alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 52 (Friday, March 16, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 15783-15784]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-6336]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Institute of General Medical Sciences; Notice of Closed 
Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following 
meeting.
    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 
U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Institute of General Medical 
Sciences Special Emphasis Panel Review of Program Project (P01) 
Application.
    Date: April 10, 2012.
    Time: 1 p.m. to 4 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: National Institutes of Health, Natcher Building, 45 
Center Drive, Room 3An12C, Bethesda, MD 20892, (Telephone Conference 
Call).
    Contact Person: Saraswathy Seetharam, Ph.D., Scientific Review 
Officer, Office of Scientific Review, National Institute of General 
Medical Sciences, National Institutes of Health, 45 Center Drive, 
Room 3An12C, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-594-2763, 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#9deef8f8e9f5fceffcf0eeddf3f4faf0eeb3f3f4f5b3faf2eb"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="bbc8dedecfd3dac9dad6c8fbd5d2dcd6c895d5d2d395dcd4cd">[email protected]</span></a>.


[[Page 15784]]


(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.375, 
Minority Biomedical Research Support; 93.821, Cell Biology and 
Biophysics Research; 93.859, Pharmacology, Physiology, and 
Biological Chemistry Research; 93.862, Genetics and Developmental 
Biology Research; 93.88, Minority Access to Research Careers; 93.96, 
Special Minority Initiatives, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

    Dated: March 9, 2012.
Jennifer S. Spaeth,
Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 2012-6336 Filed 3-15-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
Exhibit 32.2



CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL & ACCOUNTING OFFICER

PURSUANT TO 18 USC § 1350 AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE

SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the annual report of Voyant International Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-K/A for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), I, David Wells, Chief Financial Officer (Principal Financial Officer) of the Company, hereby certify as of the date hereof, solely for purposes of Title 18, Chapter 63, Section 1350 of the United States Code, that to the best of my knowledge:



| |     |                                                                                                                                      
| | --- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| | (1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, 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 results of operations of the Company at the date and for the periods indicated.





|                                                                 
|-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Date: July 22, 2009                                              
|                                                                 
|/s/ David Wells                                                  
|David Wells
Chief Financial Officer (Principal Financial Officer)
II 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 2431 

To extend the temporary suspension of duty on certain men’s footwear. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

OCTOBER 29, 2009 

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

referred to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To extend the temporary suspension of duty on certain men’s 

footwear. 

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

3 SECTION 1. CERTAIN MEN’S FOOTWEAR. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Heading 9902.13.91 of the Har5 monized Tariff Schedule of the United States (relating to 

6 certain men’s footwear) is amended by striking ‘‘12/31/ 

7 2009’’ and inserting ‘‘12/31/2011’’. 

8 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

9 subsection (a) applies to goods entered, or withdrawn from 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 2431 IS

1 warehouse for consumption, on or after the 15th day after 

2 the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS
#### LINCOLN-ALLIANCE BANK & TRUST CO. v. DYE.

No. 126.

Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

Dec. 11, 1939.

Charles Dickerman Williams, of New York City, for appellant.

Charles Van Voorhis, of Rochester, N. Y., for appellee.

Before L. HAND, AUGUSTUS N. HAND, and CLARK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

The only question in this case is whether the bankruptcy court was obliged to allow the mortgagee to foreclose a mortgage upon the ship three weeks after a petition for reorganization of the mortgagor had been filed on April 17, 1939, under Chapter X of the Bankruptcy Act, 11 U.S.C. A. § 501 et seq. It is quite true that on the showing made there was little chance that any equity in the ship existed, or that the foreclosure could in the end be avoided. The principal and interest due upon the mortgage was over $175,000 and the only evidence of her value was an appraisal of $125,000; she had been operated at a loss for the season of 1938, if interest be included as an expense; and the trustee could hold out only remote hopes of any betterment, though he had secured a fixture for her for the season of 1939. The judge denied the motion without prejudice, but, instead of waiting for time to develop the hopelessness of any plan of reorganization — the ship is substantially the only asset — the mortgagee appealed. The appeal did not come on to be heard until November 14, when the season for 1939 was nearly over.

