alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EX-10.12.5.3



 





Exhibit 10.12.5.3









	 	 	 
	Cascal BV
	 	 
	Atrium 7th Floor
	 	 
	Strawinskylaan 3105
	 	 
	1077 ZX Amsterdam
	 	12 April, 2007
	Amsterdam
	 	 
	The Netherlands
	 	 






Dear Sirs,



We, the Borrower under the terms of the Inter-company Loan Agreement dated 28 June 2006 for a
sterling facility of £3,500,000, as amended on 13 December 2006, request that the Parties extend
the term of this facility from 31 January 2007 until 31 May 2007, or such later date as we might
both subsequently agree in writing. The Maturity Date will therefore become 31 May 2007.



We would also wish to take this opportunity to confirm that we repaid US$6,910 (US dollars six
thousand nine hundred) on the 9th November 2006 which at the spot exchange rate on that day of
1.9065 means we duly repaid £3,619 (UK pounds three thousand six hundred and nineteen) of this
facility on that date. We have also repaid today US$ 500,000 (US dollars five hundred thousand)
which at today’s spot exchange rate of 1.9646 means we have duly repaid £254,505 (UK pounds two
hundred and fifty four thousand five hundred and five) of this facility today.



Please acknowledge your agreement to the contents of this letter by counter-signing the duplicate
copy and returning it to the undersigned.



Yours faithfully,




	 	 	 	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 
	/s/ DL Magor	 	 
	DL Magor	 	 
	Director	 	 







www.biwater.com




Biwater Plc

Biwater House, Station Approach, Dorking, Surrey RH4 1TZ England

Tel +44 (0) 1306 740740 fax +44 (0) 1306 885233




Registered in England No. 929686 Registered Office Biwater House, Station Approach, Dorking, Surrey
99-0636 (La. 4/23/99)

#### Sharon A. TALBOT, et al. v. UNITED SERVICES AUTOMOBILE ASSOCIATION, et al.

No. 99-C-0636.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

April 23, 1999.

IN RE: Talbot, Sharon A.; Talbot, Mark A.; — Plaintiff(s); Applying for Writ of Certiorari and/or Review; Parish of Lafayette 15th Judicial District Court Div. “B” Number 976,180; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, Number CA98-1053

Denied.

MARCUS, J. not on panel.
# C_2012287EN.01004103.xml

| 22.9.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 287/41 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.9.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 287/41

---

Action brought on 20 July 2012 — ZZ v Commission

(Case F-76/12)

2012/C 287/77

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: ZZ (represented by: S. Rodrigues and A. Blot, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission

Defendant:

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Annulment of the decision of the Commission converting merit points acquired in another institution and of the Administrative Notice publishing the list of officials promoted in the 2011 promotion exercise.

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the decision of the European Commission of 13 October 2011 concerning the conversion of merit points acquired by the applicant in another institution, together with Administrative Notice No 48/2011 of 27 October 2011 publishing the list of officials promoted in the 2011 appraisal and promotion exercise, which does not include the name of the applicant; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the European Commission of 13 October 2011 concerning the conversion of merit points acquired by the applicant in another institution, together with Administrative Notice No 48/2011 of 27 October 2011 publishing the list of officials promoted in the 2011 appraisal and promotion exercise, which does not include the name of the applicant;

| — | As far as necessary, annul the decision adopted by the appointing authority rejecting the applicant’s complaint; |
| --- | --- |

—

As far as necessary, annul the decision adopted by the appointing authority rejecting the applicant’s complaint;

| — | Order the European Commission to pay damages assessed ex aequo et bono at EUR 20 000 to make good the material damage suffered; |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the European Commission to pay damages assessed ex aequo et bono at EUR 20 000 to make good the material damage suffered;

ex aequo et bono

| — | Order the European Commission to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the European Commission to pay the costs.

---
II 

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1634 

To amend title 38, United States Code, to improve the approval and disapproval of programs of education for purposes of educational benefits 

under laws administered by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs, and for 

other purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

SEPTEMBER 26, 2011 

Mr. TESTER introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs 

A BILL 

To amend title 38, United States Code, to improve the 

approval and disapproval of programs of education for 

purposes of educational benefits under laws administered 

by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs, and for other purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 1634 IS

1 SECTION 1. MODIFICATION OF AUTHORITIES RELATING TO 

2 APPROVAL OF PROGRAMS OF EDUCATION 

3 FOR PURPOSES OF EDUCATION BENEFITS 

4 ADMINISTERED BY SECRETARY OF VET5 ERANS AFFAIRS. 

6 (a) REPEAL OF CONSTRUCTIVE APPROVAL OF CER7 TAIN COURSES.—Section 3672(b)(2)(A) of title 38, 

8 United States Code, is amended— 

9 (1) by striking clauses (i) and (iv); and 

10 (2) by redesignating clauses (ii) and (iii) as 

11 clauses (i) and (ii), respectively. 

