alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 10.15(e)

November 13,
2001

Jude
Sullivan, General Counsel
divine, inc. and divine/Whittman-Hart, inc.
1301 North Elston Avenue
Chicago, Illinois 60622

Re:    Settlement and Purchase Agreement

Dear
Sir:

Reference
is hereby made to the Settlement And Purchase Agreement, dated as of September 7, 2001 and amended as of October 1, 2001 (the "Agreement"), by and among Microsoft
Corporation, a Washington corporation ("Microsoft"), MS Channel Initiatives Corp., a Nevada corporation and a wholly owned subsidiary of Microsoft ("MSCI"), divine, inc., a Delaware corporation
("divine"), and divine/Whittman-Hart, inc., an Illinois corporation and a wholly owned subsidiary of divine ("DWH", and together with Microsoft, MSCI and divine, the "parties").

Pursuant
to Section 5.03 of the Agreement, the parties have agreed to use their respective best efforts to amend the Alliance Agreement, dated as of January 28, 2000 (the
"Alliance Agreement"), by and among Microsoft, divine and Host Divine, Inc. in accordance with the terms specified on the term sheet attached to the Agreement as Exhibit D, no later than
October 31, 2001. Due to the events that occurred on September 11, 2001 and for other reasons beyond their control, the parties have not yet met to discuss the amendment of the Alliance
Agreement. The parties hereby agree that their failure thus far to meet and discuss the amendment of the Alliance Agreement shall not be deemed to be a breach of Section 5.03 of the Agreement,
nor a waiver of the obligations of the parties thereunder. The parties hereby further agree that they shall have until December 31, 2001 to amend the Alliance Agreement in accordance with the
terms specified on the term sheet attached to the Agreement as Exhibit D.

---

Please
indicate your agreement to the terms hereof by executing this letter agreement in the space provided below.

| | Sincerely yours,                           
| | -------------------------------------------
| | MICROSOFT CORPORATION                      
| | By:                                        
| | Name: Jean Francois Heitz
Title: Deputy CFO
| | MSN CHANNEL INITIATIVES                    
| | By:                                        
| | Name: Jean Francois Heitz
Title: Deputy CFO

Accepted and Agreed as of the date first written above:

DIVINE,
INC.

|By:                                                          | /s/ KATHARINE A. WOLANYK |  | 
|------------------------------------------------------------ | ------------------------ |  | 
|Name: Katharine A. Wolanyk
Title: SVP, Corporate Development |                          | 
|DIVINE/WHITTMAN-HART, INC.                                   |                          | 
|By:                                                          | /s/ KATHARINE A. WOLANYK |  | 
|Name: Katharine A. Wolanyk
Title: SVP, Corporate Development |                          | 

---

QuickLinks
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 47 (Monday, March 12, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 11005]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-4385]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. QF90-65-014]


Cogen Technologies Linden Venture, L.P.; East Coast Power Linden 
Holding, L.L.P; Notice of Filing

March 6, 2007.
    Take notice that on March 2, 2007 Cogen Technologies Linden 
Venture, L.P. and East Coast Power Linden Holding, L.L.P. filed a 
supplement to its February 14, 2007 application for recertification as 
a qualifying Cogeneration Facility, pursuant to section 292.207(b) of 
the Commission's regulations.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must 
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of 
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be 
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to 
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the 
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of 
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, 
motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. 
Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of 
that document on the Applicant and all the parties in this proceeding.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and 
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an 
original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal 
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the 
``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's 
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription'' 
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail 
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For 
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#ce888b9c8d81a0a2a7a0ab9dbbbebea1bcba8ea8abbcade0a9a1b8"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="92d4d7c0d1ddfcfefbfcf7c1e7e2e2fde0e6d2f4f7e0f1bcf5fde4">[email protected]</span></a>, or call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For 
TTY, call (202) 502-8659.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on March 13, 2007.

Philis J. Posey,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. E7-4385 Filed 3-9-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KERRY LUGENE PARKER, 

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-2695 FCD GGH P

vs.

GEORGE STRATTON, et al.,

Defendants.

 / ORDER

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se. On June 10, 2005, the court found

that the original complaint stated a colorable claim for relief against defendant Shawesh and

ordered plaintiff to submit forms necessary to effect service of this defendant. On August 22,

2005, plaintiff filed an amended complaint. The amended complaint states a colorable claim for

relief as to defendants Shawesh and Stratton. Accordingly, plaintiff is ordered to submit forms

necessary to effect service of these defendants.

