alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Warrant Purchase Agreement




 Exhibit 10.13 
  
                     , 2004 
  
 Newbridge Securities Corporation 
 I-Bankers Securities Incorporated

 c/o Newbridge Securities Incorporated 
 1451 West Cypress Creek
Road 
 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33309 
  
 Re:     Sand Hill IT Security Acquisition Corp. 
  
 Gentlemen: 
  
 This letter will confirm the agreement of the undersigned to purchase warrants (“Warrants”) of Sand Hill IT Security Acquisition Corp.
(“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 Newbridge Securities Corporation and I-Bankers Securities Incorporated (the
“Representatives”) inform the Company of their decision to allow earlier separate trading. 
  
 The undersigned agrees that this letter agreement constitutes an irrevocable order for the Representatives to purchase for the undersigned’s account
within the twenty trading-day period commencing on the date separate trading of the Warrants up to 1,000,000 Warrants at market prices not to exceed $0.65 per Warrant (“Maximum Warrant Purchase”). The Representatives (or such other broker
dealer(s) as the Representatives may assign the order to) agrees to fill such order in such amounts and at such times as it may determine, in its sole discretion. The Representatives further agree that they will not charge the undersigned any fees
and/or commissions with respect to such purchase obligation. 
  
 The undersigned may notify the Representatives that all or part of his respective Maximum Warrant Purchase will be made by an affiliate of the undersigned (or another person or entity introduced to the Representatives by the undersigned (a
“Designee”)) who (or which) has an account with the either of the Representatives and, in such event, the Representatives will make such purchase on behalf of said affiliate or Designee; provided, however, that the undersigned hereby
agrees to make payment of the purchase price of such purchase in the event that the affiliate or Designee fails to make such payment. 
  

	
	 Very truly yours,

	  


	 Humphrey P. Polanan
#### Clarence L. CAGLE, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES FIDELITY & GUARANTY COMPANY, Respondent.

No. A-10636.

Supreme Court of Texas.

April 21, 1965.

Rehearing Denied May 19, 1965.

Herrick & Tillman, Fort Worth, for petitioner.

Brown, Day & Crowley, Fort Worth, for respondent.

PER CURIAM.

We are not in accord with the holding of the Court of Civil Appeals that Clarence L. Cagle was judicially estopped by former inconsistent testimony. However, the trial court correctly granted judgment notwithstanding the verdict, and the Court of Civil Appeals properly affirmed the judgment. 386 S.W.2d 149. The application for a writ of error is therefore refused, no reversible error.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                           11155
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                     1118
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 12416
<PP&E>                                           32625
<DEPRECIATION>                                   15839
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   29291
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                              788
<BONDS>                                          26039
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                        2464
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     29291
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 71641
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    10373
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                  3480
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                5594
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  52196
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              52196
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                    211
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     52407
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   370.59
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   370.59
        

</TABLE>
#### ROYAL CROWN BOTTLING COMPANY, Inc., Appellant, v. Ethel MORGAN, Appellee.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

March 1, 1957.

Craft & Stanfill, Hazard, for appellant.

Will C. Hoskins, Hyden, for appellee.

CULLEN, Commissioner.

In a trial before the court without a jury, Mrs. Ethel Morgan recovered judgment against the Royal Crown. Bottling Company in the amount of $300, as damages for illness suffered as a result of drinking part of a bottle of R. C. Cola which contained a dead spider. The company has moved for an appeal on the ground that judgment should have gone for the defendant because of failure to prove the integrity of the bottle.

Mrs. Morgan and her husband operated a small, one-room country store, with gasoline pumps out in front. Frequently Mrs. Morgan tended the store alone, while her husband worked in the mines. When she waited on motorists desiring gasoline, there would be no one watching the inside of the store, and on a few occasions customers had entered the store when she was operating the gasoline pumps. At times during the day there would be as many as five or six customers in the store.

The soft drink cases were stacked in the main store room, against a counter. As the demand required, bottles were placed for cooling in a flat-top freezer, from which they were removed for sale to customers. A customer desiring a soft drink could wait on himself. The bottle from which Mrs. Morgan drank was delivered to the store either one week or two weeks previous to the day on which she drank from it.

It is our opinion that the facts in this case, as concern integrity of the bottle, cannot be distinguished from those in Ashland Coca-Cola Bottling Co. v. Byrne, Ky., 258 S.W.2d 475, Glasgow Coca-Cola Bottling Works v. Wilson, Ky., 264 S.W.2d 872, and Davis Red Rock Bottling Co. v. Alsip, Ky., 287 S.W.2d 594, in each of which cases it was held that the plaintiff had failed to sustain the burden of showing no opportunity for tampering.

