alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**Exhibit 10.49**

 

***Confidential Treatment Requested Under**

**17C.F.R. §§ 200.80(b)(4), 200.83 and 240.24b-2**

 

 

**SONSON Co., Ltd.**

 

October 1, 2002

 

Mr. Tram Be

# **Son SonCo., Ltd.**

# **[...***...]**

 

 

# **Re:          Agreement for purchase of a SureBeamElectron Beam System between SureBeam Corporation and Son Son co., Ltd., datedas March 27, 2002.**

 

 

Mr. Tram Be:

 

Reference is made to the Agreement referenced above(the “Agreement”), between SureBeam Corporation (“SureBeam”), and Son Son Co.,Ltd. (“Buyer”).  All capitalized termsused but not defined herein shall have the respective meanings assigned to themunder the Agreement.

 

SureBeam and Buyer have executed and delivered thisletter for purposes of supplementing the term of Agreement, and hereby agree asfollows:

 

1.               Exhibit C1 to the Agreement is hereby amendedto include the following:

Buyer has the option to purchase a secondaccelerator, for a price of  [...***...], tobe installed within this first Facility within [...***...] after the completion ofthe Acceptance Test.  This price willinclude any additional material handling equipment that may be necessary.  If the utilization of this firstFacility reaches 85% of its capacity during the first 12 months ofoperation, then this option will become a binding commitment.

 

Except to the extent expressly amended by this letter, all of theprovisions of the Agreement remain unchanged and shall continue in full forceand effect.

 

 

----

*** CONFIDENTIAL TREATMENT REQUESTED**

 

----

 

Please confirm, by signing in the place indicated below, that theforegoing reflects our mutual understanding and agreement.

 

Sincerely yours,

 

 
| SUREBEAM CORPORATION |
|----------------------|
|                 |
|                 |
| By:                  | /s/ Martha M. Cashman |   |
|                 |
| Name:                | Martha M. Cashman |   |
|                 |   |
| Title:               | Senior Vice President, International Business Development |
|                 |   |
|                 |   |
|                 |   |
| AGREED AND ACCEPTED: |
|                 |   |
| SON SON CO., LTD.    |
|                 |
|                 |   |
| By:                  | /s/ Tram Be |   |
|                 |   |
| Name:                | TRAM BE |   |
|                 |   |
| Title:               | Chairman of Management |   |
|                 |   |
| Date:                | October 1, 2002 |   |
|                      |  |  |  |

 

2

----
EXHIBIT 32



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the quarterly report of American Unity Investments, Inc. ("Company") on Form  10-QSB  for the  period  ending March 31, 2007 as filed  with the Commission on the date hereof, I, Christian Lillieroos, chief operating officer 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) This 10-QSB complies with the requirements of section 13 (a) or 15 (d) of the Securities Exchange Act; and



(2) The financial  information contained in this Form 10-QSB fairly presents, in all material respects,  the financial  condition and result of operations of the Company.





By:  /s/Christian Lillieroos

Chief Operating Officer

(principal executive, accounting and financial  officer)

May 18, 2007
Eufaula National Wildlife Refuges

Troy Littrell

Refuge Manager

367 Highway 165 

Eufaula, AL 36027-8187 

Phone: (334) 687-4065

FAX: (334) 687-5906

E-mail: eufaula@fws.gov 

June 2008
March 30, 2016 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

Docket Management System 

1200 New Jersey Ave., 

SE Washington, DC 20590 

Re: Second Amendment to Exemption 13941, Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2015-4338 

Dear Sir or Madam: 

Rotor FX LLC was issued an Exemption numbered 13941 for the purpose of conducting 

closed-set filming for the motion picture, television, and web production; environmental and 

industrial site monitoring, aerial photogrammetry, inspection of shipping docks, utility 

power-generation and transmission, storage facilities, construction sites, and precision aerial 

surveys, and UAS training. Rotor FX LLC hereby requests an amendment to the Exemption to 

allow additional type of unmanned aircraft system (UAS) that fully complies with the conditions 

of the Exemption. Rotor FX LLC would also like to update the mailing address on our 

exemption. 

Rotor FX LLC wishes to have our operator authorized by this grant of exemption to use any 

aircraft identified on the List of Approved Unmanned Aerial Systems (UAS) under Section 333 

at regulatory docket FAA-2007-3330 at www.regulations.gov, when weighing less than 55 

pounds including payload. 

Rotor FX LLC understands that any proposed operations of any aircraft not on the list currently 

posted to the above docket will require a new petition or a petition to amend this exemption. All 

operations of the additional UAS will be in full compliance with the terms of the Exemption. 

