alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 10.4

                       SECOND AMENDMENT TO EXTEND LEASE
                       DATED NOVEMBER 23, 1994 ("LEASE")
                         BY AND BETWEEN BRUCE K. HOYT
                          AND GEERLINGS & WADE, INC.

Whereas the Lease of November 23, 1994 by and between Bruce K. Hoyt (the
"Lessor") and Geerlings & Wade, Inc. (the "Lessee") has an expiration of
February 28, 1998 (the "Lease") and the First Amendment to the Lease of March
18, 1998 has an expiration of February 28, 2001 and;

Whereas Lessor and Lessee desire to extend the term of this Lease for an
additional fifteen (15) months.

Now, therefore, in consideration of rents reserved and of the covenants and
agreements herein set forth, it is agreed that the Lease be hereby amended from
and after the date hereof as follows:

     1.   The Lease shall terminate on May 31, 2002.

     2.   Lessee shall pay to Lessor as Base Rent:

             Months 1 - 15 (March, 2001 thru May, 2002)  $1,750.00

     3.   Paragraph 11.1(1) shall be replaced with "Tenant shall fail to pay
          when due any installment of rent or any other payment pursuant to this
          Lease and the failure is not cured within five (5) days after written
          notice to Tenant."

     4.   In the third sentence of Paragraph 14.5 replace "...shall be deemed
          delivered (whether or not actually received) when deposited in" with
          "...shall be deemed delivered when received by the person to whom the
          notice is addressed and sent via."

     5.   In paragraph 14.7 strike the word "personally" and the sentence "In
          the event any representation or warranty is false, all persons who
          execute this Lease shall be liable, individually, as Tenant."

     6.   Lessee shall have the right to renew this Lease for a period of
          thirty-six (36) months.  Tenant shall notify Lessor ninety (90) days
          prior to the expiration of this Lease Amendment if they are not
          exercising this option.  The rental rate for this renewal period will
          be:

             a.  Months 1-12 (June, 2002 thru May, 2003) $1,750.00
             b.  Months 13-24 (June, 2003 thru May, 2004) $1,800.00
             c.  Months 25-36 (June, 2004 thru May, 2005) $1,850.00

     7.   All other terms and conditions of the Lease dated November 23, 1994
          shall remain unchanged.
<PAGE>

     Agreed and acknowledged the 28th day of February, 2001:


LESSEE:                                 LESSOR:

Geerlings & Wade, Inc.                  Bruce K. Hoyt Company

By: /s/ David R. Pearce                 By: /s/ Bruce K. Hoyt
    -------------------                     -----------------
David R. Pearce, President              Bruce K. Hoyt, Owner
(Print Name and Title)

                                      -2-
From: YOUNAN, JEAN-CLAUDE

To: Jordan, Ronald

Cc: Thomas Finseth; Hall, Jessica; EFFINGER, THOMAS N; Flanders, Phillip; SHIER, DARRELL; HAMILTON, J.

HAGOOD JR

Subject: RE: Data request for Wateree Station

Date: Tuesday, November 25, 2014 10:01:14 AM

Attachments: image001.png

SCANA Pilot Laboratory Data for ABMet Evoqua Pironox.xlsx

SCANA Pilot Laboratory Data for ABMet Pilot.xlsx

SCANA Pilot Laboratory Data for AnMBR Pilot.xlsx

SCANA Pilot Laboratory Data for Envirogen FBR MBR Pilot.xlsx

SCANA Pilot Laboratory Data for Liberty Hydro Pilot.xlsx

Ron

Attached are the 5 datasets containing all the water quality data for each technology. Also, I should

receive the Envirogen reports this afternoon. Once received I will FedEx three copies to you at the

following address:

USEPA Office of Water

1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW

Washington DC 20460

Please let me know if you have any questions.

Regards

Jean-Claude

From: Jordan, Ronald [mailto:Jordan.Ronald@epa.gov] 

Sent: Thursday, November 20, 2014 9:01 AM

To: YOUNAN, JEAN-CLAUDE

Cc: Thomas Finseth; Hall, Jessica; EFFINGER, THOMAS N; Flanders, Phillip

Subject: FW: Data request for Wateree Station

***This is an EXTERNAL email. Please do not click on a link or open any attachments

unless you are confident it is from a trusted source.

Good morning Jean-Claude,

I am following up on our conversations from yesterday. Based on those discussions, EPA is revising

the deadline for submitting the information specified in the attached letter dated October 30, 2014.

The revised deadline for submitting data requested in Item 10 of the letter, in MS Excel format, is

December 1, 2014. The revised deadline for submitting all other information requested by the

letter is December 12, 2014. I understand information for certain technologies may be available in

advance of that date and, if so, we would appreciate receiving it sooner than December 12.

