alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
1

From:

Sent: Saturday, June 20, 2015 2:50 PM

To: RedHill

Subject: Take tanks offline today

Follow Up Flag: Follow up

Flag Status: Flagged

Why are we even trying to repair these tanks? They should have been shut down in January 2014 

when original catastrophic failure occurred. 27000 gallons of jet fuel into our ground water is a 

catastrophe. 

1) These tanks are so old that by the time you finish the project, they will need to be repaired, and 

replaced again. 

2) Anything that is this complicated to repair and replace is not a good idea in the first place. 

3) Why bother doing risk assessment? It has already happened. The risk is 100%. 

4) Why bother with monitoring? There is nothing that can be done once the fuel leaks into the basalt 

rock. We have to wait how long for the damage to be cleaned? 100 years? 1000 years? What is the 

point of monitoring if all that it will do is tell us that a leak occurred, but we won't be able to clean up 

the fuel in the rock. 

From a strategic or operational standpoint, why do we think it is a good idea to store that much fuel in 

a single place? Do we think it's a good idea to keep a facility operational that is extremely complicated 

to maintain and will take 20 years to repair? At the end of 20 years, we will need to start repairs all 

over again on the now 95 year old tanks. 

Since there is no way to remediate the damage once a failure occurs, prevention is the only option. 

I submit that the Navy should already have a contingency plan in place for the catastrophic failure of 

entire facility (e.g. in event of earthquake or bomb or something...). The catastrophic failure has 

already occurred and we should implement the contingency plan. 

This facility should be shut down immediately. The tanks should be emptied and we can turn it in to a 

tourist attraction. 

I do not agree with the AOC or SOW. 

Thanks,
Número identificador 

 RES2024__________________

ESTADO LIBRE ASOCIADO DE PUERTO RICO

TRIBUNAL DE APELACIONES

PANEL V

HILDA SANTIAGO 

ÁLVAREZ,

Recurrida,

v.

DAVID DÁVILA PAGÁN; 

ROSA IDALIA RÍOS

SÁNCHEZ,

Peticionaria,

ATABEY CAPITAL, LLC,

Interventora.

KLCE202400371

CERTIORARI 

procedente del Tribunal 

de Primera Instancia, 

Sala Superior de 

Bayamón.

Civil núm.: 

D DP2016-0662.

Sobre: 

acción civil; 

incumplimiento de 

contrato; daños y 

perjuicios.

HILDA SANTIAGO 

ÁLVAREZ,

Recurrida,

v.

DAVID DÁVILA PAGÁN;

ROSA IDALIA RÍOS 

SÁNCHEZ,

Peticionaria.

KLCE202400374

CERTIORARI 

procedente del Tribunal 

de Primera Instancia, 

Sala Superior de 

Bayamón.

Civil núm.: 

D DP2016-0662.

Sobre: 

acción civil; 

incumplimiento de 

contrato; daños y 

perjuicios.

Panel integrado por su presidente, el juez Hernández Sánchez, la jueza 

Romero García y la jueza Martínez Cordero.

Romero García, jueza ponente.

RESOLUCIÓN

En San Juan, Puerto Rico, a 23 de mayo de 2024.

Los recursos consolidados del título pretenden que revisemos la 

misma Resolución dictada el 6 de febrero de 2024, notificada el 9 de febrero 

de 2024, por el Tribunal de Primera Instancia, Sala Superior de Bayamón. 

Ambos peticionarios; a decir, la abogada-notaria Rosa I. Ríos Sánchez, y 

el señor David Dávila Pagán, arguyen que el foro primario debió disponer 

sumariamente de las sendas reclamaciones en su contra.
KLCE202400371 cons. con el 

KLCE202400374 2

Evaluados los recursos y los documentos que les fueran adjuntados, 

así como la resolución recurrida, denegamos la expedición del auto1.

Notifíquese.

Lo acordó el Tribunal y lo certifica la secretaria del Tribunal de 

Apelaciones. 

Lcda. Lilia M. Oquendo Solís

Secretaria del Tribunal de Apelaciones

1 Véase, Regla 52.1 de las de Procedimiento Civil, 32 LPRA Ap. V, y la Regla 40 del 

Reglamento de este Tribunal de Apelaciones, 4 LPRA Ap. XXII-B.
Exhibit






Exhibit 10.5
kvcf    
kaplan voekler cunningham & frank PLC
Edward Flanagan
Direct Dial: 804.823.4023
Direct Fax: 804.823.4099
eflanagan@kv-legal.com
January 27, 2017


Via Email and FedEx


KBS LEGACY  PARTNERS  WESLEY, LP
c/o Legacy Partners, Inc.
4000 E. 3rd Avenue, Sixth Floor Foster City, CA  94404
Attn:  Guy K. Hays
E-mail: hays@legacypartners.com


