alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# National Soil Survey Handbook 

## Breadcrumb

-  Home 
-  Resources 
-  National Soil Survey Handbook  

The National Soil Survey Handbook (NSSH) is a standard that provides definitions, responsibilities, guidelines, and procedures for conducting the National Cooperative Soil Survey (NCSS). 

The NSSH contains information on how to plan and manage projects; collect, document, and interpret information; and disseminate, publish, and promote the use of soil and ecological site information of the United States and its trust territories. It provides specific information about field activities, correlation, interpretation, publication, and distribution of soil surveys.

Any member of the NCSS may suggest changes or additions to the NSSH. Proposed changes or additions should be addressed to Debbie Surabian, National Leader for Standards.

### Links

National Soil Survey Handbook
              - Amendments are located in Part 659

----

## Recommended Citation

*U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. National soil survey handbook, title 430-VI. https://directives.sc.egov.usda.gov (accessed day month year).*

##   Contact Soils

Please contact us if you see something that needs to be updated, if you have any questions, or if you need accessibility assistance.
                  -    Soils Assistance 
                  -    402-437-5378402-437-5379 
                  -    Soils-Webmaster@usda.gov 

## Find Your Local Service Center

    USDA Service Centers are locations where you can connect with Farm Service Agency, Natural Resources Conservation Service, or Rural Development employees for your business needs. Enter your state and county below to find your local service center and agency offices. If this locator does not work in your browser, please visit offices.usda.gov.
<PAGE>   1

Exhibit 10.35


Wolfram Weinsheimer, M.D.
Kuerzlengraben 15A
D-89275 Elchingen
Germany

April 15, 1999

Dear Dr. Weinsheimer:

         As Uwe discussed with you during his visit to Heidenheim, UTEK
Corporation would like to engage your services as an independent marketing
representative. Your duties would be to introduce UTEK to CEO's of public
companies for the purpose of having UTEK be engaged by these companies to find,
acquire and transfer technology licenses to them. Your services will be rendered
as an independent contractor and not as an employee of UTEK. Uwe and I will
provide some assistance to you to help ensure that you can make a knowledgeable
and effective sales presentations.

         We would like you to provide these services on a time available basis,
where you decide how much effort and time you will spend soliciting
prospects/customers for UTEK. You are free to provide these services at a
location of your choice. You must cover your own expenses while providing this
service.

         In consideration for providing this service to the company, UTEK will
compensate you with 10% of any monies or stock received from a customer you
introduce to UTEK, within one week following the closing of a technology
transfer agreement between this customer and UTEK.

         The term of this Agreement is 12 months. This Agreement may be
cancelled by either party upon 90 days notice.

         This Agreement is governed by the Laws of the State of Florida, USA.

         If you agree with all of the above terms, please sign and send a copy
of this letter to Uwe or me. Dr. Weinsheimer, we really look forward to working
with you in the months to come.

Very best regards,


/s/  Clifford M. Gross


Clifford M. Gross, Ph.D.
Chief Executive Officer

Agreed to:

   /s/  Dr. Wolfram Weinsheimer                 99-5-4
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dr. Wolfram Weinsheimer, M.D.                   Date
Case No. 7,938.

#### KROUSE et al. v. DEBLOIS.

[1 Cranch, C. C. 156.] 1

Circuit Court, District of Columbia.

Dec. Term, 1803.

Co NTR A CTS — COMPLETIO X — ALTE RATION.

Under a contrae* to deliver rations of beef for a year, the plaintiff cannoT recover for rations delivered for only a part of the year unless prevented by the act of the defendant from completing the contract.

*868A special count was filed, under the leave given at the last term [Case No. 7,937], stating a special agreement to furnish rations for the marines for one year.

Mr. Mason, for plaintiffs [Krouse & Gloyd],

prayed the court to instruct the jury, that although the plaintiffs had not supplied beef during the whole year, according to agreement, yet the defendant has no right to offset the unliquidated damages, for the plaintiffs not having continued to furnish the beef during the whole year, but that the plaintiffs were entitled to recover for as much beef as they did deliver. The covenants were mutual. Esp. N. P. 281, 2S2; Boone v. Eyre, 2 W. Bl. 1312; Barker v. Sutton, Esp. N. P. 129; Trials per Pais, 186.