Additionally, Rotor FX LLC would like to update the mailing address to the following: 

Steve Dupont 

RotorFXLLC 

17216 Saticoy St #343 

Van Nuys, CA 91406 

As this is an amendment to an existing exemption asking for only the addition of other type of 

UAS, Rotor FX LLC respectfully submits that good cause exists so that notice does not need to 

be published in the Federal Register for the requested amendment. Please contact the 

1 
undersigned should you have any question concerning this request for an amendment to the 

Exemption. 

Sincerely yours, 

Steve Dupont 

RotorFXLLC 

17216 Saticoy St #343 

Van Nuys, CA 91406 

818.462.3333 

2
II 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 166 

To amend the Oregon Resource Conservation Act of 1996 to reauthorize 

the participation of the Bureau of Reclamation in the Deschutes River 

Conservancy, and for other purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JANUARY 25, 2005 

Mr. SMITH (for himself and Mr. WYDEN) introduced the following bill; which 

was read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural 

Resources 

A BILL

To amend the Oregon Resource Conservation Act of 1996 

to reauthorize the participation of the Bureau of Reclamation in the Deschutes River Conservancy, 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, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Deschutes River Con5 servancy Reauthorization Act of 2005’’. 
2

•S 166 IS

1 SEC. 2. EXTENSION OF PARTICIPATION OF BUREAU OF 

2 RECLAMATION IN DESCHUTES RIVER CON3 SERVANCY. 

4 Section 301 of the Oregon Resource Conservation Act 

5 of 1996 (division B of Public Law 104–208; 110 Stat. 

6 3009–534) is amended— 

7 (1) in subsection (a)— 

8 (A) in paragraph (1), by striking 

9 ‘‘Deschutes River Basin Working Group’’ and 

10 inserting ‘‘Deschutes River Conservancy Work11 ing Group’’; and 

12 (B) by striking paragraph (5) and insert13 ing the following: 

14 ‘‘(5) QUORUM.—The term ‘quorum’ means 8 of 

15 those qualified Working Group members appointed 

16 and eligible to serve.’’; 

17 (2) in subsection (b)(3), by inserting before the 

18 period at the end the following: ‘‘, and up to a total 

19 amount of $2,000,000 during each of fiscal years 

20 2006 through 2015’’; and 

21 (3) in subsection (h), by inserting before the pe22 riod at the end the following: ‘‘, and $2,000,000 for 

23 each of fiscal years 2006 through 2015’’.

Æ
# EUR-Lex - 41994D0025 - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 41994D0025

**The Schengen acquis - Decision of the Executive Committee of 22 December 1994 on the exchange of statistical information on the issuing of uniform visas (SCH/Com-ex (94) 25) **

*
Official Journal L 239 , 22/09/2000 P. 0173 - 0174 *

DECISION OF THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE

of 22 December 1994

on the exchange of statistical information on the issuing of uniform visas

(SCH/Com-ex (94)25)

THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE,

Having regard to Article 132 of the Convention implementing the Schengen Agreement,

Having regard to Article 12(3) of the abovementioned Convention,

HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:

1. The Contracting Parties shall exchange statistical information with each other on the issuing of uniform visas. The table attached hereto indicates what information is to be gathered and the intervals at which these exchanges are to take place.

2. The Contracting Parties shall transmit the statistical information to the Schengen General Secretariat. The Secretariat shall collate this information and compile global tables giving an overview of each period, which it shall make available to the Contracting Parties.

3. Notwithstanding the above exchanges, statistical information may also be exchanged locally within the framework of consular cooperation in accordance with a procedure agreed on by the Representations concerned.

Bonn, 22 December 1994.

The Chairman

Bernd Schmidbauer

Exchange of statistics on the issuing of visas

SCH/II-Visa (94)33 rev.

>TABLE>
**-  Beltsville  \ BARC 
-  Plant Sciences 
-  Invasive Insect Biocontrol and Behavior Laboratory 
Printable VersionE-mail this pageThis site onlyAll ARS Advanced Search  UBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/loose.dtd">		You are here: 						Research / 																				**Research Project:**VALIDATION OF PHARMOCOPHORE MODELS OF MOSQUITO REPELLENTS
**Location: Invasive Insect Biocontrol and Behavior Laboratory**
**2008 Annual Report**
**1a.Objectives (from AD-416)**													Pharmocophore models and synthesis of new candidates.						
**1b.Approach  (from AD-416)**													Validate new bioassay system, design new synthetic repellents and validate pharmocophore model.						
**3.Progress Report**													This report documents research conducted under a Reimbursable Agreement between ARS and the U.S. ARMY MEDICAL RESEARCH AND MATERIAL COMMAND.  Additional details for the research can be found in the report for the parent project 1275-32000-001-00D, MANIPULATION OF ARTHROPOD BEHAVIOR FOR PROTECTION OF HUMANS							  										Computational chemistry and molecular modeling is a cutting-age approach that is being used for the identification of new active chemicals as repellents of arthropod disease vectors.  Numerous compounds have been synthesized based on pharmacophore models and tested against blood-feeding mosquitoes.  Based on the results the pharmacophore model was refined.  The whole project team, comprising synthetic/computational chemists, medical entomologist and industrial partners meet on regular basis to discuss progress as well as future directions. 						
    Project TeamCHAUHAN, KAMAL  
Project Annual Reports FY 2009 FY 2008 FY 2007 FY 2006 
Related National Programs Veterinary, Medical and Urban Entomology(104)  							Last Modified: 01/10/2012 		ARS Home |USDA.gov |Site Map |Policies and Links FOIA |Accessibility Statement |Privacy Policy |Nondiscrimination Statement |Information Quality |USA.gov |White House