If, instead of appealing, the mortgagee had availed itself of its privilege to move again, it is at least not impossible that it could have foreclosed before this. Even at the outset there was indeed little chance of saving anything for the unsecured creditors, and it must be owned that the showing made was persuasive. Nevertheless, the proceeding had been begun, presumably with a genuine hope of success, and it appears to us extreme to say that at the end of only three weeks the judge had no choice but to terminate it, as he would have done had he granted the motion. It lay within his discretion to give the trustee a little more time in which to turn round and try such expedients as might seem plausible, even at the expense' of the mortgagee. The order will therefore be affirmed, but we do not suggest that, in the absence of some very radically different change in the prospects, it would be justifiable to hold off the mortgagee any longer.

Order affirmed.
ttcm_ex101.htm

EXHIBIT 10.1
   
 	  
	  
	 Tim Dohse, CEO
 (928) 360-8794 timdohse@hotmail.com


   
 November 19, 2020 
  
 Tautachrome Inc. 
 1846 E Innovation Park Drive 
 Oro Valley, AZ 85755 
  
 Dear Dr. Leonard,
  
 Re: Waiver of Annual Fees
  
 Reference is made to the written technology license granted by Arknet Inc., an Arizona corporation (“Arknet”), to Tautachrome Inc., a Delaware corporation (“Tautachrome”), on or about October 17, 2018 (such license, the “License”), which permits Tautachrome to develop Licensed Products (as that term is defined in the License).
  
 As you are aware, under the terms of the License, Tautachrome is obligated to pay Arknet certain fees each year under the License (the “Annual Fees”), which, to date, remain unpaid.
  
 Arknet recognizes the importance of Tautachrome’s technology development with respect to Licensed Products, and considers such work to be essential to the optimal, most efficient path towards their successful global rollout. Arknet is willing to enable Tautachrome to focus all of its resources on such development.
  
 Arknet therefore makes the following offer to Tautachrome, which offer is open for acceptance until 5:00 p.m. MT on November 20, 2020:
  
 1. Arknet will waive its right to collect the Annual Fees under the License until such date as Tautachrome’s aggregate gross revenue from Licensed Products exceeds $500 million (such date, the “Due Date”). This waiver will not affect Arknet’s entitlement to the Annual Fees, which will continue to accrue and be owing by Tautachrome under the License. 
  
 2. As consideration for the above-described waiver, Tautachrome will pay Arknet interest on all unpaid and owing Annual Fees, at the rate of 1% per annum, compounded annually and calculated from the date on which such Annual Fees are due under the License.
  
 3. All unpaid and owing Annual Fees together with all accrued and unpaid interest thereon will be due and payable by Tautachrome on the Due Date.
  
 4. Unless expressly modified by this Letter, all terms of the License shall remain unchanged for the duration of its term.
  
 If Tautachrome agrees to the above, please sign one copy of this letter in the space provided below and return it to me at the above address. By countersigning this letter, Tautachrome hereby irrevocably and unconditionally agrees to the foregoing. 
  
 This letter may be executed in counterparts and may be delivered by scanned format through email transmission, and all such counterparts shall constitute one and the same instrument.
  
 No amendment, waiver or modification of this letter shall be effective without an instrument in writing executed by all parties hereto.
   
 	 	 Sincerely,
	
	  
	  
	  

	  
	 ARKNET INC.
	  

	 	 	 	 
		By:	/s/ Tim Dohse	
	  
	  
	 Tim Dohse, CEO
	 

  
 	 ACCEPTED AND AGREED
	  

	 TAUTACHROME INC.
	  

	  
	  

	 By: 
	/s/ Jon N. Leonard	
	  
	 Jon N. Leonard, CEO
	 

   
  
 	 Arknet, Inc.  
	 1846 E Innovation Park Drive 
	 Oro Valley, Arizona 85755
##### 



Report on Assessment of Compliance with Regulation AB Servicing Criteria
 1.
    
    Pursuant to Subpart 229.1100  Asset Backed Securities,
17 C.F.R. §§229.1100-229.1123 (Regulation AB), Regulus Group LLC, for itself and its wholly-owned
subsidiaries (individually and collectively Regulus), is responsible for assessing its
compliance with the servicing criteria applicable to the remittance processing services it
provides to customers who are issuers or servicers of asset backed securities transactions
and who have requested confirmation of Regulus compliance in connection with loan
and/or receivables portfolios that include pool assets for asset backed securities
transactions (the Platform). Remittance processing is a service whereby check
payments that are remitted by mail to a post office box are collected, processed through a
highly automated data capture system, and prepared for deposit to a bank account held by
the beneficiary of the payment.2.
    
