facsimile (949) 725-4100 and U.S. Mail 
 Robert J. Kane 
 John F. Canon 
 Stradling Yocca Carlson & Rauth 
 660 Newport Center Drive 
 Suite 1600 
 Newport Beach, CA 92660-6422 
  

	 	Re:	U.S. Department of Labor v. Entrade, Inc., 

 OALJ
Case No. 2007-RIS-00126; EBSA Case No 06-4107D 
 Dear Gentlemen: 
 We have reviewed your settlement proposal and justification, and agree to settle the matter referenced above. Complainant U.S. Department of Labor, Employee Benefits Security Administration (“EBSA”) accepts your $13,000 settlement
offer. 
 By mutual agreement, payment by Entrade, Inc., in the amount of $13,000 will settle all claims that EBSA asserted against the company in the
administrative matter referenced above. Enclosed for your review and signature is a stipulation and order for dismissal, which we will file with the administrative law court after EBSA receives your settlement payment. 
 Payment of the $13,000 settlement amount should be made payable to the “U.S. Department of Labor” and should include thereon this case reference number
06-4107D. 
 The payment should be remitted within ten days of the date of this letter to: 
 Regular U.S. Mail 
 U.S. Department of
Labor 
 ERISA Civil Penalty 
 P.O. Box 70942 
 Charlotte, NC 28272-0942 
 If you desire to send payment by overnight service, please remit to the following address: 
 For overnight courier (i.e. FEDEX)
the new address is: 
 U.S. Department of Labor 
 QLP Wholesale Lockbox – NC0810 
 Lockbox # 70942 
 1525 West WT Harris Blvd 
 Charlotte, NC 28262
##### 



Exhibit 32-6 CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC REPORT I, Daniel G. Brudzynski, Controller and Chief Financial Officer of The Detroit
Edison Securitization Funding LLC (the Company), certify, pursuant to Section
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that to the best
of my knowledge and belief: (1) the Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the annual period ended
December 31, 2003 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C.
78m or 78o(d)); and (2) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company. Dated:
    
    March 1, 2004
    
    /s/ DANIEL G. BRUDZYNSKIDaniel G. Brudzynski
Controller and Chief Financial Officer of
The Detroit Edison Securitization Funding LLC
No. 57228.

protest 194747-K (New York).

#### Sharp & Dohme, Incorporated *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

From an examination of the papers in the case the court was unable to find anything to overcome the presumption of correctness of the collector’s classification. The protest was therefore overruled.
No. 54584.

#### Oxford University Press, N. Y., Inc. *v.*United States,

protest 155221-K (New York).

Opinion by

Rao, J.

The protest was dismissed.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

SHAMIM AHMAD,

Plaintiff,

v. Civil Action No. 09-1052 (JDB)

JANET A. NAPOLITANO, in her official

capacity as Secretary of U.S. Department

of Homeland Security, et al.,

 Defendants.

ORDER

Plaintiff Shamim Ahmad filed this petition for writ of mandamus to compel defendants to

adjudicate his Form I-485 Application to Adjust Status, in which he sought to adjust his status

from asylee to permanent resident. See Petition for Writ of Mandamus ¶ 1. He brings two

causes of action based on agency action unreasonably delayed under the Administrative

Procedure Act and the Fifth Amendment. Id. ¶¶ 21-39.

Presently before the Court is defendant's motion to dismiss for mootness. Defendant

moves to dismiss this action as moot because the relief sought -- a decision on plaintiff's

application -- has been rendered. See Defs.' Mem. at 5; see also Defs.' Fifth Status Report, Ex. A

(U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services ("CIS") Decision dated July 23, 2010). Where CIS

has denied an application for adjustment in status, a plaintiff's request that the Court order CIS to

process the application must be dismissed as moot. See Bouguettaya v. Chertoff, 472 F. Supp.

2d 1, 2 (D.D.C. 2007). Plaintiff does not dispute that CIS has acted on his application; indeed,

he has filed no response to defendant's motion. The record is clear that the relief sought by the

petition -- adjudication of his application -- has been provided, and that this case must be

dismissed as moot. 
Accordingly, it is hereby

ORDERED that motion to dismiss is GRANTED and this action is DISMISSED AS

MOOT.