**
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA Nos. DA 22 - 0211 STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee, v. BRANDEN CONRAD MIESMER ,

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 September 29, 2023, within which to prepare, file, and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

August 3 2023

08/03/2023
Case Number: DA 22-0211
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-7158 VERNELL A. JEFFRIES, Plaintiff - Appellant, and DONTAY HARRIS; HARRY SHAUCK, Plaintiffs,
versus PRIVATE OWNERS; SUPERINTENDENT, Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Jackson L. Kiser, Senior District Judge. (CA-02-1263-7) Submitted: November 21, 2003 Decided: March 23, 2004 Before WIDENER, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished pre curiam opinion. Vernell A. Jeffries, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).PER CURIAM: Vernell A. Jeffries appeals from the district court’s order dismissing without prejudice his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint for want of prosecution. The district court dismissed Jeffries’ complaint because he failed to notify the district court that his address changed, and, because of that failure, correspondence from the court addressed to Jeffries was returned as undeliverable. The district court’s dismissal without prejudice is not appealable. SeeDomino Sugar Corp. v. Sugar Workers’ Local Union 392 , 10 F.3d 1064, 1066-67 (4th Cir. 1993). A dismissal without prejudice is a final order only if “‘no amendment [in the complaint] could cure the defects in the plaintiff’s case.’” Id. at 1067 (quoting Coniston Corp. v. Village of Hoffman Estates , 844 F.2d 461, 463 (7th Cir. 1988)). In ascertaining whether a dismissal without prejudice is reviewable in this court, we must determine “whether the plaintiff could save his action by merely amending his complaint.” Domino Sugar , 10 F.3d at 1066-67. In this case, Jeffries may move in the district court to reopen his case and to file a signed complaint giving his present address. See Fed R. Civ. P. 11(a). Therefore, the dismissal order is not appealable. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED
# USACE Quality Assurance checks help keep temporary emergency generators running strong in Puerto Rico

/ Published Jan. 8, 2018
SAN JUAN, Puerto Rico, Shelby Deal leans over a generator hooked up to a water pump station on the side of a twisting mountain road in central Puerto Rico. He notes the generator’s barcode and transponder number, inspects its oil and fuel filters, checks the fuel gauge, and records the number of hours the generator has operated. Finally, he assesses the surrounding area to make sure the grounding wire is properly flagged, the generator is level and no wires present a tripping hazard. “You check to make sure you don’t have any oil spills, that nothing looks wrong, and no screws or anything are loosened,” said Deal, a quality assurance specialist for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ temporary emergency power mission in Puerto Rico. The USACE temporary emergency power mission installs temporary generators at critical public facilities as directed by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). Facilities covered in the temporary emergency power mission include: life-saving facilities, such as 911 centers, medical facilities, police and fire stations; life-sustaining facilities, such as water and wastewater treatment and pumping facilities; and additional municipal facilities to reinstitute local command and control and post-event recovery. In Puerto Rico, the quality assurance checks performed by USACE personnel are helping keep the fleet of temporary emergency power generators running across the island in the aftermath of Hurricane Maria. Since the hurricane, more than 1,200 temporary emergency power generator installations have been completed as part of the USACE temporary emergency power mission. The total number of installations includes: 1) Temporary emergency generators that remain installed at facilities. As of Jan. 5, Approximately 980 generators remain installed across Puerto Rico. 2) Temporary emergency generators that have since been permanently de-installed. As of Jan. 5, more than 100 generators have been permanently de-installed. Permanent de-installations occur at the direction of FEMA after grid power has been reestablished at a facility. De-installations allow generators to be moved to additional sites that remain without grid power. 3) Multiple temporary emergency generator installations at a single facility. For example, if a previously installed generator needs to be replaced, crews de-install the initial generator and install another generator in its place. Each of those installations is counted toward the total number of generator installations performed. “We are continuing to install generators at critical public facilities and maintaining the generators that are already installed,” said Jennifer Harty, the USACE mission liaison for the temporary emergency power mission. “We expect as grid power returns we will switch from install to de-install mode.”*Editor's note: The original story can be viewed on the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers website.*
THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13-22-00309-CV

Ralph Padron and all Occupants

v.