Schultz & Wright, LLP
545 Middlefield Road, Suite 160 Menlo Park, CA 94025
Attn: Anne Keeler Wright, Esq. E-mail: wright@swllp.com




Re: Agreement of Purchase and Sale dated December 29,  2016,  (the  "Agreement"), by and between KBS LEGACY PARTNERS WESLEY LP, a Delaware limited partnership, and KBS LEGACY PARTNERS WESLEY LAND LLC, a Delaware limited liability company (collectively, "Seller"),  and BLUEROCK REAL ESTATE, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company ("Buyer") for acquisition of certain land and improvements described in the Agreement (the "Property")




Ladies and Gentlemen:


Please be advised that, in accordance with Sections 2.5.3 and 2.6.3 of the Agreement, Buyer hereby provides notice of its election to terminate the Agreement as a result of the Survey indicating that multiple buildings are located in the AE flood zone, as previously objected to in the Buyer's  notice of Objectionable Title Matters.   Pursuant to the terms of Sections 2.5.3   and
2.6.3 of the Agreement, Buyer hereby demands that the entire Earnest Money Deposit currently on deposit with the Escrow Agent be returned to Buyer as the determination that the improvements located at the Property are located in the AE flood zone constitutes a Full Refund Event.












All capitalized terms used in this letter but not otherwise defined will have their same meanings as set forth in the Agreement.






	
		
	 
	Sincerely,


   /s/ S. Edward Flanagan                                
   S. Edward Flanagan
   Partner










cc:    J. Babb
M. Brown
M. Konig, Esq.
R. MacDonald
H. Wosner
S. Finelli
**EXHIBIT 31.2**

 

**CERTIFICATION OFCHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER**

 

I, Edileen Salicrup, Chief Financial Officer of ClearComm, L.P.,certify that:

 

1.               I have reviewed this annual report ofClearComm, L.P.;

 

2.               Based on my knowledge, this report doesnot contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a materialfact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances underwhich such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report;

 

3.               Based on my knowledge, the financialstatements, and other financial information included in this report, fairlypresent in all material respects the financial condition, results of operationsand cash flows of the company as of, and for, the periods presented in thisreport; and

 

4.               The company’s other certifyingofficer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosurecontrols and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

 

(a)                             Designedsuch disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the company, including its consolidated subsidiaries,is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during theperiod in which this report is being prepared; and

(b)                            Evaluatedthe effectiveness of the company’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by thisreport based on such evaluation.

 
| Date:  April 14, 2004 |                     |
|----------------------------|--------------------------|
|                       | /s/  Edileen Salicrup    |   |
|                       | Edileen  Salicrup        |
|                       | Chief  Financial Officer |

 

----
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
financial statements of Baycorp Holdings, Ltd. for the twelve months ended
December 31, 1996 and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such
financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                          16,412
<SECURITIES>                                    12,363
<RECEIVABLES>                                    2,927
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                36,257
<PP&E>                                         109,903
<DEPRECIATION>                                   7,152
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 152,418
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            5,705
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            84
<OTHER-SE>                                      89,541
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   152,418
<SALES>                                         30,324
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                30,324
<CGS>                                           32,563
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   32,563
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,595
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  4,100
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     4,100
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.51
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 25 (Tuesday, February 6, 2024)]
[Notices]
[Pages 8245-8246]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-02279]


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

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Antitrust Division


Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and 
Production Act of 1993--Cooperative Research Group Permian Basin 
Consortium--Phase III

    Notice is hereby given that, on January 10, 2024, pursuant to 
section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 
1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301 et seq. (``the Act''), Cooperative Research Group 
Permian Basin Consortium--Phase III has filed written notifications 
simultaneously with the Attorney General and the Federal Trade 
Commission disclosing (1) the identities of the parties to the venture 
and (2) the nature and objectives of the venture. The notifications 
were filed for the purpose of invoking the Act's provisions limiting 
the recovery of antitrust plaintiffs to actual damages under specified 
circumstances.
    Pursuant to section 6(b) of the Act, the identities of the parties 
to the venture are: Marathon Oil Company, Houston, TX; and Diamondback 
E&P LLC, Midland, TX.
    The general area of Permian Basin Consortium--Phase III's planned 
activities will involve building on research conducted in Phases 1 and 
2 of the consortium, with continued analysis of deformation and 
mechanical stratigraphy in Permian strata exposed in and around the 
Permian Basin of Texas and New Mexico. Planned activity involves 
intensive data collection and quantitative analysis of systematic 
fracture networks and associated deformation related to 
lithostratigraphy and mechanical stratigraphy. This work will develop 
datasets and predictive relationships based on outcrop and core, that 
can be used to inform predictive models of fracturing in the Permian 
Basin. Subsurface investigations include numerical geomechanical 
modeling of deformation related to tectonic activity and hydraulic 
fracturing within

[[Page 8246]]

productive and potentially productive portions of the Permian Basin.