Mr. Morsell, contra,

contended that this was an entire agreement, and that the covenants were dependent. He cited Esp. N. P. 139, and 1 Strange, 648.

Mr.. Mason, in reply,

cited Barker v. Sutton, Ésp. N. P. 129, 281; Trials per Pais, 1S6.

THE COURT

(nem. con.) refused the instruction, and directed the jury that the plaintiffs are not entitled to recover for the quantity of beef delivered without showing a compliance on their part with the agreement declared on, to deliver rations of beef for the space of one year, in the manner stated in the special count in the declaration, unless such compliance was prevented by the act of the defendant Verdict for the defendant.
Exhibit 23






McGladrey &
Pullen


Certified Public
Accountants


























Consent
of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm





We
consent to the incorporation by reference in this Registration Statement (No.
333-10981) on Form S-3 of Patriot National Bancorp, Inc. of our reports dated
March 14, 2008 relating to our audits of the consolidated financial statements
and internal control over financial reporting, included in and incorporated by
reference in the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Patriot National Bancorp, Inc.
for the year ended December 31, 2007.








/S/
McGladrey & Pullen, LLP





New
Haven, Connecticut


March 14,
2008






















McGladrey & Pullen, LLP is a
member firm of RSM International,


an affiliation of separate and
independent entities.
No. 55312.

#### Foreign Vintages, Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

protests 117546-K, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
#### Walter *Hoos, Appellant, v.*James Person and others, *Respondents.*

The part of the order appealed from reversed, with ten dollars costs and printing disbursements. Opinion by Learned, P. J.
Exhibit 10.6


 


		
        RenalTech
        International, LLC 

        320
        East 65th Street, Suite 116 

        New
        York, NY 10021 

        Telephone:   212-717-8644

	
        Facsimile:    212-717-8643

        www.renaltech.com

        E-mail:
        info@renaltech.com



 


	Guillermina Vega Montiel	August 11, 2003
	P.O. Box 894	 
	Nogales, AZ 85628	 


 


Dear
Guillermina,


 


This
letter shall summarize the points of our discussion from 8/5 regarding the agreed incentive structure for your further investment
in RenalTech.:


 


a. You
will purchase $4 million of Membership Units from RenalTech at a price of $3.25 per Unit with a ratchet provision that gives you
the lower price if within the next 12 months, after this investment, Membership Units are sold at a lower price.


 


b. RenalTech
will grant you a royalty of 3% on all gross revenues received by RenalTech from the sales of the CytoSorb Device in the areas of
sepsis, cardio-pulmonary bypass, organ donation, chemotherapy and inflammation control. The term “revenue” shall include
all product sales revenue as well as license fees and proceeds from the sale of RenalTech’s Cytosorb intellectual property.


 


	c. You will arrange to	(1) immediately wire $1.5mm to RenalTech’s Citibank account #41358084 for purposes of conducting the FDA clinical trials for the BetaSorb ;
	 	 
	 	(2)   wire an
    additional $1mm by August 25, to provide working capital;
	 	 
	 	(3)   wire an
    additional $1.5 mm by October 15.


 


d. While
not contractually committed to do so, you will consider investing an additional $1 million at the same price as stated above provided
the Company is, in your opinion, making satisfactory progress. This right to invest the additional $1mm at $3.25+ratchet to lower
price shall be exercisable through February 28, 2004.


 


Please
sign and return a copy of this letter (by fax) to indicate your agreement.


 





	Agreed to: 		 	RenalTech International, LLC 
	 	 	 	By:	 







 





	RenalTech International, LLC	Business Confidential
## OMB No. 2025

- 0006 Expires xx/xx/xxxx

EPA Form 5300

- 27 1 **U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY Quality Assurance Reporting Form**  **for Use by Recipients of Assistance Agreements**  **Recipient Organization: Name:**  **Address: EPA Award Number:**  **Project/Program Period(starting and ending dates, mm/dd/yyyy):**



## Activity Group: (check all that apply) 

## □ Infrastructure Development

□ Data Exchange, Anal ysis and I ntegration □ Planning, Mentoring, and Training □ Challenge **Goal Task**  **Output Outcome**  **Quality Assurance Measures**