The motion for an appeal is sustained and the judgment is reversed, with directions to enter judgment for the defendant.
I 

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1392 

To provide assistance to veterans and veteran-owned businesses with respect 

to contract opportunities, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 6, 2011 

Mr. FITZPATRICK introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Oversight and Government Reform 

A BILL 

To provide assistance to veterans and veteran-owned businesses with respect to contract opportunities, 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 ‘‘Fairness to Veterans 

5 Act of 2011’’. 

6 SEC. 2. ASSISTANCE FOR VETERANS AND VETERAN-OWNED 

7 BUSINESSES. 

8 (a) FEDERAL GOVERNMENT CONTRACT OPPORTUNI9 TIES.—In evaluating any bid or proposal received in re10 sponse to a solicitation relating to a Federal contract, the 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 1392 IH

1 head of a Federal department or agency shall provide to 

2 a veteran or veteran-owned business any preference that 

3 any individual or business is eligible to receive with respect 

4 to that contract, if that preference takes into consideration 

5 race or gender, without regard to whether the veteran or 

6 veteran-owned business would otherwise qualify for that 

7 preference. 

8 (b) STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT CONTRACT OP9 PORTUNITIES.—As a condition of receiving Federal fund10 ing, in evaluating any bid or proposal received in response 

11 to a solicitation relating to a State or local contract that 

12 involves the use of Federal funding, the head of a State 

13 or local government shall provide to a veteran or veteran14 owned business any preference that any individual or busi15 ness is eligible to receive with respect to that contract, 

16 if that preference takes into consideration race or gender, 

17 without regard to whether the veteran or veteran-owned 

18 business would otherwise qualify for that preference. 

19 (c) DEFINITIONS.—In this Act, the following defini20 tions apply: 

21 (1) VETERAN.—The term ‘‘veteran’’ has the 

22 meaning given that term in section 101(2) of title 

23 38, United States Code. 

24 (2) VETERAN-OWNED BUSINESS.—The term 

25 ‘‘veteran-owned business’’ means a business— 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 1392 IH

1 (A) not less than 51 percent of which is 

2 owned by one or more veterans or, in the case 

3 of any publicly owned business, not less than 51 

4 percent of the stock of which is owned by one 

5 or more veterans; and 

6 (B) the management and daily business 

7 operations of which are controlled by one or 

8 more veterans. 

Æ 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with BILLS
```

[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 63 (Monday, April 2, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 19747]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-6408]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Office of the Secretary

[Order 2012-3-7; Docket DOT-OST-2012-0022]

Proposed Cancelation

    of the Air Taxi Authority Of VIH Cougar Helicopters, Inc.
AGENCY: Department of Transportation.

ACTION: Notice of Order to Show Cause (Order 2012-3-7) Docket DOT-OST-
2012-0022.

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

SUMMARY: The Department of Transportation is directing all interested 
persons to show cause why it should not issue an order finding that VIH 
Cougar Helicopters, Inc. is not a U.S. citizen as defined in 49 U.S.C. 
40102(a)(15) and canceling its Part 298 exemption authority.

DATES: Persons wishing to file objections should do so no later than 
April 2, 2012. .

ADDRESSES: Objections and answers to objections should be filed in 
Docket DOT-OST-2012-0022 and addressed to U.S. Department of 
Transportation, Docket Operations, (M-30, Room W12-140), 1200 New 
Jersey Avenue SE., West Building Ground Floor, Washington, DC 20590, 
and should be served upon the parties listed in Attachment A to the 
order.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Damon D. Walker, Air Carrier 
Fitness Division (X-56, Room W86-465), U.S. Department of 
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, (202) 
366-7785.

Susan L. Kurland,
Assistant Secretary for Aviation and International Affairs.
[FR Doc. 2012-6408 Filed 3-30-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P
```
ALASKA SEAFOOD CBI REPLACEMENT PAGE 

EPA-HQ-OW-2013-0652

DCN: 00079CBI

THE FOLLOWING HAS BEEN REMOVED BECAUSE IT 

CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS INFORMATION 

(CBI) PER 40 CFR PART 2, SUBPART B.
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1289 Introduced in House (IH)]

112th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1289

To permit each State to have 3 statues on display in the United States 
                                Capitol.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 31, 2011

  Mr. Cohen introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                   Committee on House Administration

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To permit each State to have 3 statues on display in the United States 
                                Capitol.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Share America's Diverse History in 
the Capitol Act''.

SEC. 2. PERMITTING STATES TO HAVE 3 STATUES ON DISPLAY IN CAPITOL.