12 (b) APPROVAL OF ACCREDITED COURSES.—Section 

13 3675 of such title is amended— 

14 (1) in subsection (a)(1), by striking ‘‘The Sec15 retary or a State approving agency may approve ac16 credited programs (including non-degree accredited 

17 programs) offered by proprietary for-profit edu18 cational institutions’’ and inserting ‘‘A State approv19 ing agency may approve the courses offered by an 

20 educational institution’’; and 

21 (2) in subsection (b), by striking ‘‘the Secretary 

22 or’’ both places it appears. 

23 (c) DISAPPROVAL OF COURSES.—Section 3679(a) of 

24 such title is amended by striking ‘‘the Secretary or’’ both 

25 places it appears. 

Æ 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
33629.

#### SEABOARD COAST LINE RAILROAD COMPANY et al. v. UNION CAMP CORPORATION et al.

Argued July 10, 1978

Decided September 6, 1978.

*Miller, Beckmann & Simpson, John B. Miller, Ellsworth Hall, Jr.,*for appellants.

*Adams, Adams, Brennan & Gardner, Edward T. Brennan,*for appellees.

Per curiam.

Upon further consideration, it is determined that the writ of certiorari should be and is dismissed as improvidently granted.

*Writ dismissed.*

*All the Justices concur, except Jordan, Bowles and Marshall, JJ., who dissent.*
#### Ervin NICHOLSON v. ST. JOHN THE BAPTIST PARISH SCHOOL BOARD.

No. 98-C-0411.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

May 15, 1998.

In re Ervin Nicholson; Plaintiff; applying for reconsideration of this Court’s Order dated March 27, 1998; Parish of St. John Baptist, 40th Judicial District Court, No. 22327, Division “B”; Fifth Circuit Court of Appeal, No. 97-CA-0846.

Reconsideration denied; application is not timely.

TRAYLOR, J., not on panel.
An official website of the United States government         Here's how you know         
**Official websites use .mil**
A **.mil** website belongs to an official U.S. Department of Defense organization in the United States.
**Secure .mil websites use HTTPS**
 A **lock (lock )** or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .mil website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Skip to main content (Press Enter).

Defense Logistics AgencyThe Nation's Combat Logistics Support Agency

Search
Search

Search

-  Home		 
-  What DLA Offers    -  Excess Property Disposal             
  -  Document Services             
  -  Products             
  -  Services             
  -  Programs 
-  Working With DLA    -  Applications             
  -  Small Business             
  -  Federal and International Cataloging             
  -  Defense Data Standards             
  -  Events             
  -  Procurement Policies             
  -  Government Programs             
  -  Forms 
-  Organizations    -  DLA Headquarters             
  -  DLA Aviation             
  -  DLA Disposition Services             
  -  DLA Distribution             
  -  DLA Energy             
  -  DLA Land and Maritime             
  -  DLA Troop Support             
  -  DLA CENTCOM & SOCOM             
  -  DLA Europe & Africa             
  -  DLA Indo-Pacific 
-  Customer Support    -  Self Help Tools             
  -  How to Order             
  -  Find Your Order             
  -  Customer Facing Offices             
  -  Training             
  -  Brochures             
  -  Warfighter Support             
  -  Customer Service Management 
-  Careers		 
-  About DLA    -  Contact Us             
  -  Locations             
  -  Leaders             
  -  News             
  -  History             
  -  Media Gallery             
  -  DLA Campaigns 

HomeAbout DLANewsNews Article View

PHOTO INFORMATION

** Download

** Details

** Share

PHOTO INFORMATION

** Download

** Details

** Share

PHOTO INFORMATION

** Download

** Details

** Share

PHOTO INFORMATION

** Download

** Details

** Share

PHOTO INFORMATION

** Download

** Details

** Share

# 633rd MDSS tests new Expeditionary Medical Systems equipment 

By Airman 1st Class Monica Roybal633rd Air Base Wing Public Affairs

                JOINT BASE LANGLEY-EUSTIS, Va.   –              *Editor's note: The original story can be viewed on the Joint Base Langley-Eustis website.*

**                    SHARE                

**                    PRINT                

Langleyfort Eustis633rd Air Base Wing733rd Mission Support Group633rd Air Combat Command Surgeon GeneralAir Force Life Cycle Management Center633rd Medical Support Squadron633rd Civil Engineer Squadron633rd Dental SquadrontentsCBRNEchemical biological radiological nuclearchemical defenseMedicalmedical equipment
#### Krista Switzer ARMSTRONG v. Sherman Glen ARMSTRONG.

No. 99-CC-0103.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Jan. 13, 1999.

In re Armstrong, Sherman Glen; — -Defendants); applying for supervisory and/or remedial writ; Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court, Div. “J”, No. 530-894; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 98-CW-1208.

Denied.

LEMMON, J., would grant the writ.

KIMBALL, J., not on panel.
Before the First Division,

May 17, 1951

No. 55562.

#### Larsen Importing Corp. *v.*United States,

petition 6815-R (New York).

Opinion by

Oliver, C. J.