Maria E. Chapa

On Appeal from the

County Court at Law No. 5 of Nueces County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 2022-CCV-60343-5

JUDGMENT

THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this cause on 

appeal, concludes the appeal should be dismissed. The Court orders the appeal 

DISMISSED in accordance with its opinion. No costs are assessed, as appellants filed 

an affidavit of inability to pay costs. 

We further order this decision certified below for observance.

August 18, 2022
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-6062

GREGORY DONNELL USRY, Petitioner - Appellant, versus GENE JOHNSON, Director, VDOC; COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Jackson L. Kiser, Senior District Judge. (CA-03-260-7) Submitted: March 11, 2004 Decided: March 19, 2004 Before WIDENER, WILKINSON, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Gregory Donnell Usry, Appellant Pro Se. Steven Andrew Witmer, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 2 - PER CURIAM: Gregory Donnell Usry seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000). An appeal may not be taken from the final order in a § 2254 proceeding unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that his constitutional claims are debatable and that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or wrong. See Miller-El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee , 252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Usry has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
PRIVATE LAW 106–23—NOV. 22, 2000

Private Law 106–23

106th Congress

An Act

For the relief of Malia Miller.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of

the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. PERMANENT RESIDENT STATUS FOR MALIA MILLER.

(a) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding subsections (a) and (b) of

section 201 of the Immigration and Nationality Act, Malia Miller

shall be eligible for issuance of an immigrant visa or for adjustment

of status to that of an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence upon filing an application for issuance of an immigrant visa

under section 204 of such Act or for adjustment of status to lawful

permanent resident.

(b) ADJUSTMENT OF STATUS.—If Malia Miller enters the United

States before the filing deadline specified in subsection (c), she

shall be considered to have entered and remained lawfully and

shall, if otherwise eligible, be eligible for adjustment of status

under section 245 of the Immigration and Nationality Act as of

the date of enactment of this Act.

(c) DEADLINE FOR APPLICATION AND PAYMENT OF FEES.—Subsections (a) and (b) shall apply only if the application for issuance

of an immigrant visa or the application for adjustment of status

are filed with appropriate fees within 2 years after the date of

enactment of this Act.

Nov. 22, 2000

[S. 2019]

PRIVATE LAW 106–23—NOV. 22, 2000

(d) REDUCTION OF IMMIGRANT VISA NUMBER.—Upon the

granting of an immigrant visa or permanent residence to Malia

Miller, the Secretary of State shall instruct the proper officer to

reduce by one, during the current or next following fiscal year,

the total number of immigrant visas that are made available to

natives of the country of the alien’s birth under section 203(a)

of the Immigration and Nationality Act or, if applicable, the total

number of immigrant visas that are made available to natives

of the country of the alien’s birth under section 202(e) of such

Act.

Approved November 22, 2000.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff-Appellee,

 v.

RODRIGUEZ MADDEN,

 

 Defendant-Appellant.

No. 14-10432

D.C. No. 2:13-cr-00149-KJD-CWH-3

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Nevada

Kent J. Dawson, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted June 11, 2015**

San Francisco, California

Before: SCHROEDER and IKUTA, Circuit Judges, and SEABRIGHT, *** District

Judge.

Rodriguez Madden (“Madden”) appeals from the district court’s judgment

FILED

JUN 19 2015

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

*

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

*** The Honorable J. Michael Seabright, United States District Judge for the

District of Hawaii, sitting by designation.
and challenges the 92-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea

conviction for armed bank robbery in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a) and (d). We

have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and dismiss the appeal.

Madden argues that in calculating the Guideline range and sentencing him at

its low end, the district court improperly included a two-level enhancement for

obstruction and excluded a three-level reduction for acceptance of responsibility.

Madden waived the right to appeal on this basis. See United States v. Spear, 753

F.3d 964, 967 (9th Cir. 2014). Specifically, the plea agreement includes an explicit

waiver of Madden’s “right to appeal any sentence imposed within or below the

applicable Sentencing Guideline range as determined by the Court,” which plainly

means that Madden waives the right to appeal the district court’s determination of

the Guidelines range. Further, Madden “does not contend that his waiver was

unknowing or involuntary.” See United States v. Harris, 628 F.3d 1203, 1206 (9th

Cir. 2011). And even if Madden had raised this argument on appeal, we would

conclude that this waiver was knowing and voluntary -- during his change of plea,

Madden affirmed that he read the plea agreement and reviewed it with his counsel,

that his counsel answered all of his questions, and that he understood that he was

giving up his right to appeal any sentence imposed within or below the applicable

Guideline range as determined by the district court. These procedures are

2
sufficient to find a knowing and voluntary waiver. Id. (internal quotation marks

omitted). 

APPEAL DISMISSED.

3