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

$9,000,000.                                                          May 5, 1998



                  FOR VALUE RECEIVED, the undersigned, COVOL TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,
a Delaware corporation ("Covol") hereby  unconditionally  promises to pay to the
order of MOUNTAINEER  SYNFUEL,  L.L.C.,  a Delaware  limited  liability  company
("Mountaineer"),  in  lawful  money  of the  United  States  and in  immediately
available funds, the principal amount of $9,000,000,  or, if less, the aggregate
amounts loaned by Mountaineer to Covol as provided in Section 11.10 of the Asset
Purchase  Agreement dated May 5, 1998 between Covol and Mountaineer (the "APA"),
which sum shall be due and payable and paid to Mountaineer on the earlier of the
Closing Date (as defined in the APA) or January 1, 1999.

                  The holder of this promissory note is authorized to record, on
the  schedule  annexed  hereto and made a part hereof,  or on other  appropriate
records of Mountaineer, the date and amount of each amount loaned by Mountaineer
to Covol under  Section  11.10 of the APA;  provided,  however,  that failure by
Mountaineer  to make any  recordation  or other error therein shall not limit or
otherwise affect the obligations of Covol hereunder. This promissory note is the
promissory note referred to in Section 11.10 of the APA.

                  The obligation of Covol is absolute and  unconditional  to pay
the  principal of this  promissory  note at the offices of  Mountaineer,  at the
time, and in the currency herein  prescribed.  Covol waives any and all right to
assert any defense (other than performance hereunder),  set-off, counterclaim or
crossclaim of any nature  whatsoever with respect to this promissory note or the
obligations  of  Covol  hereunder  in  any  action  or  proceeding   brought  by
Mountaineer to collect this promissory note, or any portion hereof. Covol waives
presentment,  demand,  notice,  protest  and all other  demands  and  notices in
connection with the delivery, acceptance, performance, default or enforcement of
this promissory note.

                  THIS NOTE SHALL BE GOVERNED BY, AND CONSTRUED AND  INTERPRETED
IN  ACCORDANCE  WITH,  THE  LAWS  OF NEW  YORK,  WITHOUT  GIVING  EFFECT  TO ANY
PROVISIONS  THEREOF  THAT PERMIT OR REQUIRE THE  APPLICATION  OF THE LAWS OF ANY
OTHER JURISDICTION.


                            COVOL TECHNOLOGIES, INC.


                                                     By:
                                                           Name:
                                                           Title:
HomeNRC LibraryDocument CollectionsNUREG-Series PublicationsPublications Prepared by NRC StaffStrategic Plan (NUREG-1614)

# Strategic  Plan: Fiscal Years 2008–2013 (NUREG-1614, Volume 4)

On this page:
        - Publication Information
        - Abstract

Download complete document
        - NUREG-1614, Volume 4 (PDF - 2.06 MB)  |  Spanish Translation (PDF - 221 KB)
        Strategic Plan At-A-Glance

## Publication Information

**Manuscript Completed**: January 2008**Date Published**: February 2008

Office of the Chief Financial Officer U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555

Availability Notice

## Abstract

The Strategic Plan: Fiscal Years 2008–2013 describes the NRC's mission and establishes the Commission's strategic direction by defining the strategic goals and outcomes the agency intends to pursue.

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Wednesday, March 24, 2021
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                       1,245,932
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                9,073,679
<ALLOWANCES>                                 2,668,213
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             8,508,396
<PP&E>                                      16,515,483
<DEPRECIATION>                               7,777,298
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              62,763,123
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       14,236,097
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        23,921
<OTHER-SE>                                  48,503,105
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                62,763,123
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            34,412,364
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               57,512,393
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             263,905
<INCOME-PRETAX>                           (23,363,934)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                              (23,363,934)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (1.10)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (1.10)


</TABLE>
##### 



Exhibit 31.02
 Certification Under
Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
      (a)
    
    Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such
disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to
ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its
consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities,
particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;(b)
    
    Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused
such internal control over financial reporting to be designed under our
supervision, to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of
financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements for external
purposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles;(c)
    
    Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls
and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the
effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the
period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and(d)
    
    Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal
control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most
recent fiscal quarter (the registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an
annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to
materially affect, the registrants internal control over financial reporting;
and
  (a)
    
    All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design
or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably
likely to adversely affect the registrants ability to record, process, summarize
and report financial information; and(b)
    
    Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or
other employees who have a significant role in the registrants internal control
over financial reporting.
  /s/ Darrel SlackDarrel SlackChief Financial Officer(Principal Financial Officer)
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

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

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT 0F 2002

In connection with the Annual Report of Signature Leisure, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-KSB for the period ending December 31, 2003, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Stephen W. Carnes, President, Director and Principal Accounting 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 result of operations of the Company.

|\s\ Stephen W. Carnes       
|----------------------------
|                            
|Stephen W. Carnes           
|President                   
|Principal Executive Officer 
|Principal Accounting Officer
|                            
|March 30, 2004              

---
## SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

## Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

**1128 CA 13-00511**  PRESENT: SCUDDER, P.J., PERADOTTO, CARNI, SCONIERS, AND WHALEN, JJ.

ANDREW PRESTIGIACOMO, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT,

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

JUNE N. AMES, ET AL., DEFENDANTS, BARBARA SPRINGER, ET AL., DEFENDANTS-RESPONDENTS.