    (a) In General.--Section 1814 of the Revised Statutes of the United 
States (2 U.S.C. 2131) is amended by striking ``not exceeding two in 
number'' and inserting ``not exceeding 3 in number''.
    (b) Conforming Amendment Regarding Procedures for Replacement of 
Statues.--Section 311(c) of the Legislative Branch Appropriations Act, 
2001 (2 U.S.C. 2132(c)), is amended by striking ``not more than two 
statues'' and inserting ``not more than 3 statues''.

SEC. 3. SENSE OF CONGRESS REGARDING OPPORTUNITY FOR PLACEMENT OF 
              STATUES OF WOMEN AND MINORITIES.

    It is the sense of Congress that, in light of the fact that statues 
of women and members of racial and ethnic minority groups are 
underrepresented in the United States Capitol, each State should use 
the opportunity provided by this Act to have an additional statue on 
display in the Capitol to furnish a statue depicting a woman or a 
member of a racial or ethnic minority group who is a notable figure in 
the State's history.
                                 <all>
```
#### In re Estate of Beabout (Ault). 

(No. 27611

Decided June 14, 1939.)

*Mr. James B. Taw*and *Mr. Harry Kohn,*for A. A. Peasley, appellant.

*Messrs. Gibbs & Gibbs*and *Mr. James A. White,*for Yirgil H. Gibbs, administrator, et al., appellees.

It is ordered and adjudged that said appeal as of right be, and the same hereby is, dismissed for the reason no debatable constitutional question is involved in said cause.

*Appeal dismissed.*

Weygandt, C. J., Day, Zimmerman, Williams, Myers, Matthias and Hart, JJ., concur.
EXHIBIT 32.2





CERTIFICATION


Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350


(Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002)





In connection with the Amendment No. 2 to the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Sen Yu International Holdings, Inc. (the “Company”) for the year ended June 30, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), Tongyu Zhang, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §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.








Date: February 18, 2011





By:  /s/ Tongyu Zhang


Name: Tongyu Zhang


Title: Chief Financial Officer











This certification accompanies each Report pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the company for purposes of §18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.





A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the company and will be retained by the company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
EXHIBIT 21

                              CHEMFAB CORPORATION
                                  SUBSIDIARIES
                                  ------------


Wholly-Owned Subsidiaries of Chemfab Corporation
------------------------------------------------

Hi-Temp Materials, Inc., incorporated under the laws of the State of Illinois.

Birdair Structures, Inc., incorporated under the laws of the State of New York.

Canton Bio-Medical, Inc., incorporated under the laws of the State of New York.

CHEMFAB Overseas Corporation, incorporated under the laws of the State of
Delaware.

CHEMFAB Holdings, organized under the laws of the Republic of Ireland/Bermuda
Resident.

CHEMFAB Europe, organized under the laws of the Republic of Ireland.

Chemical Fabrics Ireland, Ltd., organized under the laws of the Republic of
Ireland.

CHEMFAB International Corporation, incorporated under the laws of the State of
Delaware.

CHEMFAB FSC, Inc., organized under the laws of Barbados, West Indies.

Advanced Facilities, Inc., incorporated under the laws of the State of New York.

Fluorocarbon Fabrications Ltd., organized under the laws of the United Kingdom.

CHEMFAB Holdings U.K. Ltd., organized under the laws of the United Kingdom.

Tygaflor Ltd. (formerly CHEMFAB U.K. Ltd.) organized under the laws of the
United Kingdom.

Iberflon, S.A., organized under the laws of Spain.

Chemfab (Suzhou) Co., Ltd., organized under the laws of the People's Republic of
China.

Chemfab do Brasil Industria e Comercio Ltda., organized under the laws of
Brazil.

Chemfab Luxembourg S.ar.l organized under the laws of Luxembourg

Nitto Chemfab Co., Ltd. organized under the laws of Japan

Chemfab Japan, Ltd. organized under the laws of Japan

Chemfab (Singapore) Pte Ltd organized under the laws of Singapore

Tygaflor Holdings, organized under the laws of the Republic of Ireland/Bermuda
Resident

Chemfab Japan, organized under the laws of the Republic of Ireland/Bermuda
Resident

Chemfab Brazil, organized under the laws of the Republic of Ireland/Bermuda
Resident

Chemfab China, organized under the laws of the Republic of Ireland/Bermuda
Resident

Chemfab Germany GmbH, organized under the laws of Germany
Electronically Filed

Intermediate Court of Appeals

CAAP-19-0000451

18-DEC-2019

09:19 AM
From: Hoag, Katherine
To: "Ryan C. Templeton" Cc: paris.bryan@azdeq.gov Subject: RE: Question about ARS analyses in TSD