On August 22, 2005, plaintiff filed a motion to vacate judgment. Because

judgment has not been entered, this motion is denied.

In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Service is appropriate for the following defendants: Shawesh and Stratton.

2. The Clerk of the Court shall send plaintiff 2 USM-285 forms, one summons,

Case 2:04-cv-02695-FCD-GGH Document 16 Filed 10/11/05 Page 1 of 3
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

2

an instruction sheet and a copy of the amended complaint filed August 22, 2005.

3. Within thirty days from the date of this order, plaintiff shall complete the

attached Notice of Submission of Documents and submit the following documents to the court:

a. The completed Notice of Submission of Documents;

b. One completed summons;

c. One completed USM-285 form for each defendant listed in number 3

above; and 

d. Three copies of the endorsed amended complaint filed August 22,

2005. 

4. Plaintiff need not attempt service on defendants and need not request waiver of

service. Upon receipt of the above-described documents, the court will direct the United States 

Marshal to serve the above-named defendants pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4

without payment of costs. 

5. Plaintiff’s August 22, 2005, motion to vacate judgment is denied.

DATED: 10/11/05

/s/ Gregory G. Hollows

 

GREGORY G. HOLLOWS

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

ggh:kj

par2695.ord

Case 2:04-cv-02695-FCD-GGH Document 16 Filed 10/11/05 Page 2 of 3
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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KERRY LUGENE PARKER,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-2695 FCD GGH P

vs.

GEORGE STRATTON, et al., NOTICE OF SUBMISSION

Defendants. OF DOCUMENTS

 /

Plaintiff hereby submits the following documents in compliance with the court's

order filed :

 1 completed summons form

 2 completed USM-285 forms

 3 copies of the 

 Complaint/Amended Complaint

DATED: 

 

Plaintiff

Case 2:04-cv-02695-FCD-GGH Document 16 Filed 10/11/05 Page 3 of 3
# EUR-Lex - 52007AP0035 - EN

Important legal notice

*|*

# 52007AP0035

**European Parliament legislative resolution on the proposal for a Council regulation amending Regulations (EC) No 894/97, (EC) No 812/2004 and (EC) No 2187/2005 as concerns drift nets (COM(2006)0511 - C6-0327/2006 - 2006/0169(CNS)) **

*
Official Journal 287 E , 29/11/2007 P. 0340 - 0341 *

P6_TA(2007)0035

Drift nets *

European Parliament legislative resolution on the proposal for a Council regulation amending Regulations (EC) No 894/97, (EC) No 812/2004 and (EC) No 2187/2005 as concerns drift nets (COM(2006)0511 — C6-0327/2006 — 2006/0169(CNS))

(Consultation procedure)

The European Parliament,

- having regard to the Commission proposal to the Council (COM(2006)0511) [1],

- having regard to Article 37 of the EC Treaty, pursuant to which the Council consulted Parliament (C6-0327/2006),

- having regard to Rule 51 of its Rules of Procedure,

- having regard to the report of the Committee on Fisheries (A6-0014/2007),

1. Approves the Commission proposal;

2. Calls on the Council to notify Parliament if it intends to depart from the text approved by Parliament;

3. Asks the Council to consult Parliament again if it intends to amend the Commission proposal substantially;

4. Instructs its President to forward its position to the Council and the Commission.

[1] Not yet published in OJ.

--------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

October 14, 2005 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice
127581 Michael F. Cavanagh Elizabeth A. Weaver Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan DAVID T. SCOTT, Plaintiff-Appellee, Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, Justices

v SC: 127581 COA: 248458 WCAC: 02-000404 ELECTRONIC DATA SYSTEMS CORPORATION an d TRAVELERS INDEMNITY COMPANY, Defendants-Appellants.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the October 28, 2004 judgment of the Court of Appeals is cons idered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented s hould be reviewed by this Court.

s1010 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

October 14, 2005

Clerk
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

423477.1 

[PROPOSED] ORDER RE STIPULATION

 Willie R. Barnes (State Bar No. 030028) 

 Juan A. Torres (State Bar No. 128181) 

Attorneys for Defendants 

DERIVIUM CAPITAL (USA), INC., DERIVIUM CAPITAL, LLC, and DR. 

CHARLES CATHCART 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, SACRAMENTO DIVISION 

GENERAL HOLDING, INC., a 

California corporation,, 

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

BANCROFT VENTURES LIMITED, 

an Isle of Man corporation, 

DERIVIUM CAPITAL (USA), INC., a 

Delaware corporation; DERIVIUM 

CAPITAL, LLC, a South Carolina 

limited liability corporation; and 

CHARLES CATHCART, an individual 

resident of the State of New York,, 

Defendants. 