MOYER AND RUSSI, P.C., WEBSTER (MICHAEL STEINBERG OF COUNSEL), FOR PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT.

DAVIDSON FINK LLP, ROCHESTER (CURTIS A. JOHNSON OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANTS-RESPONDENTS.

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Ontario County (Craig J. Doran, A.J.), entered August 3, 2012. The order granted the motion of a group of defendants, who are identified as the “Canandaigua Lake Rights Defendants,” to dismiss the complaint against them and denied the cross motion of plaintiff for summary judgment.

It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: In this action to quiet title in connection with an easement, plaintiff appeals from an order that granted the motion of a group of defendants, who are identified as the “Canandaigua Lake Rights Defendants” (defendants), to dismiss the complaint against them and denied plaintiff’s cross motion for summary judgment. Contrary to plaintiff’s contention, we conclude that Supreme Court properly granted defendants’ motion inasmuch as it was based on documentary evidence, i.e., a deed, conclusively establishing a defense to plaintiff’s complaint as a matter of law ( see CPLR 3211 [a] [1]; Thirty One Dev., LLC v Cohen , 104 AD3d 1195, 1196; see generally Camperlino v Town of Manlius Mun. Corp. , 78 AD3d 1674, 1676, lv dismissed 17 NY3d 734; Blangiardo v Horstmann , 32 AD3d 876, 879, lv dismissed 8 NY3d 939). In opposition, plaintiff failed to assert any ground to defeat defendants’ motion. In particular, plaintiff failed to raise a question of fact that the language of the deed with respect to the easement contains conditions subsequent that resulted in reversion or forfeiture of the grant of the easement ( see Stratis v Doyle , 176 AD2d 1096, 1098; Koshian v Kirchner , 139 AD2d 942, 943; Fausett v Guisewhite , 16 AD2d 82, 86-87). Plaintiff’s cross motion for summary judgment seeking a ruling that the easement is, inter alia, “no longer legally valid” was premature ( see CPLR 3212 [a]) and,**-2- 1128 CA 13-00511** 
in any event, lacked merit.

Entered: November 15, 2013 Frances E. Cafarell Clerk of the Court
##### 



EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION UNDER SECTION 906 OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the periodic report of
Endocare, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for
the period ended March 31, 2003 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (the
Report), I, Craig T. Davenport, Chief Executive
Officer and Chairman of the Board 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 dates
    and for the periods indicated.

This Certification has not been, and shall not be
deemed, filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission.



| |                                                      
| | -----------------------------------------------------
| | /s/ CRAIG T. DAVENPORT                               
| |                                                      
| | Craig T. Davenport                                   
| | Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of the
    Board

Date: June 28, 2004
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 Annual Report of Prevention Insurance.com (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the period ended April 30, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Alan P. Donenfeld, certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge and belief:





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.








August 5, 2010
By:
/s/ ALAN P. DONENFELDAlan P. DonenfeldPresident and Director

Principal Executive Officer
### Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h Marilyn Kell y Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathawa y Mary Beth Kell y Brian K. Zahra,

J ustices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_______________________________________ __ Clerk March 8, 2011

p0228 

# Order

March 8, 2011

142068

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 142068 COA: 293131 Ingham CC: 08-000199-FC JAMES HARRISON FOX, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application fo r leave to appeal the September 21, 2010 judgment of the Court of Appeals is consid ered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1999             JUN-30-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999             JUL-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999             MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                         104,982                 104,982
<SECURITIES>                                    45,088                  45,088
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0                       0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0                       0
<INVENTORY>                                          0                       0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               150,849                 150,849
<PP&E>                                          34,787                  34,787
<DEPRECIATION>                                  12,625                  12,625
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 182,415                 182,415
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            6,192                   6,192
<BONDS>                                        266,966                 266,966
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0                       0
<PREFERRED>                                         21                      21
<COMMON>                                            17                      17
<OTHER-SE>                                    (92,737)                (92,737)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   182,415                 182,415
<SALES>                                            107                     227
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 2,066                   7,177
<CGS>                                                0                       0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   21,113                  54,492
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0                       0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               8,583                  24,991
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (27,630)                (72,306)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0                       0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (27,630)                (27,630)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0                       0
<CHANGES>                                            0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (27,630)                (27,630)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (1.62)                  (4.27)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (1.62)                  (4.27)
        

</TABLE>
sugar (NH4)2SO4

NH3

separation of cell biomass cell broth

diamine solution

concentration

adjust pH base

salt

wastewater

DN5 product DN5 bioconversion

concentration 

### 1,5-Pentanediamine Process (Non-CONFIDENTIAL) distilled water recycle
# C_2015070EN.01000201.xml

| 27.2.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 70/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.2.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 70/2

