alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**BioGenesis** **SM** **** .
        . . *Cleaning
        today for tomorrow* TM
 
 
 September
        20, 2005
 
 
 Keith
        Parker, Chairman/CEO
 Summit
        Environmental Corporation, Inc.
 133
        E.
        Tyler Street
 Longview,
        TX 75601
 
 Re:
        Reduction of periodic royalty, Letter of Intent dated April 27, 1998, between
        BioGenesis Enterprises, Inc. and Summit Technologies, Inc., subsequently
        Summit
 Environmental
        Corporation, Inc.
 
 Dear
        Mr.
        Parker:
 
 This
        letter serves to document the agreement between BioGenesis Enterprises, Inc.
        (BGE) and Summit Environmental Corporation, Inc. (SECI) to modify the royalty
        provisions of the Agreement dated April 27, 1998, with Amendments 1 to 6,
        and
        associated correspondence in December 1999, in which BGE transferred to SECI
        the
        intellectual property rights to a unique fire suppressant technology in exchange
        for certain cash payments and periodic royalties.
 
 Paragraph
        4 of the Agreement established a periodic royalty of $0.50 per aerosol fire
        extinguisher and an equivalent (approx. 7%) on all other product categories
        using the fire suppressant technology. One-half of all periodic royalty fees
        due
        to BioGenesis shall be credited against the Advance Royalty fee (until fully
        recovered) and one-half shall be paid to BioGenesis in cash on the
        30 th of each
        month based upon invoiced sales through the close of the preceding
        month.
 
 During
        May 1999, the price and availability of one of the components of the aerosol
        fire extinguisher significantly escalated such that the extinguisher could
        not
        be competitively priced to the market without reducing its cost. To assist
        SECI
        in managing the extinguisher cost, BGE agreed to reduce its periodic royalty
        from $0.50 to $0.40 per aerosol fire extinguisher, effective May 1, 1999,
        with
        all other terms of paragraph 4 of the Agreement remaining the same.
 
 The
        agreement to reduce the royalty was not documented at the time due to
        administrative oversight. This letter corrects that oversight. If you agree
        with
        this modification, please signify by your signature in the space
        below.
 
 Very
                  truly yours,
              Acknowledged
                  and Agreed:BioGenesis
                  Enterprises, Inc.
              Summit
                  Environmental Corporation, Inc.*/s/
                  Mohsen C. Amiran*
              */s/
                  Keith Parker*Mohsen
                  C. Amiran
              Keith
                  ParkerPresident/CEO
              Chairman/CEO
 
 **__________________________________________** ***BioGenesis
        Enterprises, Inc.***
 7420
        Alban Station Blvd. Suite B-208 Springfield, Virginia 22150 USA TEL (703)
        913-9700 FAX (703) 913-9704
 
  Exhibit
              10.9
#### The A. W. Fenton Co. et al. *v.*United States

No. 7778.

Entry No. 735033, etc.

(Decided January 23, 1950)

*Lane, Young & Fox (William H. Fox*of counsel) for the plaintiffs.

*David N. Edelstein,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Lawrence, Judge:

It bas been agreed between tbe parties hereto that the issues herein relating to the merchandise the subject of these appeals are the same in all material respects as those decided in *United States*v. *Gothic Watch Co.,*23 Cust. Ct. 235, Reap. Dec. 7712, affirming the judgment in *Gothic Watch Co.*v. *United States,*19 Cust. Ct. 309, Reap. Dec. 7438, and that the record in Reap. Dec. 7712, *supra,*may be incorporated herein.

Upon the agreed facts, I find that the attempted appraisement embodied in the second return’ of value by the appraiser of the merchandise covered by each of the appeals for reappraisement enumerated in the annexed schedule, which is marked *“A”*and made a part of 'this decision, was illegal, null, and void, and that the appraiser’s original return of value in each case, as reported by him to the collector of customs, constituted his appraisal of the merchandise pursuant to section 500 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U. S. C. § 1500), and was final and conclusive in the absence of any appeal pursuant to section 501 of said act (19 U. S. C. § 1501).