    The servicing criteria set forth in Item 1122(d) of Regulation AB were used in Regulus assessment of compliance. Regulus has concluded that the servicing criteria set forth in
Items 1122(d)(2)(i) and 1122(d)(4)(iv) of Regulation AB are applicable to the servicing
activities it performs with respect to the Platform (such criteria the Applicable
Servicing Criteria). Regulus has concluded that the remainder of the servicing criteria set forth in
Item 1122(d) of Regulation AB are inapplicable to the activities it performs with respect
to the Platform because Regulus does not participate in the servicing activities referenced
by such servicing criteria.3.
    
    As of and for the year ended December 31, 2007, Regulus has complied in all material respects with the Applicable Servicing Criteria set forth in Item 1122(d) of Regulation
AB.4.
    
    KPMG LLP, a registered public accounting firm, has issued an attestation report on
Regulus assessment of compliance with the Applicable Servicing Criteria as of and for
the year ended December 31, 2007. A copy of that attestation report is attached hereto as
Exhibit A.
 /s/ Kimberlee Clark

Kimberlee ClarkChief Financial OfficerFebruary 15, 2008
 860
Latour Court  |  Napa, Ca  |  94558  |  Tel: 707.254.4000  |  Fax: 707.254.4070
permit application no.sac12-01 sierra pacific industries anderson elray kleis to: R9AirPermits 01/10/2014 11:28 AM

From: elray kleis <geoandora@yahoo.com>

To: R9AirPermits@EPA, Please respond to elray kleis <geoandora@yahoo.com>

1) what guarantee do we have that best available control technology is sufficient and what does " the greatest extent feasable" actually mean? 2)how will this affect the community of people who rely on wood heat, when spi uses all or most of the available pollutants? 3)who is physically going to be the watchdog, and if they are not maintaining it properly, will it be closed? 4)without knowing the outcome of the legal proceding/decision from the court of appeals,we have no real way of knowingexactly what will or will not be allowed. what is the truth? signed ,elray kleis and ora blankenshipkleis
#### Raymond B. LANE v. STATE of Mississippi.

No. 56940.

Supreme Court of Mississippi.

Aug. 19, 1987.

Rehearing Denied Sept. 16, 1987.

V. Douglas Gunter, Jackson, for appellant.

Edwin Lloyd Pittman, Atty. Gen., by Billy L. Gore, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jackson, for appellee.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Attala County; Clarence E. Morgan, Jr., Judge.

Before WALKER, C.J., and PRATHER and ANDERSON, JJ.

AFFIRMED.
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATIONOF THE PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER**

**ANDPRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER**

** **

**PURSUANTTO 18 U.S. C. SECTION 1350**AS ADOPTEDPURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OFTHE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

** **

Inconnection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of KeyOn CommunicationsHoldings, Inc. (the “Company”) for the quarterly period ended September 30,2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof(the “Report”), each of the undersigned officers of the Company certify, pursuantto 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to such officer’s knowledge:

 

(1)             The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section13(a) of 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

(2)             The information contained in the Report fairly presents, inall material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of theCompany.

 

Dated:  November 14, 2007

 
|   | /s/ Jonathan Snyder           |   |
|--------|-------------------------------|--------|
|   | Jonathan Snyder,              |   |
|   | Chief Executive Officer       |
|   | (principal executive officer) |
|   |                          |
|   |                          |
|   | /s/ Annette Eggert            |   |
|   | Annette Eggert,               |   |
|   | Chief Financial Officer       |
|   | (principal financial officer) |

 

----
Exhibit 32.1

Certification
Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350

Pursuant to U.S.C. Section 1350 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code), each of the undersigned officers of Vector Intersect Security Acquisition Corp. (the ‘‘Company’’), does hereby certify, to such officer’s knowledge, that:

The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2007 of the Company fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

Dated: November 14, 2007


/s/ Yaron EitanName:


Yaron EitanTitle:


Chief Executive Officer
(Principal Executive, Accounting and Financial Officer


---
## Swanson , Bria n (OST) bf)r'O^T'ZOo4 ' 1^*^S4 ^ From : Devany , Denni s (OST ) Sent : Wednesday , Septembe r15 , 201 0 11:1 8 A M To ; 'LarryDalrymple ' Cc ; Swanson , Bria n (OST ) Subject : RE : Pendleto n EA S

1 -* , • » Great , thx
. W e wil l penci l i n Oct1 2 t o expec tcomments
. Thx
. c'- i ;- n .H -



## —Qf-g ^ From : Larr

yDalrympl e [mailto:econairp@uci.net ] " ^ "^^ S Sent : Wednesday , Septembe r15 , 201 0 11:1 6 A M J ) W^ ^ To ; Devany , Denni s (OST ) O^*-- * Subject : Re : Pendleto n EA S " 2:^" ^ Thi s wil l b e goo d enough
. NextCouncil meetin g i s Octobe r5 , s o w e coul d hav e comment s bac k t o yo u shortl yafte rthat
. Origina l Messag e From : Dennis.DeVanv@dot.ao v To : econairp@uci.net ; brian.swanson@dot.qo v Sent : Wednesday , Septembe r15 , 201 0 7:5 9 A M Subject : RE : Pendleto n EA S Seaport , SkyWes t& Sovereign

. See attached
. D o yo u wan tu s t o sen d a forma l lette rrequestin g you rcomments , o ri s thi s goo d enough ? I fso , coul d pi z pass o n t o th e mayor , cit yattorne yetc ? An d whe n woul d expectth e community' s respons e t o us ? D D

From : Larr

yDalrympl e [mailto:econairp@uci.net ] Sent : Wednesday , Septembe r15 , 201 0 10:5 6 A M To : Swanson , Bria n (OST) ; Devany , Denni s (OST ) Subject : Pendleto n EA S Wha twa s th e resul to fth e RFP ?
**Exhibit 15.3**

**Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm**

**The Board ofDirectors and Shareholders of Smith & Nephew plc**

**Management’s responsibility for the financial statements**

We have audited the accompanying group income statement, group statement of comprehensive income, group cash flow statement and group statement of changes inshareholder’s equity for the year ended 31 December 2014. These financial statements are the responsibility of the Company’s management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on these financial statements based on our audit.

**Auditor’s responsibility**

We conducted our audit in accordance withthe standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States). Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements are free of material misstatement. Anaudit includes examining, on a test basis, evidence supporting the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements. An audit also includes assessing the accounting principles used and significant estimates made by management, as well asevaluating the overall financial statement presentation. We believe that our audit provide a reasonable basis for our opinion. 

**Opinion**

In our opinion, the financial statements referred to above present fairly, in all material respects, the consolidated results of operations and cash flows of Smith &Nephew plc for the year ended 31 December 2014, in conformity with International Financial Reporting Standards as issued by the International Accounting Standards Board and International Financial Reporting Standards as adopted by the EuropeanUnion. 

We were not engaged to audit, review, or apply any procedures to the adjustments to retrospectively reflect the change in the composition of reportablesegments as described in Note 2 to the group financial statements. Accordingly, we do not express an opinion nor any other form of assurance about whether such adjustments are appropriate and have been properly applied. Those retrospectiveadjustments were audited by other auditors. 

/s/ Ernst & Young LLP 

Ernst & Young LLP 

London, England 

February 25, 2015
EXHIBIT 32.2



CERTIFICATION



Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (Subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350,

Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code)



Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, the undersigned officer of PECO II, Inc., an Ohio corporation (the Company), does hereby certify that the
Companys Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ending December 31, 2004 (the Form 10-K) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the
information contained in the Form 10-K fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company as of, and for, the periods presented in the Form 10-K.



|                      |  |                         
|--------------------- |  | ------------------------
|Dated: March 31, 2005 |  | /s/ Sandra A. Frankhouse
|                      |  | Sandra A. Frankhouse    
|                      |  | Chief Financial Officer 



The foregoing
Certification is being furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 and is not being filed as part of the Form 10-K or as a separate disclosure document.