Thank you for your efforts in this matter.

Regards,
Ron

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

Ron Jordan

USEPA Office of Water

Engineering & Analysis Division (4303T)

1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW

Washington DC 20460

(202) 566-1003

From: Flanders, Phillip 

Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2014 11:24 AM

To: teffinger@scana.com

Cc: YOUNAN, JEAN-CLAUDE; Jordan, Ronald; Thomas Finseth

Subject: Data request for Wateree Station

Dear Mr. Effinger,

I am sending a letter requesting information about pilot testing at Wateree Station. The letter also

asks SCANA to identify pilot testing at other plants. Please be sure to let me know if you have any

questions about the information EPA is requesting. We can also send a hard copy of the letter to

you.

Thank you,

Phillip Flanders, Ph.D.

Environmental Engineer

Engineering and Analysis Division

Office of Science and Technology

Office of Water

Mail Code 4303T

(202) 566-8323
Parraguirre 

Douglas 

Saitta 

J. 

, J. 

The petition satisfies the requirements of SCR 98(5). Accordingly, 

we approve attorney Carina Cilluffo's resignation. SCR 98(5)(a)(2). The 

petition is hereby granted. 

It is so ORDERED. 

/0A 

Pickering 

Gibbons 

LA-014.4.2tx 

Hardesty 

cc: David A. Clark, Bar Counsel 

Kimberly K. Farmer, Executive Director, State Bar of Nevada 

Carina Cilluffo 

Perry Thompson, Admissions Office, United States Supreme Court 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 

(0) 1947A 

2 

, C.J. 

J. 

J.
In the Senate of the United States, 

June 12, 2018. 

Resolved, That the bill from the House of Representatives (H.R. 2229) entitled ‘‘An Act to amend title 5, United 

States Code, to provide permanent authority for judicial review of certain Merit Systems Protection Board decisions relating to whistleblowers, and for other purposes.’’, do pass 

with the following 

AMENDMENT: 

On page 2, after line 16, insert the following: 

1 (c) RETROACTIVE EFFECTIVE DATE.—The 

2 amendments made by this section shall take effect as 

3 if enacted on November 26, 2017. 

Attest: 

Secretary. 
115TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H.R. 2229 

AMENDMENT
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster , Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

February 28, 2014

p0224 

# Order

Clerk February 28, 2014

147314(55)

COUNTY OF LENAWEE,

Plainti ff

- Appellant,

v SC: 147314

COA: 311255

Lenawee CC: 05

- 001960

- CC

DAVID WAGLEY, BARBARA

WAGLEY, BANK OF LENAWEE,

and PAVILLION MORTGAGE,

Defendants

- Appellees.

____________________________________/

On order of the Court, the motion for reconsideration of this Court’s November

25, 2013 order is considered, and it is DENIED, because it does not appear that the order

was entered erroneously.
HomeNRC LibraryDocument CollectionsResearch Information Letters

# Research Information Letters – 1982

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Wednesday, June 10, 2020

Section Navigation

#### Navigation

          - 2024
          - 2023
          - 2022
          - 2021
          - 2020
          - 2019
          - 2015
          - 2014
          - 2013
          - 2012
          - 2011
          - 2009
          - 2008
          - 2007
          - 2006
          - 2004
          - 2003
          - 2002
          - 2001
          - 2000
          - 1994
          - 1993
          - 1992
          - 1991
          - 1990
          - 1989
          - 1988
          - 1987
          - 1986
          - 1985
          - 1984
          - 1983
          - 1982
          - 1981
          - 1980
          - 1979
          - 1978
          - 1977
          - 1976
          - 1974
          - Contact Us About Research Information Letters

#### Spotlight

#### Choose a Section

                - The Commission
                - License Renewal Generic Environmental Review
                - Job Openings
                - Palisades Restart
                - Environmental Justice 
                - Pilgrim Water Releases
                - Monticello Tritium Issue
                - International Strategy 2021-2025
                - Tribal Liaison Program
                - MAP-X
                - Transformation at the NRC - Updated
                - OIG Hotline
                - Rulemaking Activity
                - Commission Documents
                - Advanced Reactors
                - Nuclear Security
                - Strategic Plan

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Wednesday, June 10, 2020
# C_2004201EN.01000901.xml

| 7.8.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 201/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.8.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 201/9

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale di Gorizia by order of that court of 7 April 2004 in the case of Azienda Agricola Roberto and Andrea Bogar against Agenzia per le erogazioni in Agricoltura (AGEA) and Cospalat Friuli Venezia Giulia

(Case C-224/04)