Judgment will be entered accordingly.
#### Norda Essential Oil & Chemical Co., Inc. *v.*United States

No. 7685.

Invoices dated Montreal, Canada, June 11, 1947, etc.

Certified June 12, 1947, etc.

Entered at New York, N. Y., July 4, 1947, etc.

Entry Nos. 005; 12310.

(Decided March 14, 1949)

*John D. Rode*for the plaintiff.

*David N. Edelstein,*Assistant Attorney General *(Charles J. Miville,*special attorney), for the defendant.

Mollison, Judge:

These appeals for reappraisement have been submitted for decision upon the following stipulation of counsel for the parties hereto:

> IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED, subject to the approval of the Court, that the issues in the appeals for reappraisement listed above are the same in all material respects as the issues decided in *C. J. Tower & Sons*v. *United States,*R. D. 7624 and that the record in said case may be incorporated herein.

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that the appraised values of the merchandise involved in the case enumerated above, less the additions made by the importer on entry because of advances by the appraiser in similar cases, is equal to the price, at the time of exportation of such merchandise to the United States, at which such or similar merchandise is freely offered for sale to all purchasers in the principal markets of the country from which exported, in the usual wholesale quantities in the ordinary course of trade, for exportation to the United States, and that the foreign value of such or similar merchandise is no higher.

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that these cases may be submitted on the foregoing stipulation.

On the agreed facts I find the export value, as that value is defined in section 402 (d) of the Tariff Act of 1930, to be the proper basis for the determination of the value of the merchandise here involved, and that such values are the appraised values, less the additions made by the importer on entry because of advances by the appraiser in similar cases.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
No. 96-5955.

#### Richards *v.*Wisconsin.

Sup. Ct. Wis. [Cer-tiorari granted, 519 U. S. 1052.] Motion of Wayne County, Michigan, for leave to file a brief as *amicus curiae*denied.
No. 40543.

#### Protests 531193-G, etc., of Saks & Co., Inc. (New York).

Opinion by

Dallinger, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel atomizers, trays, boxes, and liquor set chiefly used on the table or in the household for utilitarian purposes were held dutiable at 40 percent under paragraph 339. *United States*v. *Friedlaender*(21 C. C. P. A. 103, T. D. 46445), *Dow*v. *United States*(id. 282, T. D. 46816), and *Rice*v. *United States*(T. D. 49373) cited.
# C_2014421EN.01001601.xml

| 24.11.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 421/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.11.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 421/16

---

Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 2 October 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van Cassatie van België — Belgium) — Vlaams Gewest v Heidi Van Den Broeck

(Case C-525/13) (1)

1

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Common agricultural policy - Regulation (EC) No 2419/2001 - Integrated administration and control system for certain aid schemes - Area aid application - Article 33 - Penalties - Irregularities committed intentionally))

2014/C 421/22

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Referring court

Hof van Cassatie van België

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Vlaams Gewest

Applicant:

Defendant: Heidi Van Den Broeck

Defendant:

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The first paragraph of Article 33 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 2419/2001 of 11 December 2001 laying down detailed rules for applying the integrated administration and control system for certain Community aid schemes established by Council Regulation (EEC) No 3508/92, as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 118/2004 of 23 January 2004, must be interpreted as meaning that, in the event of intentional irregularity found in an area aid application, the farmer is to be refused all of the aid to which that farmer would have been entitled under the aid scheme concerned by the application and for which the crop group concerned by that irregularity was eligible.

---

(1)  OJ C 377, 21.12.2013.

1

---
Before the Second Division,

January 31, 1941

No. 45334.

#### Protest 36111-K of Camlin Fashions of America (New York).

Opinion by

Tilson, J.

