alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT
        10.7

       

       

      August
        ___, 2005

       

      Everest
        Acquisition Corporation

      15/F,
        The
        Hong Kong Club Building

      3A
        Chater
        Road Central

      Hong
        Kong


      


      
        	
              	Re:	
                Everest
                  Acquisition Corporation

              


      

       

      Gentlemen:

       

      This
        letter will confirm the agreement of Jesup & Lamont Securities Corporation
        (“Jesup & Lamont”) to purchase warrants (“Warrants”) of Everest Acquisition
        Corporation (“Company”) included in the units (“Units”) being sold in the
        Company’s initial public offering (“IPO”) upon the terms and conditions set
        forth herein. Each Unit is comprised of one share of Common Stock and two
        Warrants. The shares of Common Stock and Warrants will not be separately
        tradeable until 90 days after the effective date of the Company’s IPO unless
        Jesup & Lamont, acting as the representative of the underwriters in the IPO,
        informs the Company of its decision to allow earlier separate trading subject
        to
        certain restrictions.

       

      1.    Jesup
        & Lamont agrees that this letter agreement constitutes an irrevocable
        obligation by Jesup & Lamont to purchase for Jesup & Lamont’s account,
        within the forty-five-trading day period commencing on the date separate
        trading
        of the Warrants commences (“Separation Date”), as many Warrants as are available
        for purchase at market prices not to exceed $.70 per Warrant, subject to
        a
        maximum Warrant purchase obligation equal to the number of One Million Two
        Hundred Fifty Thousand (1,250,000) Warrants (“Maximum Warrant
        Purchase”).

       

      2.    All
        or
        part of the Maximum Warrant Purchase may be made by one or more affiliates
        of
        Jesup & Lamont (“Affiliate”); provided,
        however,
        that
        Jesup & Lamont hereby agrees to make payment of the purchase price of such
        purchase and to fulfill its Maximum Warrant Purchase in the event and to
        the
        extent that any Affiliate fails to make such payment or purchase.

       

      3.    Jesup
        & Lamont agrees that neither it nor any Affiliate shall sell or transfer the
        Warrants until after the consummation of a merger, capital stock exchange,
        asset
        acquisition or other similar business combination with an operating business
        and
        acknowledges that, at the option of Jesup & Lamont, the certificates for
        such Warrants shall contain a legend indicating such restriction on
        transferability. 

       

      Very
        truly yours,

       

      JESUP
        & LAMONT SECURITIES CORPORATION

       

      By:_____________________________________

      Name:

      Title:
**Exhibit32.1**

CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THESARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with theQuarterly Report of American Patriot Financial Group, Inc. (the “Company”) onForm 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2007, as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, J. Robert Grubbs,Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-OxleyAct of 2002, that:

(1)           The Report fully complies with therequirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities and Exchange Act of1934; and

(2)           The information contained in theReport fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition andresults of operations of the Company.
|   |   |                                 |
|--------|--------|--------------------------------------|
|        |   |                                 |
|   |   | /s/ J. Robert Grubbs                 |
|   |   | J. Robert Grubbs                     |
|   |   | Chairman and Chief Executive Officer |
|   |   | August 14, 2007                      |

 

1

----
<PAGE>

                                                                   Exhibit 10.40

                         AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO AMENDED AND
                          RESTATED EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT


     This Amendment No. 1 to Amended and Restated Employment Agreement (this
"Amendment") is dated as of March 3, 2004, by and between HAWK CORPORATION, a
Delaware corporation ("Hawk"), FRICTION PRODUCTS CO., an Ohio corporation
(together with Hawk, "Employer") and RONALD E. WEINBERG ("Employee").

                                    RECITALS:

     A. Employer and Employee are parties to (i) an employment agreement dated
June 30, 1995 (the "Original Agreement"), (ii) Amendment No. 1 to the Original
Agreement dated October 24, 2000, (iii) Amendment No. 2 to the Original
Agreement dated May 31, 2001 and (iv) Amended and Restated Employment Agreement
dated December 31, 2001 (the "Amended and Restated Agreement").

     B. Employer and Employee desire to amend the Amended and Restated
Agreement.

     C. Capitalized terms used but not otherwise defined herein have the
meanings assigned to them in the Amended and Restated Agreement.