**Instructions:**
**- Please submit electronically to**  **your EPA**  **Regional Project Officer within 90 days of award.** 

**- For Quality Assurance Measures, please refer to**  **mo st recent**  **Solicitation Notice for**  **Quality Assurance Guidelines.**

**- For Goals, please refer to goals outlined in your assistance agreement work**  **plan. Paperwork** 

**Reduction Act (PRA) Burden Statement:** The public reporting and recordkeeping burden for this collection of information is estimated to average one hour per response. Send comments on the Agency's need for this information, the accuracy of the p rovided burden estimates, and any suggested methods for minimizing respondent burden, including through the use of automated collection techniques to the Director, Collection Strategies Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2822T), 1200 Pen nsylva nia Ave., NW, Washington, D.C. 20460. I nclude the OMB control number in any correspondence. Do not send the completed form to this address.
Session VI: Measuring the Impact of 

Prevention Strategies 

Discussion questions:

1. Given the current portfolio of available potential 

prevention tools and methods, which ones show 

most promise for reducing human illness and are 

thereby the best candidates for evaluation in 

community trials?

2. Which of these interventions are most likely to be 

accepted and utilized in at-risk populations?

3. Which of these provide the best co-benefit value 

as a part of an IPM strategy?
NO. 07-00-0174-CV

	IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

	FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

	AT AMARILLO

	PANEL B

	JULY 17, 2000

	______________________________

	JAMES B. CRENSHAW, APPELLANT

	V.

	MIDWEST CONCRETE, INC., STEVE HOLBERT, KENNETH

	THOMAS, AND BEVERLY HOLBERT, APPELLEES

	_________________________________

	FROM THE 137TH DISTRICT COURT OF LUBBOCK COUNTY;

	NO. 97-560,037; HONORABLE CECIL G. PURYEAR, JUDGE

	_______________________________

Before BOYD, C.J., and QUINN and JOHNSON, JJ.

	ON ABATEMENT

	On January 3, 2000, the trial court entered a take-nothing summary judgment in favor of appellees Midwest Concrete, Inc., Steve Holbert, Kenneth Thomas, and Beverly Holbert.  Parenthetically, although a suggestion of death of Steve Holbert appears in the clerk’s record, he is named as a party in the summary judgment.

	Appellant James B. Crenshaw gave timely notice of appeal from that judgment and we have received the clerk’s record in connection with the appeal.  

	We have now been notified that appellee Midwest Concrete, Inc. has filed a petition for protection in Cause No. 00-50542-RLJ in the United State Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Texas.  Applicable federal statutes require that we must stay all further proceedings in this matter that might affect the interest of Midwest Concrete, Inc. until we receive permission to proceed from the bankruptcy court.  See 11 USCA § 362 (West 1993 & Supp. 2000).

	Accordingly, we must, and do, abate all proceedings in this appeal until Midwest Concrete, Inc. is released from the supervision of the bankruptcy court.

	It is so ordered.

							Per Curiam 

Do not publish.
No. 63176.

#### E. Leitz, Inc. *v.*United States,

protests 268090-K, 268091-K, and 252920-K (New York).

Opinion by

Oliver, C. J.

On the agreed facts, protest 268090-K was dismissed as to the items marked “B,” covered by entries 865418 and 21183, and the matter was remanded to a single judge sitting in reappraisement for determination of the value of the merchandise in the manner provided by law (28 U.S.C. § 2636(d)). The items marked “C,” stipulated to consist of parts of photographic cameras similar in all material respects to the merchandise involved in *Manca, Inc.*v. *United States*(38 Cust. Ct. 271, C.D. 1874), were held dutiable at 20 percent under paragraph 1551, as claimed.
----

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 

The undersigned, Guoshen Tu, the Chief Executive Officer ofCHINA SECURITY & SURVEILLANCE TECHNOLOGY, INC. (the "Company"), DOES HEREBYCERTIFY that: 

1. 

The Company’sQuarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2008 (the"Report"), fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and 

2. 

Informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financialcondition and results of operation of the Company. 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, each of the undersigned has executed thisstatement this 28th day of October 2008. 