On the evidence submitted the merchandise in question was held dutiable at 55 percent under paragraph 1529 (c) and the French Trade Agreement as claimed.
Subject: Discussion with Holcim Inc. – Reconsideration Issues

Location: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC

Date: December 6, 2011

Participants:

Holcim (US), Inc.

Hector Ybanez

RTI International

Matt Hakos

Mike Laney

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

Keith Barnett

Sharon Nizich

The purpose of the meeting was to discuss technical issues relating to the NSPS and NESHAP

reconsideration and other issues. The following issues were discussed:

 Reconsideration issues for the NESHAP, specifically the definition of clinker piles, 

definition of clean fuels, Hg and THC requirements for coal mills, and start up and shut 

down definitions.

 UPL estimation process – Holcim (US), Inc. presented data supporting their position that 

using hourly test runs with the UPL to develop the 30 day average does not adequately 

allow for variability and, therefore, underestimates what the limit should be.

 Hg CEM trials – Holcim (US), Inc. presented preliminary results from multiple Hg CEM 

vendors tested at their facilities.

 NSPS issues – Holcim (US), Inc. suggested a definition for “an increase in emission rate”

to be used for determining a plant modification, and raw material dryer and finish mill 

issues.

 In line coal mills – Holcim (US), Inc. explained the various different coal mill 

configurations and explained that indirect coal mills generally utilize approximately 5% 

of total kiln flue gas to dry and move coal in indirect mills. The volume of kiln flue gas is 

diluted with ambient air to quench the stream prior to contact with the coal for safety 

reasons.

 Holcim (US), Inc. presented a general overview of the various cement manufacturing 

processes in the US and explained the various components of the processes.

Action Items:

 No actions items were indentified in the meeting.
# C_2014102EN.01000901.xml

| 7.4.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 102/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.4.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 102/9

---

Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 12 December 2013 — Getty Images (US) Inc. v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

(Case C-70/13 P) (1)

1

((Appeal - Community trade mark - Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Article 7(1)(b) and (c) - Absolute grounds for refusal - Lack of distinctiveness - Descriptive character - Word mark PHOTOS.COM - Partial refusal of registration - Equal treatment - Obligation for OHIM to take into account its prior decision-making practice - Appeal partly manifestly inadmissible and partly manifestly unfounded))

2014/C 102/11

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Appellant: Getty Images (US) Inc. (represented by: P.G. Olson, advokat)

Appellant:

Other party to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: V. Melgar, Agent)

Other party to the proceedings:

Re:

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) of 21 November 2012 in Case T-338/11 Getty Images v OHIM, by which the General Court dismissed an action for annulment of Decision R 1831/2010-2 of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (OHIM) of 6 April 2011, rejecting the appeal brought against the examiner’s decision to partially refuse registration of the word mark ‘PHOTOS.COM’, for goods in classes 9, 42 and 45 — Article 7(1)(b) and (c), and Article 7(3) of Regulation No 207/2009 — Lack of distinctive character.

Getty Images

OHIM

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The appeal is dismissed. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The appeal is dismissed.

| 2. | Getty Images (US) Inc. is ordered to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Getty Images (US) Inc. is ordered to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 101, 6.4.2013.

1

---
January 22, 1941

No. 45309.

#### Protest 910457-G of D. C. Andrews & Co.

C. D. 406. Application by plaintiffs denied.
ex1091.htm -- Converted by SEC Publisher, created by BCL Technologies Inc., for SEC Filing





AMENDMENT TO LOAN AGREEMENT

This agreement dated as of June 30, 2007 amends the loan agreement dated August 31, 2004 as amended on November 30, 2004 and January 1, 2007 (the "Agreement"), made by and between Sound Revolution Inc., a Delaware corporation (the "Company"), Penny Green, Chairman and Chief Financial Officer of the Company (“Green”), and Bacchus Entertainment Ltd. (the “Lender”). 

Now therefore, in consideration of the mutual covenants and promises herein contained and other good and valuable consideration, the Company and the Executive hereby agree as follows:

Paragraph 4 of the Agreement shall be amended so that no written request from the Company is necessary for the issuance of further funds by the Lender.