     Accordingly, in consideration of the mutual covenants, promises and
representations contained herein and for other good and valuable consideration,
the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, Employer and
Employer hereby agree as follows:

     1. The termination date for Employee's employment in the first sentence of
Section 1 of the Amended and Restated Agreement is hereby changed from June 30,
2007 to June 30, 2012.

     2. Employer and Employee, by their execution hereof, agree that, except as
herein modified and amended, all terms, conditions and covenants contained in
the Amended and Restated Agreement are hereby ratified and confirmed in their
entirety and shall remain in full force and effect. On and after the date
hereof, each reference to the Amended and Restated Agreement shall refer to such
agreement as modified by this Amendment.

     3. This Amendment may be executed in one or more counterparts, each of
which shall be deemed to be an original and the same agreement and shall become
effective when an original or facsimile counterpart has been signed by each
party and delivered to the other party, it being understood that both parties
need not sign the same counterpart.



                           [Intentionally Left Blank]



                                      B-1

<PAGE>



     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned have hereunto set their hand as of the
date first written above.


"EMPLOYER"                                     "EMPLOYEE"

HAWK CORPORATION and
FRICTION PRODUCTS CO.

By:  /s/ Norman C. Harbert                     /s/ Ronald E. Weinberg
     -------------------------------           --------------------------------
     Norman C. Harbert                         Ronald E. Weinberg
Its: Senior Chairman of the Board
     and Founder


Attested to:

By:  /s/ Byron S. Krantz
     ------------------------------
     Byron S. Krantz
Its: Secretary
To: Bill Neuffer/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA

From: Larry Fitzwater < LFitzwater@lsb - okc.com > Date: 01/16/2012 04:52PM Cc: "Gershman, Lorraine" < Lorraine_Gershman@americanchemistry.com > Subject: RE: Nitric Acid 30 - Day Rolling Average Data for NSPS Background (See attached file: West hourly data with 30 day rolling 2011 FINAL BP (2).xlsx) 

### Bill Forgot to attach the West unit data to my earlier email. Here it is. **Larry**
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906
OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the quarterly report of QC Holdings, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q
for the period ended March 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Don Early, Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive 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) | 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 results of operations of the Company.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dated: May 9, 2008



| |  |  |  |                           |  | 
| |  |  |  | ------------------------- |  | 
| |  |  |  | /s/ Don Early             |  | 
| |  |  |  | Don Early                 |  | 
| |  |  |  | Chairman of the Board and |  | 
| |  |  |  | Chief Executive Officer   |  |
Exhibit 32.2

                    CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER
                         PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

In connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K of RAMTRON INTERNATIONAL
CORPORATION for the year ended December 31, 2008, I, Eric A. Balzer,
Chief Financial Officer of RAMTRON INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION, hereby certify
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of my knowledge and belief, that:

    (1)  such Annual Report on Form 10-K of RAMTRON INTERNATIONAL
         CORPORATION for the year ended December 31, 2008, 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 such Annual Report on Form 10-K of
         RAMTRON INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION for the year ended
         December 31, 2008, fairly presents, in all material respects, the
         financial condition and results of operations of RAMTRON
         INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION as of the dates and for the periods
         expressed in the report.


/s/ Eric A. Balzer
-------------------
Eric A. Balzer
Chief Financial Officer
(Principal Accounting Officer and
Duly Authorized Officer of the
Registrant)

February 2, 2009

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to Ramtron International Corporation and will be retained by Ramtron
International Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission or its staff upon request.

                                    Page-1
<PAGE>
exv10w15



 




EXHIBIT 10.15




June 29, 2005




Guru Denim Inc.

1525 Rio Vista Avenue

Los Angeles, CA 90023




	ATTN:  	 	Mr. Mark Saltzman &
Mr. Charles Lesser






Gentlemen :


Reference is made to the Discount Factoring Agreement of 12/2/2004 , as amended. The
contract is amended as follows :




	 	 	 
	Effective 7/1/2005 to 12/31/2005
Factoring Commission

	 	From .75% to .70%
	 
	 	 
	Effective 1/1/2006

Factoring Commission

	 	From .70% to .65%
	 
	 	 
	Effective 7/1/2005

Interest Rate

	 	From Prime plus 1% to

Prime plus 1/2 %
	 
	 	 
	EXTENSION

	 	To 12/2/2006





All other terms and conditions of the above Discount Factoring Agreement remain unchanged.



Please indicate your acceptance by signing in the space provided, and returning the original to me. The copy is for your file.