Case No. CIV.S.04-2749 DFL DAD 

[PROPOSED] ORDER RE 

STIPULATION FOR ORDER 

EXTENDING DEADLINE TO 

RESPOND TO COMPLAINT 

The Court, having reviewed the Stipulation between Plaintiff 

General Holding, Inc. and Defendants Derivium Capital (USA), Inc., Derivium 

Capital, LLC and Dr. Charles Cathcart (ADefendants) to extend by twenty-one 

(21) days the deadline by when Defendants must respond to Plaintiff=s 

Complaint, hereby orders as follows: 

/ / / 

MUSICK, PEELER & GARRETT LLP

ATTORNEYS AT LAW 

ONE WILSHIRE BOULEVARD, SUITE 2000 

LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90017-3383 

TELEPHONE 213-629-7600 

FACSIMILE 213-624-1376 

Case 2:04-cv-02749-DFL-DAD Document 24 Filed 05/25/05 Page 1 of 2
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the deadline by when Defendants 

must respond to Plaintiff=s Complaint is continued to June 13, 2005. 

DATED: 5/25/2005 _/s/ David F. Levi ___________________

 HONORABLE DAVID F. LEVI 

 UNITED DISTRICT JUDGE 

Case 2:04-cv-02749-DFL-DAD Document 24 Filed 05/25/05 Page 2 of 2
(Reap. Dec. 9485)

#### Finwood Industries, Inc. *v.*United States

Entry No. 30195.

(Decided July 31, 1959)

*Siegel, Mandell & Davidson*for the plaintiff.

*George OochranDouh,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Mollison, Judge:

The appeal for reappraisement enumerated above, which relates to plywood exported from Finland in the year 1956, has been submitted for decision upon stipulation of counsel limited to the items where the merchandise was advanced in value and appraised on the basis of home market value.

On the agreed facts as to such merchandise, I find that foreign value, as defined in section 402(c), Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, is the proper basis for the determination of the value thereof, and that such value, in each instance, was the appraised unit value, less 4 per centum, packed.

The said appeal for reappraisement, having been abandoned with respect to those items of merchandise where appraisement was *475made on the basis of the entered invoice unit values, is to that extent dismissed.

Judgment will issue accordingly.
No. 51024.

#### Protest 998616-G of Madison Merchandise Co. (New York).

Opinion by

Kincheloe, J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise is the same in all material respects as that passed upon in *Stephen Rug Mills*v. *United Stales*(32 C. C. P. A. 110, C. A. D. 293), and by the court’s decision on remand in Abstract 50056. In accordance therewith the protest was sustained as claimed.
EPA Meeting with ASTSWMO

August 28, 2012

Attendees:

EPA OUST: Mark Barolo, Linda Gerber, Tim Smith, Paul Miller, Tim Roberts, Liz McDermott, 

Erin Knighton

ASTSWMO: Bob McCoy (OR), Jennifer Pruett (NM), Rebecca Keyser (DE), Patricia Ellis

(DE), Russ Brauksieck (NY), Therron Blatter (UT), Charles Reyes (ASTSWMO), Bob Daniel

(NH), Paul Nelson (IA), Larry Brinkerhoff (AK), John Olko (NJ), Alison Hathcock (SC), Leslie 

Carr (KY), Mahesh Albuquerque (CO), Tara Rosie (AZ), Ken Koon (MO)

At this meeting, EPA and the states discussed questions related to the proposed regulations, 

including questions regarding new technologies, spill prevention and overfill prevention, 

deferrals, compatibility and interstitial monitoring, operator training, and ground water and vapor 

monitoring. The questions discussed are attached.
No. 42913.

#### Protest 410797-G of Wilbur Ellis Co. (Los Angeles).

Opinion by

Keefe, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel and on the authority of Abstract 41147 and *Wilbur Ellis*v. *United States*(2 Cust. Ct. 323, C. D. 153) the fish meal in question was held free of duty under paragraph 1583 as claimed.
Exhibit 31.02

      CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO RULE 13a-14


         I, Kenneth G.C. Telford, certify that:

         1. I have reviewed this Form 10-QSB of Essential Innovations Technology
Corp.;

         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 small business
issuer as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

         4. The small business issuer'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 small
business issuer 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 small business issuer,
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 small business issuer'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 small business issuer's
internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the small
business issuer's most recent fiscal quarter (the small business issuer's fourth
fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or
is reasonably likely to materially affect, the small business issuer's internal
control over financial reporting; and

         5. The small business issuer's other certifying officer(s) and I have
disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over
financial reporting, to the small business issuer's auditors and the audit
committee of the small business issuer'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 small business issuer'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 small business issuer's
internal control over financial reporting.