SO ORDERED.

 /s/ 

 JOHN D. BATES

 United States District Judge

Date: August 17, 2010
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

   Schedule of Year-To-Date Principal and Interest Distributions
                           to
                  Certificateholders
                                                                              Ending
Class                   Interest             Principal      Losses           Balance
<S>                     <C>                  <C>            <C>              <C>
A1                     2,316,784.73       1,402,603.61         0.00        196,913,621.39
A2                     5,723,259.08               0.00         0.00        477,137,063.00
B                        465,015.24               0.00         0.00         37,816,366.00
C                        303,339.16               0.00         0.00         24,469,413.00
D                        222,923.78               0.00         0.00         17,795,938.00
E                        113,211.82               0.00         0.00          8,897,968.00
F                        146,760.88               0.00         0.00         11,122,461.00
G                        238,082.39               0.00         0.00         17,795,937.00
H                        151,396.73               0.00         0.00         11,122,460.00
J                        402,262.34               0.00         0.00         34,479,629.00
K                         64,881.02               0.00         0.00          5,561,230.00
L                         77,857.22               0.00         0.00          6,673,476.00
M                         25,952.40               0.00         0.00          2,224,492.00
N                         77,857.24               0.00         0.00          6,673,477.00
O                         51,904.82               0.00         0.00          4,448,984.00
P                        285,476.50               0.00         0.00         24,469,414.00
R1                             0.00               0.00         0.00                  0.00
R2                             0.00               0.00         0.00                  0.00
R2U                            0.00               0.00         0.00                  0.00
R3                             0.00               0.00         0.00                  0.00
V                              0.00               0.00         0.00                  0.00
X                      1,429,965.88               0.00         0.00                  0.00
</TABLE>
# C_2016251EN.01000601.xml

| 11.7.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 251/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.7.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 251/6

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy) lodged on 13 April 2016 — Marco Tronchetti Provera SpA and Others v Commissione Nazionale per le Società e la Borsa (Consob)

(Case C-206/16)

(2016/C 251/08)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Referring court

Consiglio di Stato

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Marco Tronchetti Provera SpA, Antares European Fund Limited, Antares European Fund II Limited, Antares European Fund LP, Luca Orsini Baroni, UniCredit SpA, Lauro Sessantuno SpA

Applicants:

Defendant: Commissione Nazionale per le Società e la Borsa (Consob)

Defendant:

Question referred

Question referred

Is the proper application of the second paragraph of Article 5(4) of Directive 2004/25/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 April 2004 on takeover bids, in the light of the general principles laid down in Article 3(1) thereof, and the proper application of the general principles of European law relating to legal certainty, protection of legitimate expectations, proportionality, reasonableness, transparency and non-discrimination, prevented by a provision of national law such as Article 106(3)(d)(2) of Legislative Decree No 58 of 24 February 1998 (consolidating all provisions in the field of financial intermediation within the meaning of Articles 8 and 21 of Law No 52 of 6 February 1996), as subsequently amended, and Article 47 octies of Decision of the Commissione Nazionale per le Società e la Borsa — Consob No 11971 of 14 May 1999 (Order implementing Legislative Decree No 58 of 24 February 1998 laying down rules applicable to offerees), as subsequently amended, in so far as those provisions authorise Consob to increase the takeover bid as referred to in Article 106 where the condition that ‘there has been collusion between the offeror or the persons acting in concert with it and one or more sellers’ is fulfilled, without identifying the specific actions which constitute such a situation, and thus without determining clearly the conditions and criteria under which Consob is authorised to adjust upwards the price of the takeover bid?

1

octies

---

(1)  Directive 2004/25/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 april 2004 on takeover bids (OJ 2004 L 142, p. 12).

1

---
Case 2:02-cv-04435-AB Document 74 Filed 08/05/2004 Page 1 of 2
Case 2:02-cv-04435-AB Document 74 Filed 08/05/2004 Page 2 of 2