Very truly yours,
 
 

/s/

Donald Nunnari

DONALD NUNNARI

Vice President



READ AND AGREED:

GURU DENIM INC.



/s/ Jeffrey Lubell

JEFFREY LUBELL

President
#### In re the MARRIAGE OF Jimmie Dean STROUD, Appellant, and Joanne E. Stroud, Appellee.

No. 79CA0365.

Colorado Court of Appeals, Div. II.

Sept. 20, 1979.

Rehearing Denied Oct. 18, 1979.

Certiorari Granted Jan. 28, 1980.

Franklin T. Knowlton, Greeley, for appellant.

R. Sam Oldenburg, Greeley, for appellee.

BERMAN, Judge.

The husband appeals from the denial of his C.R.C.P. 60(b)(3) motion for relief from an order of the trial court which provided for disposition of the property of the parties. We affirm.

A decree of dissolution, which incorporated the parties’ agreement as to the division of their property, was entered on March 14, 1977. On May 2, 1977, appellant filed a “motion in aid of execution” of the terms of the agreement. After a hearing on the motion on June 23, 1978, the trial court found that implementation of the agreement would “creat[e] a probability of unconscionable or unequitable results; and that therefore the Court must divide the property of the parties in a fair and equitable manner pursuant to law.” The court then provided for division of the property.

Appellant filed a motion for a new trial which was denied because of his failure to file the requisite memorandum brief. C.R.C.P. 59(a); *West-Fir Studs, Inc. v. Anlauf Lumber Co.,*190 Colo. 298, 546 P.2d 487 (1976). Appellant appealed to this court, which dismissed the appeal for the same reason.

Appellant then filed a motion in the trial court, under C.R.C.P. 60(b)(3), for relief from the June 23 order. The motion was based solely on the trial court’s alleged lack *961of jurisdiction to enter the June 23 order. The motion was denied and this appeal followed.

Appellee contends that the denial of appellant’s motion is not an appealable final order. We do not address this question, however, because even if we assume, *ar-guendo,*that it is appealable, we find no error in the trial court’s denial of it.

Appellant’s argument that the June 23 order is void, is without merit. Appellant does not contend that the trial court lacked jurisdiction over the parties, and, although the June 23 order may have been improper and *voidable,*it was within the subject matter jurisdiction of the court. Therefore, it was not *void. See McLeod v. Provident Mutual Life Insurance Co.,*186 Colo. 234, 526 P.2d 1318 (1974); *Sauls v. Sauls,*40 Colo.App. 275, 577 P.2d 771 (1977).

Appellant’s other contentions of error are without merit.

Order affirmed.

PIERCE and RULAND, JJ., concur.
III

106TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. RES. 213

To authorize testimony, document production, and representation of employees

in the Senate in Bonnie Mendelson v. Delaware River and Bay Authority.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

NOVEMBER 1, 1999

Mr. LOTT (for himself and Mr. DASCHLE) submitted the following resolution;

which was considered and agreed to

RESOLUTION

To authorize testimony, document production, and representation of employees in the Senate in Bonnie Mendelson

v. Delaware River and Bay Authority.

Whereas, in the case of Bonnie Mendelson v. Delaware River

and Bay Authority, Civil Action No. 98–90–GSL, pending in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, testimony has been requested from David P. Hauck

and Julie B. Cardillo, employees of the Congressional

Special Services Office, and Bonnie Powell, a former employee of the Congressional Special Services Office;

Whereas, pursuant to sections 703(a) and 704(a)(2) of the

Ethics in Government Act of 1978, 2 U.S.C. §§ 288b(a)

and 288c(a)(2), the Senate may direct its counsel to represent employees of the Senate with respect to any sub-
2

SRES 213 ATS

poena, order, or request for testimony relating to their

official responsibilities;

Whereas, by the privileges of the Senate of the United States

and rule XI of the Standing Rules of the Senate, no evidence under the control or in the possession of the Senate may, by the administrative or judicial process, be

taken from such control or possession but by permission

of the Senate; and

Whereas, when it appears that evidence under the control or

in the possession of the Senate may promote the administration of justice, the Senate will take such action as will

promote the ends of justice consistently with the privileges of the Senate: Now, therefore, be it

1 Resolved, That David P. Hauck, Julie B. Cardillo,

2 Bonnie Powell, and any other current or former employee

3 of the Senate from whom testimony or document produc4 tion may be required, are authorized to testify and

5 produce documents in the case of Bonnie Mendelson v.