Suzanne Morris,
Deputy Director Civil Enforcement Operations, Antitrust Division.
[FR Doc. 2024-02279 Filed 2-5-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    Exhibit 23.2

                        Consent of Independent Auditors


We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on
Form S-8 (Nos. 333-78453, 333-74515, 333-50877 and 333-50841) and the
Registration Statement on Form S-3 (No. 333-5535) of our report dated February
20, 1998 with respect to the financial statements of Medical & Technical
Research Associates, Inc. for the year ended December 31, 1997 included in this
Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31, 1999.


                                           /s/ Rogers, Suleski & Associates, LLC


March 30, 2000
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

138 

KA 11-00413 

PRESENT: SCUDDER, P.J., SMITH, CENTRA, LINDLEY, AND VALENTINO, JJ. 

 

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT, 

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

BRIAN R. BUSSOM, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. 

TIMOTHY P. DONAHER, PUBLIC DEFENDER, ROCHESTER (JANE I. YOON OF

COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. 

SANDRA DOORLEY, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, ROCHESTER (DANIEL GROSS OF

COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT. 

 

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Monroe County

(Daniel J. Doyle, J.), rendered November 22, 2010. The judgment

convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of course of sexual

conduct against a child in the first degree and rape in the second

degree. 

It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is

unanimously modified on the law by vacating the sentence imposed on

count three of the indictment and as modified the judgment is affirmed

and the matter is remitted to Supreme Court, Monroe County, for

resentencing on that count. 

Memorandum: On appeal from a judgment convicting him upon his

plea of guilty of course of sexual conduct against a child in the

first degree (Penal Law § 130.75 [1] [b]) and rape in the second

degree (§ 130.30 [1]), defendant contends that the period of

postrelease supervision imposed upon the latter conviction is illegal. 

It is well settled that “defendant’s challenge to the legality of the

sentence survives his waiver of the right to appeal” (People v

McLellan, 82 AD3d 1668, 1669; see People v Seaberg, 74 NY2d 1, 10),

and he may raise such a challenge for the first time on appeal (see

People v Gonzalez, 99 NY2d 76, 86). Here, as the People correctly

concede, the sentence is illegal insofar as the court imposed a

15-year period of postrelease supervision on the count of rape in the

second degree (see § 70.45 [2-a] [a]). Inasmuch as the record does

not establish that the court intended to impose the maximum period of

postrelease supervision, we modify the judgment by vacating the

sentence on count three of the indictment charging defendant with rape

in the second degree, and we remit the matter to Supreme Court for

resentencing on that count (see People v Bowden, 15 AD3d 884, 885, lv

denied 4 NY3d 851, reconsideration denied 5 NY3d 786; cf. People v 
-2- 138 

KA 11-00413 

Roman, 43 AD3d 1282, 1283, lv denied 9 NY3d 1009).

Entered: February 6, 2015 Frances E. Cafarell

Clerk of the Court
### May 5, 2015 EPA, Bayer, Syngenta, and Nufarm Meeting on Fenoxaprop Registration Review Potomac Yards South Room S-9261 1100- 1200 Meeting Agenda: I. Introductions II

. Registration Review Schedule III. Risk Mitigation Discussion 

### fV. Next Steps Meeting Summary: • The OPP registration review team for fenoxaprop met with Bayer, Syngenta, and Nufarm, the registrants for this post-emergent herbicide, to discuss measures to mitigate risk to non-target plants

. • Discussion focused on the importance ofconsistent labeling across agricultural labels to address herbicide resistance and spray drift management. • The EPA team shared documents with the registrants on best management practices (BMPs) for boom spraying (by the American Society ofAgricultural Engineers) and herbicide resistance (by the Weed Science Society ofAmerica) prior to this meeting. • The Proposed Interim Decision (PID) for fenoxaprop is scheduled to be released for comment in June 20 15; the Final Interim Decision is scheduled for December 2015. Meeting Participants: 

### U.S. EPAPRD: Tracy Perry, Miguel Zavala, Kelly Sherman (BC) 

### BEAD: Jihad Alsadek, William Chism, Monisha Kaul 

### EFED : Charles Peck, Jean Holmes (BC) RD: Grant Rowland, Driss Benmhend

### BayerDanyel Ward, State Registration Manager Steven King, Marketing Russel Jones, Operations Jason Wistehuff, Product Management Dana Sargent, Regulatory Affairs Charlotte Sanson, Regulatory Affairs Brad Glen, Environmental Safety Tilghman Hall, Environmental Safety Jane Tang, Environmental Safety Arlene Cotie, Product Development Allan Hovis, Stewardship