---

COUNCIL DECISION

of 17 February 2015

appointing three members of the European Statistical Governance Advisory Board

(2015/C 70/03)

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

Having regard to Decision No 235/2008/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 March 2008 establishing the European Statistical Governance Advisory Board (1), and in particular Article 3 thereof,

1

Having regard to the opinion of the European Commission,

Whereas:

| (1) | On 24 January 2012 the Council adopted Decision 2012/59/EU (2) appointing three members of the European Statistical Governance Advisory Board (‘the Board’) for a period of three years from 23 March 2012. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

On 24 January 2012 the Council adopted Decision 2012/59/EU (2) appointing three members of the European Statistical Governance Advisory Board (‘the Board’) for a period of three years from 23 March 2012.

2

| (2) | It is therefore necessary to appoint three new members to take office upon expiry of those terms of office. In order to harmonise the terms of office of all new Board members, their terms of office should begin on 1 February 2015. |
| --- | --- |

(2)

It is therefore necessary to appoint three new members to take office upon expiry of those terms of office. In order to harmonise the terms of office of all new Board members, their terms of office should begin on 1 February 2015.

| (3) | According to Article 3(2) of Decision No 235/2008/EC, the members of the Board are to be selected from among experts possessing outstanding competence in the field of statistics, |
| --- | --- |

(3)

According to Article 3(2) of Decision No 235/2008/EC, the members of the Board are to be selected from among experts possessing outstanding competence in the field of statistics,

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Article 1

The following persons are hereby appointed as the members representing the Council in the European Statistical Governance Advisory Board for a period of three years from 1 February 2015:

| — | Mr Günter KOPSCH, |
| --- | --- |

—

Mr Günter KOPSCH,

| — | Ms Pilar MARTÍN-GUZMÁN, |
| --- | --- |

—

Ms Pilar MARTÍN-GUZMÁN,

| — | Mr Enrico GIOVANNINI. |
| --- | --- |

—

Mr Enrico GIOVANNINI.

Article 2

This Decision shall enter into force on the third day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.

Official Journal of the European Union

Done at Brussels, 17 February 2015.

For the Council

The President

J. REIRS

---

(1)  OJ L 73, 15.3.2008, p. 17.

1

(2)  Council Decision 2012/59/EU of 24 January 2012 appointing three members of the European Statistical Governance Advisory Board (OJ L 30, 2.2.2012, p. 17).

2

---
#### Schmuhl, Respondent, vs. Milwaukee Electric Railway & Light Company, Appellant.

*March 18*

April *9, 1914.*

*Parties: Pleading: Gross-complaint: Discretion: Appealable orders.*

1. In an action for malicious assault upon a passenger by a streetcar conductor in defendant’s employ, it would have been a proper exercise of the trial court’s discretion, upon defendant’s motion, to require that the conductor be made a party defendant and to permit a cross-complaint to be served upon him as provided in sec. 2656a, Stats.

2. An order denying a motion to bring in a person who may be a proper but is not a necessary party is_ not appealable.

Appeal from an order of the circuit court for Milwaukee county: W. J. Tuehee, Circuit Judge.

*Dismissed.*

The complaint in this action charged the defendant with liability for wrongful and malicious assault upon the plaintiff by a street-car conductor in the defendant’s employ while plaintiff was riding as a passenger on one of its cars in the city of Milwaukee. Upon service of the complaint the defendant moved the court for an order requiring plaintiff to make the conductor who committed the assault a party defendant. This motion was denied, and defendant then moved the court for leave to serve its proposed cross-complaint on said employee, and asked the court, to prescribe the method and manner of serving it. This motion was denied, and from the order denying the motion this appeal is taken.

Eor the appellant there was a brief by *Van*Dyke, *Bose-*crantz, *Shaw & Van*Dyke, and oral argument by *James D. Shaw.*

*William L.*Tibbs, for the respondent.

Bashes, J.

We do not see how the presence of the conductor as a party defendant could prejudice the plaintiff or seriously complicate the issues to be tried, and we think it *586would have been a proper exercise of discretion on the part of the trial court to have ordered that he be brought in as a party and that a cross-complaint be served upon him as provided by sec. 2656a, Stats. This statute in form confers a discretionary power on circuit courts, and we have very recently decided that it does not go farther in fact. *Kresge v. Maryland C. Co.*154 Wis. 627, 143 N. W. 668. Mention of this statute is not made in the opinion, but it was called to the attention of the court and was considered when the case was decided.

This court has often determined that an order denying a motion to bring in a person who may be a proper but is not a necessary party is not appealable. *Reinhart v. Fire Asso.*93 Wis. 452, 67 N. W. 701; *Cook v.*Menasha, 95 Wis. 215, 70 N. W. 289; *Wechselberg v.*Michleson, 105 Wis. 452, 81 N. W. 657; *State v. Wis. T. Co.*134 Wis. 335, 341, 113 N. W. 944. These cases rule the present one, and it must be held that the order is not appealable.

*By the Court.*— Appeal dismissed.