(2004/C 201/16)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by order of the Tribunale di Gorizia (District Court, Gorizia, Italy) of 7 April 2004, received at the Court Registry on 28 May 2004, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Azienda Agricola Roberto and Andrea Bogar against Agenzia per le erogazioni in Agricoltura (AGEA) and Cospalat Friuli Venezia Giulia on the following question:

| — | Since the legal nature of the additional levy on milk and milk products must therefore be determined in the light of the provisions of Community law under which that levy was introduced and the basic rules governing its application were established (in particular Regulation No 856/84 (1) of 31 March 1984 and Regulation No 3950/92 (2) of 28 December 1992), must Article 1 of Regulation (EEC) No 856/84 of 31 March 1984 and Articles 1 to 4 of Regulation No 3950/92 of 28 December 1992 be interpreted as meaning that the additional levy on milk and milk products is in the nature of an administrative penalty with the result that producers are liable to pay it only where quantities allocated have been exceeded by them intentionally or as a result of negligence? |
| --- | --- |

—

Since the legal nature of the additional levy on milk and milk products must therefore be determined in the light of the provisions of Community law under which that levy was introduced and the basic rules governing its application were established (in particular Regulation No 856/84 (1) of 31 March 1984 and Regulation No 3950/92 (2) of 28 December 1992), must Article 1 of Regulation (EEC) No 856/84 of 31 March 1984 and Articles 1 to 4 of Regulation No 3950/92 of 28 December 1992 be interpreted as meaning that the additional levy on milk and milk products is in the nature of an administrative penalty with the result that producers are liable to pay it only where quantities allocated have been exceeded by them intentionally or as a result of negligence?

1

2

---

(1)  
  OJ L 90 of 1. 4. 1984, p. 10.

1

(2)  
  OJ L 405 of 31. 12. 1992, p. 1.

2

---
Exhibit 32

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18. U.S.C. SECTION 1350

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE

SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

The undersigned executive officers of the Registrant hereby certify that this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2009
(the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and
results of operations of the Registrant.



By:

/s/ Michael J. DeeName:

Michael J. DeeTitle:

President and Chief Executive Officer/s/ William C. Wiedel, Jr.Name:

William C. Wiedel, Jr.Title:

Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer


November 12, 2009



29
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 Daou Systems, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I,
Daniel J. Malcolm, Chief Executive Officer and President 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.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                                     
|-------------------------------------
|/s/ Daniel J. Malcolm                
|Daniel J. Malcolm                    
|Chief Executive Officer and President
|May 14, 2004
# C_2004262EN.01001001.xml

| 23.10.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 262/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.10.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 262/10

---

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Fifth Chamber)

of 9 September 2004

in Case C-113/03: Commission of the European v French Republic (1)

1

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Telecommunications - Directive 97/33/CE - Number portability service - Non-geographic numbers)

(2004/C 262/19)

Language of the case: French

In Case C-113/03: action under Article 226 EC for failure to fulfil obligations, brought on 13 March 2003, Commission of the European Communities (Agents: C. Giolito and M. Shotter) v French Republic (Agents: G. de Bergues and C. Lemaire) — the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of: C. Gulmann (Rapporteur), President of the Chamber, S. von Bahr and R. Silva de Lapuerta, Judges; F.G. Jacobs, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on 9 September 2004, in which it:

| 1. | Declares that, by failing to ensure that portability of non-geographic numbers was available on 1 January 2000 at the latest, as required by Article 12(5) of Directive 97/33/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 June 1997 on interconnection in Telecommunications with regard to ensuring universal service and interoperability through application of the principles of Open Network Provision (ONP), as amended by Article 1(2) of Directive 98/61/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 September 1998 with regard to operator number portability and carrier pre-selection, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Declares that, by failing to ensure that portability of non-geographic numbers was available on 1 January 2000 at the latest, as required by Article 12(5) of Directive 97/33/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 June 1997 on interconnection in Telecommunications with regard to ensuring universal service and interoperability through application of the principles of Open Network Provision (ONP), as amended by Article 1(2) of Directive 98/61/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 September 1998 with regard to operator number portability and carrier pre-selection, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

| 2. | Orders the French Republic to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the French Republic to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 113 of 10.5.2003.