### SyngentaTamara Murphy, Regulatory Don Porter, Technical Product Lead Jerry Wells, Regulatory Adora Clark, Stewardship Mark Ledson, Product Application



### Nufarm- ' Nathan Eheresman , Regulatory Affairs
Exhibit








Exhibit 10.64




November 20, 2016


Douglas M. Fambrough, III Ph.D.
Chief Executive Officer
Dicerna Pharmaceuticals Inc.
87 Cambridgepark Drive
Cambridge, MA 02140


Dear Doug,


I am writing you regarding the License Agreement by and between Dicerna Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (“Dicerna”), on the one hand, and Protiva Biotherapeutics Inc. and Tekmira Pharmaceuticals Corporation (predecessor in interest of Arbutus Biopharma Corporation or “Arbutus”) on the other hand, dated November 16, 2014 (“Agreement”).  
By agreement of the parties, the Agreement is now terminated, effective November 21, 2016.  Pursuant to section 8.6 (b) of the Agreement, the Supply Agreement and Quality Agreement between Dicerna and Arbutus also automatically terminates, with the proviso that within thirty (30) days after termination of the Agreement (namely December 20, 2016), Dicerna will provide Arbutus with an inventory of all Products in its, its Affiliates’ and their Sublicensees’ (including CMO’s) possession or control, including finished products and works-in-process. 


Yours truly,


/s/ Thomas Frohlich
#### A. A. SCHAEFFER v. The STATE of Texas.

No. 34934.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Jan. 23, 1963.

*945James L. McNees, Jr., Dallas, for appellant.

Leon B. Douglas, State’s Atty., Austin, for the State.

PER CURIAM.

The offense is practicing medicine without a license; the punishment, 1 day in jail and a fine of $500.

It is properly made to appear that since the appeal in this case the appellant has died. Accordingly, the prior opinion is withdrawn and the appeal is abated.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM FORM 10-Q
9-30-1996 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                             475
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                90,591
<PP&E>                                         984,568
<DEPRECIATION>                                 452,254
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 663,077
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          716,203
<BONDS>                                            848
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         5,222
<OTHER-SE>                                    (59,196)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   663,077
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  755,601
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                             (754,891)
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (754,891)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (754,891)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.14)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.14)
        

</TABLE>
<PAGE>

                                                                   EXHIBIT 21


                       WELLPOINT HEALTH NETWORKS INC.
                            LIST OF SUBSIDIARIES

                                                               STATE OF
CORPORATION                                                    INCORPORATION

BC Life & Health Insurance Company                             California
Blue Cross of California                                       California
Comprehensive Integrated Marketing Services                    California
Cost Care, Inc.                                                Massachusetts
National Capital Health Plan, Inc.                             Virginia
National Capital Preferred Provider Organization               Maryland
Professional Claim Services, Inc.                              New York
UNICARE Insurance Company                                      California
UNICARE Life & Health Insurance Company                        Delaware
UNICARE National Services, Inc.                                Delaware
UNICARE of Texas Health Plans, Inc.                            Texas
UNICARE Specialty Services, Inc.                               California
WellPoint Behavioral Health, Inc.                              Delaware
WellPoint California Services, Inc.                            Delaware
WellPoint Pharmacy Management, Inc.                            California
#### Eleanor FARRELL, Petitioner, v. Dean FARRELL, Respondent.

No. A-9827.

Supreme Court of Texas.

Dec. 31, 1963.

Matthews, Payne, Pace, Sands & Ben-ners, Dallas, William O. Huie, Austin, for petitioner.

Joseph M. Stuhl, Dallas, for respondent.

PER CURIAM.

The opinion of the Court of Civil Appeals is found in 370 S.W.2d 241.

This is an action for divorce and a division of property. The judgment of the Court of Civil Appeals is final under Article 1821, Vernon’s Annotated Texas Civil Statutes, unless there has been a disagreement among the Judges of the Court of Civil Appeals, or unless the Court of Civil Appeals has held differently from a prior decision of another Court of Civil Appeals or of this Court on a question of law material to the decision. Arts. 1821, 1728, V.A.T.S. There is no disagreement among the Judges of the Court of Civil Appeals, and the petitioner seeks to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court on the basis of asserted conflicts between the decision of the Court of Civil Appeals and prior decisions of this Court.

In order for this Court to have jurisdiction under subdivision 2 of Art. 1728, V.A.T.S., the asserted conflict must not only be upon a question of law material *871to the decision in the case, but also such conflict must appear on the face of the opinion. Dockum v. Mercury Insurance Company, 134 Tex. 437, 135 S.W.2d 700; State v. Wynn, 157 Tex. 200, 301 S.W.2d 76. It does not do so here.

The Motion for Rehearing is overruled.