Paragraph 5 of the Agreement, as amended on January 1, 2007, shall be further amended to extend payments to January 1, 2008.

Any additional amounts loaned to the Company by Penny Green or by Bacchus Entertainment Inc. in excess of the amounts stipulated by the Agreement shall unless otherwise stipulated by the parties in writing be deemed amounts loaned pursuant to the Agreement and shall be subject to the terms and conditions of the Agreement. 

In witness whereof this Agreement has been executed by or on behalf of the parties hereto, as an instrument under seal as of the date first above written.


	Sound Revolution Inc.  
	  
	By: /s/ Penny Green  
	Title: President & Chief  
	Executive Officer  
	  
	Bacchus Entertainment  
	Ltd.  
	  
	By: /s/ Penny Green  
	Title: President  
	  
	/s/ Penny Green  
	Penny Green
No. 40516.

#### Protest 938828-G of Haruta & Co., Inc. (New York).

Opinion by

Dallinger, J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise consists of antimony scotty paper weights in chief value of metal plated with silver and chiefly used in the household for utilitarian purposes. The claim at 50' percent under paragraph 339 was therefore sustained. *Dow*v. *United States*(21 C. C. P. A. 282, T. D. 46816) and *United States*v. *Friedlaender*(id. 103, T. D. 46445) cited.
(Reap. Dec. 9921)

#### Gerhard & Hey Co., Inc. *v.*United States

Entry No. 1037037.

(Decided February 23, 1961)

Plaintiff not represented by counsel.

*William B. Orriclc, Jr.,*Assistant Attorney General, for tbe defendant.

Lawrence, Judge:

There was no appearance on behalf of plaintiff when the above-enumerated appeal for a reappraisement was called for hearing and the case was ordered submitted by the court.

Eule 5 (a) of the rules of the court provides that—

> The submission for decision of any case shall be made in open court by the parties thereto or their attorneys, or by stipulation, or by written request to the court, or by the court on its own motion. Where the plaintiff, petitioner, or appellant, or his attorney, in a ease does not appear when the same is called, and after the opposite party has had opportunity to present evidence on the issues, it may be deemed submitted and may be decided by the court on the record as it appears therein.

Accordingly, I have examined the record in the appeal before the court and find nothing therein which tends in any way to overcome the presumption of correctness which attaches to the decision of the appraiser. I find and hold, therefore, that the proper value of the merchandise is the value returned by the appraiser.

Judgment will be entered accordingly.
1 Helm, Nancy

From: Town of Nespelem <townofnespelem@centurylink.net> Sent: Wednesday, September 10, 2014 3:12 PM To: Helm, Nancy Subject: Colville Submittal May 2014

Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged

Nancy, I presented your letter to our Council last night. They asked me to let you know that we support the T ribe's request.

Thank you, Trisha Davis-Stacy Clerk/Treasurer

From: "Town of Nespelem" <townofnespelem@centurylink.net> To: "helm nancy" <helm.nancy@epa.gov> Sent: Wednesday, August 27, 2014 2:15:28 PM Subject: Colville Submittal May 2014

Nancy, We received the letter from Dennis McLerran regardi ng the Colville Tribe wanting the authority to admi nister Clean Air Act regulations. However, regarding the document on the cd titled "C olville Submittal May 2014", the edges are cut off. Please send us a copy that does not have the edges cut off on it.

Thank you, Trisha Davis-Stacy Clerk/Treasurer Town of Nespelem 509-634-4691
No. 46440.

#### Protest 56755-K of Burns Lumber Co. (Los Angeles).

Opinion by

Walker, J.

It- was stipulated that the lumber in question is similar in all material respects to that the subject of *Seaboard Lumber Sales Co.*v. *United States*(5 Cust. Ct. 161, C. D. 391). In accordance therewith it was held that the tax imposed should have been assessed only on the net footage imported. The protest was therefore sustained.
No. 55604.