/s/ Guoshen Tu                                                                    Guoshen Tu Chief Executive Officer (Principal Executive Officer) 

A signed original of this written statement required bySection 906 has been provided to China Security & Surveillance Technology, Inc.and will be retained by China Security & Surveillance Technology, Inc. andfurnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

The forgoing certification is being furnished to theSecurities and Exchange Commission pursuant to § 18 U.S.C. Section 1350. It isnot being filed for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of1934, as amended, and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing ofthe Company, whether made before or after the date hereof, regardless of anygeneral incorporation language in such filing. 

 

----
**EXHIBIT
      32.2**


**CERTIFICATION
      PURSUANT TO**


**18
      U.S.C. SECTION 1350**


**AS
      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**


**SECTION
      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**





The
      undersigned, Doron Uziel, the Treasurer, Principal Financial Officer of
      Energtek Inc. (the “Company”), certify, under the standards set forth and solely
      for the purposes of 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
      Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge, the Quarterly Report on
      Form
      10-Q of the Company for the fiscal quarter ended June 30, 2008 fully complies
      with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange
      Act
      of 1934 and the information contained in that Form 10-Q fairly presents, in
      all
      material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
      Company.





Dated:
      August 13, 2008











By: /s/
      Doron Uziel


Name:  Doron
      Uziel


Title: Treasurer


(Principal
      Financial Officer)








A
      signed
      original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided
      to
      the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities
      and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
# C_2007043EN.01000201.xml

| 27.2.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 43/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.2.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 43/2

---

Authorisation for State aid pursuant to Articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty

Cases where the Commission raises no objections

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2007/C 43/02)

| Date of adoption of the decision | — |
| --- | --- |
| Reference number of the aid | N 802/06 |
| Member State | Italy |
| Region | Piemonte |
| Title (and/or name of the beneficiary) | Aiuto al salvataggio alla Sandretto Industrie SrL |
| Legal basis | DL 8.7.1999, n. 270 (GURI 185, 9.8.1999) |
| Type of measure | Individual aid |
| Objective | Rescue of firms in difficulty |
| Form of aid | Guarantee |
| Budget | Overall budget: EUR 5 million |
| Intensity | — |
| Duration | Until 1.7.2007 |
| Economic sectors | Manufacturing industry |
| Name and address of the granting authority | Ministero dello Sviluppo Economico |
| Other information | — |

Date of adoption of the decision

—

Reference number of the aid

N 802/06

Member State

Italy

Region

Piemonte

Title (and/or name of the beneficiary)

Aiuto al salvataggio alla Sandretto Industrie SrL

Legal basis

DL 8.7.1999, n. 270 (GURI 185, 9.8.1999)

Type of measure

Individual aid

Objective

Rescue of firms in difficulty

Form of aid

Guarantee

Budget

Overall budget: EUR 5 million

Intensity

—

Duration

Until 1.7.2007

Economic sectors

Manufacturing industry

Name and address of the granting authority

Ministero dello Sviluppo Economico

Other information

—

The authentic text(s) of the decision, from which all confidential information has been removed, can be found at:

http://ec.europa.eu/community_law/state_aids/

---
Before the First Division,

July 25, 1941

No. 46194.

#### Protest 500443-G of W. T. Grant Co. (New York).

Opinion by

Brown, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel the merchandise was held to be similar to that the subject of *Cohn*v. *United States*(4 Cust. Ct. 166, C. D. 314). The protest was therefore sustained.
#### DeLuxe Package House, Inc., v. J. M. Lee, as State Comptroller.

180 So. 345.

Opinion Filed April 8, 1938.

*Edgar M. Felson*and S'. *P. RoVineau,*for Appellant.

*Cary D. Landis,*Attorney General, and *H. E. Carter, W. P. Allen*and *Lawrence A. Truett,*Assistant Attorneys General, for Appellee.

Terrell, J.

The facts presented and the questions raised in this case are similar to those raised and urged in the case: of Henry Borrego and Tom Borrego v. Lee, as Comptroller, decided this date. There is this difference in the factual situation. In the last cited case, Appellants were licensed to operate a retail liquor vending business under Classification 4, Section 5, of Chapter 16774, Acts of 1935, by which authority liquors are sold for consumption on the premises.