Date:  September 14, 2006


/s/ Kenneth G.C. Telford
----------------------------
Kenneth G.C. Telford
Principal Financial Officer
Exhibit 10.14 - FirstAmendment-CTWaterExecEmpAgmts


Exhibit 10.14


FIRST AMENDMENT TO 
AMENDED AND RESTATED EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT 

THIS AMENDMENT, dated this _____ day of April 2014, is made by and between The Connecticut Water Company, a Connecticut corporation having its principal place of business in Clinton, Connecticut (“Company”), Connecticut Water Service, Inc., a Connecticut corporation and holder of all of the outstanding capital stock of Company (“Parent”), and ____________, a resident of ________, Connecticut (“Employee”),


W I T N E S S E T H:


WHEREAS, the Employee, Company and Parent entered into an amended and restated Employment Agreement in December 2008; and


WHEREAS, the parties wish to amend the Agreement in the particulars set forth below;


NOW, THEREFORE, Company, Parent and Employee agree as follows:


1.Subparagraph (g) of Paragraph 5 of the Agreement entitled “Stay-on Bonus” is hereby deleted in its entirety.


2.    Except as hereinabove modified and amended, the Agreement shall remain in full force and effect.


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Company and Parent have caused this Agreement to be executed by an authorized officer, and Employee has hereunto set Employee’s hand.


THE CONNECTICUT WATER COMPANY 
 
                        By                              
Date 
                        CONNECTICUT WATER SERVICE, INC.
 
                        By                              
Date 

 
Date                        Executive
CERTIFICATION
      OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND


CHIEF
      FINANCIAL OFFICER


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 accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of California
      News Tech for the quarter ended March 31, 2006, I certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
      Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
      of
      2002, to my knowledge, that:





|(1) | the
              Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of California News Tech for the quarter
              ended March 31, 2006 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 Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the
              quarter ended March 31, 2006, fairly presents in all material respects,
              the financial condition and results of operations of California News
              Tech.
|--- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------




By:
            /s/
                Marian MunzName:
            Marian
                MunzTitle:
            Principal
                Executive Officer and DirectorDate:
            May
                15, 2006By:
            /s/
                William WhiteName:
            William
                WhiteTitle:
            Principal
                Financial OfficerDate:
            May
                15, 2006
#### Wayne D. Becker, Appellant, v Tallamy, Van Kuren, Gertis & Associates, Respondent and Third-Party Plaintiff. Mar-Wal Construction Company, Inc., Third-Party Defendant-Respondent.

[634 NYS2d 282]

—Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: Plaintiff was injured when the wall of a trench caved in upon him while he was working on the installation of a water line on Kenmore Avenue in the Village of Kenmore. Plaintiff was employed by the contractor engaged by the Village to install the water line. He commenced this action against the engineering firm employed by the Village to design the project and to provide on-site inspection of the progress of the work. The complaint seeks to impose lir ability for common-law negligence and violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 240 and 241 (6).

Supreme Court properly granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. Labor Law § 240 has no application to the cave-in of a trench *(see, Staples v Town of Amherst,*146 AD2d 292). With respect to the alleged violation of Labor Law § 241 (6), a professional engineer can be held liable under that subdivision only if it is established that he had the authority to supervise and control the activity that brought about the injury *(see, Carter v Vollmer Assocs.,*196 AD2d 754; *Hamby v High Steel Structures,*134 AD2d 884, 885). The contract documents unambiguously provide that defendant is not responsible for supervision or control of the method or manner in which the work is performed, and plaintiff submitted no proof that defendant’s employees exercised any such supervision or control *(see, Hamby v High Steel Structures, supra).*Further, because defendant did not supervise or control the work, it cannot be held liable under Labor Law § 200 or for *1015common-law negligence for the failure to provide a safe place to work *(see, Gaul v Motorola, Inc.,*216 AD2d 879; *Wright v Nichter Constr. Co.,*213 AD2d 995; *Hamby v High Steel Structures, supra).*(Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Erie County, Joslin, J.—Labor Law.) Present—Pine, J. P., Fallon, Wesley, Balio and Boehm, JJ.