#### W. A. Taylor & Co. et al. *v.*United States,

protests 122540-K, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Ekwall, J.

Por the reasons stated in *Austin, Nichols & Co., Inc.*v. *United States*(22 Cust. Ct. 33, C. D. 1155), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

Supreme Court No. DA-20-470

STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee,

v.

TRACY ALAN REXFORD,

Defendant and Appellant.

ORDER

Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, and good

cause appearing,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension of time to 

and including February 4, 2021, within which to prepare, file, and serve 

Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

December 21 2020

12/21/2020

Case Number: DA 20-0470
Exhibit
      32.1




CERTIFICATION
      OF 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 Quarterly Report of Friendly Energy Exploration(the
      "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending March 31, 2008 as filed with
      the
      Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
      "Report"),





I,
      Douglass Tallant, Director of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
      Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes- Oxley Act
      of
      2002, that:





(1)
      The
      Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
      Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and





(2)
      The
      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
      the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.





IN
      WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this certification as of the
      14th
      day May 2008.





/s/
      Douglas Tallant


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


Douglas Tallant, President/Director
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-30376

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

ANTHONY D. DADE,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Louisiana

USDC No. 3:05-CR-30012-1

Before BENAVIDES, DENNIS, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Anthony D. Dade has

moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v.

California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores, 632 F.3d 229 (5th

Cir. 2011). Dade has not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and

the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We concur with counsel’s

assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. 

Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

October 21, 2011

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not *

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

Case: 11-30376 Document: 00511640725 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/21/2011
No. 11-30376

excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. 

See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.

2

Case: 11-30376 Document: 00511640725 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/21/2011
EXHIBIT 24.1
               Consent of Ernst & Young LLP, Independent Auditors

We consent to the incorporation by reference in:

-  Form S-8 (Registration No. 333-15081) dated October 30, 1996 pertaining to
   Imatron Inc. Stock Bonus Incentive Plan
-  Form S-3 (Registration No. 333-11515) dated September 6, 1996 and related
   Prospectus
-  Form S-8 (Registration No. 333-9989) dated August 12, 1996 pertaining to
   Imatron Inc. 1994 Employee Stock Purchase Plan
-  Form S-3 (Registration No. 333-6749) dated June 25, 1996 and related 
   Prospectus 
-  Form S-3 (Registration No. 333-3529) dated May 10, 1996 and related 
   Prospectus 
-  Form S-3 (Registration No. 333-647) dated February 2, 1996 and related
   Prospectus
-  Form S-3 (Registration No. 333-63123) dated October 2, 1995 and related
   Prospectus
-  Form S-8 (Registration No. 33-61179) dated July 20, 1995 pertaining to 1993
   Stock Option Plan
-  Form S-8 (Registration No. 33-71786) dated November 15, 1993 pertaining to
   1994 Employee Stock Purchase Plan
-  Form S-8 (Registration No. 33-66992) dated August 3, 1993 pertaining to 1993
   Stock Option Plan
-  Form S-8 (Registration No. 33-66952) dated August 3, 1993 pertaining to 1991
   Non-Employee Directors' Stock Option Plan
-  Form S-8 (Registration No. 33-40391) dated May 6, 1991 pertaining to Director
   Stock Option Grant
-  Form S-8 (Registration No. 33-28662) dated May 11, 1989 pertaining to 1983
   Stock Option Plan
-  Form S-8 (Registration No. 33-26833) dated February 3, 1989 pertaining to
   1984 Employee Stock Participation Plan

of our report dated  February 14, 1997,  except for Note 12 as to which the date
is April 10, 1998 with  respect to the  consolidated  financial  statements  and
schedule of Imatron Inc. for the year ended December 31, 1996  (restated),  1995
and 1994 included in the Annual  Report on Form 10K for the year ended  December
31, 1997.

                                                        ERNST & YOUNG LLP

San Francisco, California
April 24, 1998