6 Delaware River and Bay Authority, except concerning

7 matters for which a privilege should be asserted.

8 SEC. 2. The Senate Legal Counsel is authorized to

9 represent David P. Hauck, Julie B. Cardillo, Bonnie Pow10 ell, and any other current or former employee of the Sen11 ate in connection with the testimony and document pro12 duction authorized in section 1.

Æ
### Riha, Kristin From: 

### Sent: To: 

### Cc: 

### Subject: Sliwinski, Rob (DEC) < rob.sliwinski@dec.ny.gov> Wednesday, November 19, 2014 11:00 AM Riha, Kristin Ruvo, Richard; Mangels , Karl; Bielawa, Robert D (DEC); Griffin, Scott L (DEC) RE: CAIR Equals RACT Presumption Withdrawal - Final Do you know how many states th at this im pacts and if any. of them are moving t o implement RACT in the meantime? From: Riha, Kristin [mailto:Riha.Kristin@epa.gov] 

### Sent: Wednesday, November 

### 19, 2014 10:20 AM To: Sliwinski, Rob (DEC) 

### Cc: Ruvo, Richard; Mangels, Karl; Bielawa, Robert D (DEC); Griffin, Scott L (DEC) 

### Subject: RE: CAIR Equals RACT Presumption Withdrawal - Fina l Good mo rning, Rob
. We are currently targeting finalization of the rule in the Summer of 

### 2015. Please note that this is just an esti mate, however. Th anks, K

ristin

Kri stin Riha U.S. EPA/OAQPS Air Quality Policy Div ision, State and Local Programs Group Email: rih _a .kristin@epa.gov Phone: 

### 919-541

-2031 From: S l iwi nski, Rob (DEC) [ma[lto:rob
.sli w i nski@dec.ny .gov] 

### Sent: Tuesday, November 18, 

### 2014 11:03 AM To: Riha, Kristin Cc: Ruvo, Richard; Mangels, Karl; Bielawa, Robert D (DEC); Griffin, Scott L (DEC) 

### Subject: CAIR Equals RACT Presumption Withdrawal- Fina l Kristin, I was wondering about the status of this rule. Do you when it will go final? Rob Sliwinski New York DEC
III

106TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. RES. 48

Designating the week beginning March 7, 1999, as ‘‘National Girl Scout

Week’’.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

FEBRUARY 23, 1999

Mrs. HUTCHISON (for herself and Ms. MIKULSKI) submitted the following

resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

RESOLUTION

Designating the week beginning March 7, 1999, as ‘‘National

Girl Scout Week’’.

Whereas March 12, 1999, is the 87th anniversary of the

founding of the Girl Scouts of the United States of

America;

Whereas on March 16, 1950, the Girl Scouts became the first

national organization for girls to be granted a Federal

charter by Congress;

Whereas through annual reports required to be submitted to

Congress by its charter, the Girl Scouts regularly informs

Congress of its progress and program initiatives;

Whereas the Girl Scouts is dedicated to inspiring girls and

young women with the highest ideals of character, con-
2

•SRES 48 IS

duct, and service to others so that they may become

model citizens in their communities;

Whereas the Girl Scouts offers girls aged 5 through 17 a variety of opportunities to develop strong values and life

skills and provides a wide range of activities to meet

girls’ interests and needs;

Whereas the Girl Scouts has a membership of nearly

3,000,000 girls and over 850,000 adult volunteers, and

is one of the preeminent organizations in the United

States committed to girls growing strong in mind, body,

and spirit; and

Whereas by fostering in girls and young women the qualities

on which the strength of the United States depends, the

Girl Scouts, for 87 years, has significantly contributed to

the advancement of the United States: Now, therefore, be

it

1 Resolved, That the Senate—

2 (1) designates the week beginning March 7,

3 1999, as ‘‘National Girl Scout Week’’; and

4 (2) requests the President to issue a proclama5 tion designating the week beginning March 7, 1999,

6 as ‘‘National Girl Scout Week’’ and calling on the

7 people of the United States to observe the day with

8 appropriate ceremonies and activities.

Æ
#### STATE ex rel. Mark PATTERSON v. STATE of Louisiana.

No. 88-KH-1260.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

May 23, 1988.