Date: Wednesday, April 03, 2013 1:29:00 PM



### Hi Ryan –

I understand – thanks much for the speedy response!

Kate

___________________________ Katherine Hoag, Ph.D. U.S. EPA, Region 9 Air Quality Analysis Office (AIR-7)
75 Hawthorne Street San Francisco, CA 94105 Hoag.Katherine@epa.gov (415) 972-3970

From: Ryan C. Templeton [mailto:Templeton.Ryan@azdeq.gov] Sent: Wednesday, April 03, 2013 1:25 PM To: Hoag, Katherine Cc: paris.bryan@azdeq.gov Subject: RE: Question about ARS analyses in TSD

Hey Kate,

Unfortunately, due to the time constraints, we were only able to run this comparison for these two pollutants (i.e. ammonium sulfate and coarse mass). We had originally hoped to perform it for all pollutants, but time did not permit.

Ryan Templeton Environmental Engineer Specialist Air Quality Division Arizona Department of Environmental Quality rct@azdeq.gov (602) 771-4230

From: Hoag, Katherine [ mailto:Hoag.Katherine@epa.gov ] Sent: Wednesday, April 03, 2013 1:00 PM To: Ryan C. Templeton Subject: Question about ARS analyses in TSD



### Hi Ryan –

I was just wondering if you had data on the single-pollutant 20% worst-days annual averages (analogous to Figs 19 and 23) for pollutants other than ammonium sulfate and coarse mass?

### Thanks!

Kate

___________________________ Katherine Hoag, Ph.D. U.S. EPA, Region 9 Air Quality Analysis Office (AIR-7)
75 Hawthorne Street San Francisco, CA 94105 Hoag.Katherine@epa.gov (415) 972-3970

NOTICE: This e-mail (and any attachments) may contain PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL information and is intended only for the use of the specific individual(s) to whom it is addressed. It may contain information that is privileged and confidential under state and federal law. This information may be used or disclosed only in accordance with law,and you may be subject to penalties under law for improper use or further disclosure of the information in this email and its attachments. If you have received this e-mail in error, please immediately notify the person named above by reply e-mail, and then delete the original e-mail. Thank you.
#### Robert J. HOOPER, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.

No. 27858.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Nov. 30, 1955.

*356No attorney on appeal for appellant.

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

PER CURIAM.

. This purports to be an appeal from a conviction for burglary, with punishment assessed at two years’ confinement in the penitentiary.

The record before us does not reflect that a notice of appeal was given and entered of record, as required by Art. 827, C.C.P.

In absence of a notice of appeal, the jurisdiction of this court does not attach.

The appeal is dismissed.
# 00 sNr$ 

## UNITED STATES 

## ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

## AGENCY > to 

# ift 4r e 

### REGION
I z 6 

## POST OFFICE 

## SQUARE SUITE 100 

## t 

# tWil te4 

## BOSTON MASSACHUSETTS 021093912 tIllhaliglawe 44 PRol 

### November 

## 5 2014 The Honorable Kirk Francis Chiefofthe Penobscot Nation Tribal Administration 12 

### Wabanaki 

## Way Indian Island 

# ME 04468 

## Re Acknowledgement ofReceipt of the Penobscot 

### Nations Application for

## EPA Approval to Administera 

### Water Quality Standards 

### Program under the Clean

### Water Act 

### Dear ChiefFrancis 

### Thank you for your letter

### ofOctober

## 8 2014 transmitting the Penobscot 

### Nations application for 

## EPA approval of its proposed water quality standards 

### program under the Clean 

### Water Act 

# CWA EPA Region I will review the application in order to 

### make a determination whether the Nation is eligible under section 

## 518e ofthe

# CWA for purposes ofimplementing the 

### Nations proposed water quality standards 

### program 

## and if 

### so whether the proposed standards 

### meet the

# CWAs criteria forapproval 

### As you are 

### aware 

## EPAs regulations provide 

## EPA with discretion to request further documentation necessary to support a

### Tribes eligibility application 

## We will inform

### you if 

### we believe such additional information is 

### needed and

## we also will be in touch with 

### you oryour representatives should 

## we have questions 

## We look forward to continuing to 

### work cooperatively with the Penobscot Nation 

### on the protection of

### human health and the environment in the 

### Tribes territories Should 

### you have questions for 

### us please contact Michael Stover of

## my staff at 

## 6179181123 Sincerely



# 2 H Curtis Spalding Regional Administrator



### cc 

## Hon Hilary

### Thompkins Solicitor Department of Interior 

### via email to marigracecarninitiPsoldoigov 

## Hon Kevin 

## Washburn Assistant Secretary for Indian Affairs 

### Department ofthe Interior

### via email to 

### ratanawaritobiagov