The record disclosed that on previous importations of similar merchandise, the petitioner had entered the goods at the *per se*invoice prices, less certain discounts for trade quantity and cash, which items had been allowed by the appraising officer in the determination of the value of the merchandise. Upon importation of the shipment here involved, the petitioner was informed by the appraiser that the discounts in question would not be allowed. Accordingly, an appeal for reappraisement was filed. The claim with respect to a quantity discount was sustained as to one of the involved items and disallowed as to two of the other items imported. The court further disallowed certain trade discounts claimed by the importer *(Larsen Importing Corp.*v. *United States,*22 Cust. Ct. 465, Reap. Dec. 7709). The decision of the single judge was appealed and the judgment of the trial court was affirmed *(Larsen Importing Corp.*v. *United States*and *United States*v. *Larsen Importing Corp.,*25 Cust. Ct. 366, Reap. Dec. 7855). On the record presented it was held that there was no intention to conceal or misrepresent the facts of the case or to defraud the revenue of the United States or to deceive the appraiser as to the value of the merchandise. The petition was therefore granted.
**Exhibit 31.1**CertificationsI, Suki Mudan, certify that:1. I have reviewed this Form 10-QSB/A-2 for the six months ended June 30, 2006, of Caneum, Inc.; 2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the small business issuer as of, and for, the periods presentedin this report; 4. The small business issuer’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange ActRules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the small business issuer and have: a. Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosurecontrols and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the small business issuer, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly duringthe period in which this report is being prepared;  b. Evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuer’s disclosure controlsand procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness ofthe disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by thisreport based on such evaluation; and  c. Disclosed in this report any change in the small business issuer’s internalcontrol over financial reporting that occurred during the small business issuer’s mostrecent fiscal quarter (the small business issuer’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case ofan annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materiallyaffect, the small business issuer’s internal control over financial reporting;5. The small business issuer’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on ourmost recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the small businessissuer’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 operationof internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adverselyaffect the small business issuer’s ability to record, process, summarize and reportfinancial information; and  b. Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employeeswho have a significant role in the small business issuer’s internal control overfinancial reporting.Date:October 2, 2007
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
Financial Data Schedule for Form 10-Q for October 31, 1997
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0000102198
<NAME> COMPETITIVE TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUL-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               OCT-31-1997
<CASH>                                         423,841
<SECURITIES>                                 3,733,536
<RECEIVABLES>                                  547,608
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             4,795,099
<PP&E>                                         390,879
<DEPRECIATION>                                 156,516
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               6,983,466
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        2,155,759
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                     60,675
<COMMON>                                        59,781
<OTHER-SE>                                   4,429,945
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 6,983,466
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               396,383
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  995,936
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              17,041
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (574,175)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (574,175)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (574,175)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.10)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.10)
        

</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                     274,089,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                8,033,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                   458,000
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                           287,170,000
<PP&E>                                      27,565,000
<DEPRECIATION>                               4,405,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             356,071,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       26,935,000
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        64,000
<OTHER-SE>                                 326,297,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               356,071,000
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            20,289,000
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                           116,422,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               393,000
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             626,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                           (90,442,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   231,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                       (90,673,000)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                              (90,673,000)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (2.31)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (2.31)


</TABLE>
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1



                         CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS




We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference into the Registration
Statement No. 333-87365 on Form S-8 of American Aircarriers Support,
Incorporated and Subsidiaries (the "Company") of our report dated January 29,
1999, except for Note 9, as to which the date is March 4, 1999, with respect to
the Company's consolidated balance sheet as of December 31, 1998 and the related
statements of operations, stockholders' equity and cash flows for the year then
ended, which report appears in the Company's annual report on Form 10-KSB for
the year ended December 31, 1999.



/s/ Cherry Bekaert and Holland, L.L.P.

Charlotte, North Carolina
March 29, 2000
(Reap. Dec. 9074)

#### Pressman Toy Corp. *v.*United States

Entry No. 73605.

(Decided February 19, 1958)

*Barnes, Richardson & Colburn*for the plaintiff.

*George Cochran Doub,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Oliver, Chief Judge:

This appeal for reappraisement relates to merchandise described on the invoice as “Plash Bulbs,” exported from Japan and entered at the port of New York.

Stipulated facts, upon which the case has been submitted, establish that the proper basis for appraisement of the merchandise in question is export value, as defined in section 402 (d) of the Tariff Act of 1930, and that such statutory value for the merchandise is the appraised value, less the amount of ocean freight to New York, as invoiced, and I so hold. Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
No. 96-5889.

#### Matthews *v.*United States.

C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                            DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                               JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                 DEC-31-1998 
<CASH>                                            3381
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    17572
<ALLOWANCES>                                      1132
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 24080
<PP&E>                                           50106
<DEPRECIATION>                                    3292
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  248732
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            14750
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            16
<OTHER-SE>                                      163750
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    248732
<SALES>                                          87919
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 87919  
<CGS>                                            64765
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    78938
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                1588
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   7895
<INCOME-TAX>                                      3503
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               3503
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                      4392
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.43
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.42
        

</TABLE>