Paragraph “f” of Section 10 of said Act requires that all such licensees prepare and offer for sale in connection with their liquor business meals and other articles custom*55arily sold in a restaurant. We held in the last cited case that this requirement being a mere incident to the main business and there being nothing in the Act to show that the store license was intended to be imposed for it, that under authority of Lee v. Cloverleaf, Inc., *et al.,*decided December 22, 1937, there was no authority- to impose it.

In this case, Appellant is licensed under Classification 3 of Section 5, Chapter 16774, to operate a retail liquor business exclusively by means of sealed containers to be consumed off the premises and where foods or other articles are not sold. There is nothing in this state of facts that would change the rule as announced in Henry Borrego and Tom Borrego v. Lee, *supra,*so the judgment below is reversed on authority of that case.

Reversed.

Ellis, C. J., and Whitfield, Brown and Ci-iapman, J. J., concur.

Buford, J., concurs specially.

Buford, J.

(concurring specially).—I concur in the views expressed by Mr. Justice Terrell and the companion case. It must be borne in mind that a very large portion of the gross receipts on liquor sales is for federal and state taxes which taxes are thus passed on to the consumer and to this extent the dealer is in effect a tax collector. I doubt that one may be required to pay a tax on the amount of the tax thus passed on to the consumer.

Brown, J., concurs.
```

[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 225 (Wednesday, November 21, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 69807]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-28382]

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

COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION

Sunshine Act Meeting

    This notice that an emergency meeting was held is published 
pursuant to the provisions of the Government in the Sunshine Act, 
Public Law 94-409, 5 U.S.C. 552b.

AGENCY HOLDING THE MEETINGS: Commodity Futures Trading Commission.

TIMES AND DATES: The Commission held an emergency closed meeting on 
November 14, 2011 at 2:15 p.m. The Commission, by a recorded unanimous 
vote of those members attending, determined that agency business 
required that business of the agency required that the meeting be held 
at that time. Commissioner Chilton did not participate.

PLACE: Three Lafayette Center, 1155 21st St. NW., Washington, DC, 9th 
Floor Commission Conference Room.

STATUS: Closed.

MATTERS CONSIDERED: Litigation matters

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: Sauntia S. Warfield, Assistant 
Secretary of the Commission, 202-418-5084.

Sauntia S. Warfield,
Assistant Secretary of the Commission.
[FR Doc. 2012-28382 Filed 11-19-12; 11:15 am]
BILLING CODE 6351-01-P
```
(Reap. Dec. 8461)

#### Alltransport, Incorporated, et al. *v.*United States

Entry No. 761209, etc.

(Decided July 14, 1955)

*Siegel, Mandell & Davidson*for the plaintiffs.

*Warren E. Burger,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

OliveR, Chief Judge:

The appeals for reappraisement listed in schedule *“A,”*hereto attached and made a part hereof, have been submitted for decision upon the following stipulation of counsel for the parties hereto:

> IT IS STIPULATED AND AGREED by and between counsel for the parties hereto that the merchandise involved in the Appeals to Reappraisement enumerated on the schedule attached hereto and made a part hereof consists of Pixie Phonographs, item No. 54.

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that the market value or the price of said merchandise at the time of exportation of such merchandise to *377the United States at which such or similar merchandise was frely [sfc] offered for sale for home consumption to all purchasers in the principal markets of the country from which exported, in the usual wholesale quantities and in the ordinary course of trade, including the cost of all containers and coverings of whatever nature, and all other costs, charges and expenses incidental to placing the merchandise in condition, packed, ready for shipment to the United States was 108 Deutsche Marks per dozen pieces less 50% discount plus packing as invoiced and that there was no higher export value.

IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that the above cases be deemed submitted upon this stipulation.

On the agreed facts I find the foreign value, as that value is defined in section 402 (c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended by section 8 of the Customs Administrative Act of 1938, to be the proper basis for the determination of the value of the pixie phonographs, item No. 54, here involved, and that such value was 108 deutschemarks per dozen pieces, less 50 per centum discount, plus packing as invoiced.

Judgment will be entered accordingly.