In re Patterson, Mark; applying for supervisory and/or remedial writs; Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court, Div. “H”, No. 326211. -

Transferred to the Fourth Circuit, Court of Appeal for immediate consideration. Trial is set for May 26, 1988.
Exhibit
23.2





CONSENT
OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM





C2 Global
Technologies Inc.


Toronto,
Ontario, Canada





We hereby
consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement on: Form
S-8 Nos. (333-86761, 333-88881, 333-08483, 333-08477) of C2 Global Technologies
Inc. of our report dated March 1, 2007, relating to the consolidated financial
statements and the financial statement schedule, which appears in this Form
10-K.  Our report contains an explanatory paragraph regarding the
Company’s ability to continue as a going concern.





/s/ Mintz
& Partners LLP


Toronto,
Ontario


March 12,
2009
F r

o m : " R i c ar d o R o ss e ll o " < r o ss e ll o @b a tt

e r y r e c

. c o m>

T o : C hu c k F r e n c h / R T P/ U S E P A / U S@ E P A

D a t e : 09 / 0 6 / 2011 06: 5

9 P M Sub j e ct :

F W : b o rra d o r d e e m a il

D e ar M r

. F r e n c h :

W e c o n t i nu e w

o rk i n g o n t h e r e s p o n s e t o y o u r r e qu e s t f o r i n f o r m a t i o n

. E n c

l o s e d ar e t h e P D F c

o p i e s o f

a ll t e s t s c o ndu c t e d i n t h e l as t f i v e ye ars

, e x c e p t f o r a t e s t c o nd u ct e d o n O c t o b e r 3 1

, 200

6 w h i c h w as

i n v a l i d a t e d b y a m a l f

un ct i o n e v e n t a nd t h e r

e f o r e w as d ee m e d t

o b e n o n r

e p r e s e n t a t i v e a nd i n v a li d

. T h e

f o ll o w i n g i s a s u mm ar y o f t h e t e s t a t t a c h e d t o t h i s e m a il a nd s

e p ara t e e m a i l s du e

t o t h e s i z e o f t h e

a tt a c h m e n t s

. |

------------ +

------------- +

-------------- +

--------------- |

| T e s t i n g | D a t

e o f | D a t

e o f | P o ll u t a n t |

| C o m p a n y | T

e s t | T e s t | o r |

| | | R e p o r t | P

ara m e t e rs |

| | | | T e s t e d |

|

------------ +

------------- +

-------------- +

--------------- |

| P a c e | A u g u s

t 8

, | A u g u s t 28

, | L e a d |

| | 2

007 | 2 007 | |

|

------------ +

------------- +

-------------- +

--------------- |

| U R S | D e c e m b e r | D e c

e m b e r

, | L

e a d |

| | 3

, 200 7 | 20 0 7 | |

|

------------ +

------------- +

-------------- +

--------------- |

| U R S | D e c e m b e r | J a nu ar

y

, | P M |

| | 1 6

t o 1 7

, | 200 9 | O p a c i t y |

| | 2

008 | | F a c

e |

| | | | V e l o c i t y |

| | | | S O 2 |

|

------------ +

------------- +

-------------- +

--------------- |

| U R S | F e b r u ar

y | M a r c h

, | P M |

| | 1 7

, 2

010 | 2 010 | O p a c

i t y |

| | | | F a c e |

| | | | V e l o c i t y |

| | | | L e a d |

|

------------ +

------------- +

-------------- +

--------------- |

| U R S | J un e 2 8

, | J un e 2 01 0 | P M |

| | 20 1 0 | | O p a c

i t y |

| | | | F a c

e |

| | | | V e l o c i t y |

| | | | L e a d |

| | | | Su l f u r |

|

------------ +

------------- +

-------------- +

--------------- |

E n c l o s e d a l s o f i nd a P D F c o p y o f t h e F u g i t i v

e D u s t S O P

. W e e x p e ct t o b e a b l e t o e m a il y o u t h e f o r m a l

r e s p o n s e i n t h e n e x t 2 d a y s

. O n b e h a l f o f

T h e B a tt e r y R e c y c li n g C o m p a n y

, I n c

. , I a p o l o g i z e f

o r t h e d e l a y

. W e h a v e b ee n e x t r e m e l y bu s

y h a nd li n g s

e v e ra l o t h e r i m p o r t

a n t m a tt e rs t o E P A. C o r d i a ll y

,