1

---
Exhibit 10.2  AMENDMENT TO LOAN AGREEMENT
CoBank, ACB  Borrower:
  Application No. _________ DAKOTA
GROWERS PASTA COMPANY
CARRINGTON, NORTH DAKOTA The parties hereby agree to amend Loan Agreement, Note
Nos. A637S01A / 39181NP / 39182NP / 33061 / 35062, as follows: 1.
  Seasonal Loan, Note No.
  A637S01A, in the amount of $15,000,000.00 is hereby replaced by Seasonal
  Loan, Note No. A637S01B, in the amount of $19,000,000.00.  All references to Seasonal Loan, Note
  A637S01A, in the amount of $15,000,000.00 are hereby deemed to be references
  to Seasonal Loan, Note No. A637S01B, in the amount of $19,000,000.00.2.
  Borrower agrees to pay
  the Bank an amendment fee of $5,000.00 payable upon execution of this
  Amendment. All other terms and conditions remain as stated in the
Loan Agreement. BY DIRECTION of the loan committee this January 3, 2001. CoBank, ACBBy
  _________________________Its
  _________________________ ACCEPTED AND AGREED TO:

DAKOTA GROWERS PASTA COMPANY
CARRINGTON, NORTH DAKOTA



By  ____________________________Its  ____________________________Date____________________________





ACKNOWLEDGED BY AND AGREED TO:

PRIMO PIATTO, INC.
NEW HOPE, MINNESOTA



By  ____________________________Its  ____________________________Date____________________________

NONNEGOTIABLE NOTE OF

DAKOTA GROWERS PASTA COMPANY

CARRINGTON, NORTH DAKOTA

Note No. A637S01B

$19,000,000.00
  Date: January 3, 2001For value
received, the undersigned (Maker) promises to pay to CoBank, ACB (the “Bank”),
at its office in Denver, Colorado, the sum of Nineteen Million and no/100
Dollars ($19,000,000.00) with interest on the unpaid balance at a variable rate
of interest which may increase or decrease as the Bank may, from time to time,
determine as provided in the Loan Agreement dated December 5, 2000, as the same
may have been or may be amended from time to time, between the Maker and the
Bank. The unpaid balance of this note, with accrued interest, and required
equity purchases, may be paid at any time subject to a prepayment penalty, if
any, in accordance with the terms of the Loan Agreement between the Bank and
Maker.

This note
shall at all times evidence and constitute prima facie proof of the
indebtedness of the Maker to the Bank or its successors or assigns, of such
amount of money (not in excess of the amount of the principal indebtedness
stated above plus accrued interest and required equity purchases) as shown to
be owing by the records of the Bank, or its successors or assigns.

In the
event that suit is brought on this note, the Maker agrees to pay such
reasonable attorneys' fees and costs of collection as permitted by law to be
charged.

The Maker
hereby waives presentment for payment, demand, protest, notice of protest, and
notice of dishonor and nonpayment of this note.

If
requested by the Bank, its successors or assigns, the Maker agrees to deliver
in substitution for this note, a negotiable note for the amount of the unpaid
balance of Maker's indebtedness, plus accrued interest and required equity
purchases.

DAKOTA GROWERS PASTA COMPANYBy_______________________________Its PresidentBy________________________________Its Secretary
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

MYRON L. HUNT , Defendant Below, Appellant,

v. STATE OF DELAWARE, Plaintiff Below, Appellee. § § § No. 175, 2020 § § Court Below

— Superior Court § of the State of Delaware § § Cr. ID No. 1908019552 (S ) § § §
Submitted: October 14 , 2020 Decided: October 26 , 2020
Before SEITZ, Chief Justice; VA LIHURA and VAUGHN , Justices.
O R D E R
After consideration of the brief and motion to withdraw filed by the appellant’s counsel under Supreme Court Rule 26(c), the State’s response, and the
record on appeal , it appears to the Court that: (1) On February 12, 2020, a Superior Court jury found the appellant, Myron L. Hunt, guilty of drug dealing (cocaine) in a Tier 2 quantity plus an aggravating factor (commission of the offense in an automobile) and possession of drug paraphernalia. On April 23 , 2020, t he Superior Court sentenced Hunt for the drug

- dealing offense to twenty

- five years of imprisonment , suspended after three years for eighteen months of Level III probation, and for possession of drug paraphernalia to one year of imprisonment, suspe nded for one year of Level III2

probation

. The Superior Court later corrected the sentence for possession of drug paraphernalia to six months of imprisonment, suspended for one year of Level III probation. This is Hunt’s direct appeal. (2) On appeal, Hunt ’s c ounsel has filed a brief and a motion to withdraw under Supreme Court Rule 26(c). Hunt ’s counsel asserts that, based upon a
conscientious review of the record and the law , the appeal is wholly without merit

. In his statement filed under Rule 26(c), couns el indicates that he informed Hunt of the provisions of Rule 26(c) and provided him with a copy of the motion to withdraw and the accompanying brief. Counsel also informed Hunt of his right to submit points he wanted this Court to consider on appeal

. Hunt has not submitted any points
for the Court’s consideration. The State has responded to the Rule 26(c) brief and argues that the Superior Court’s judgment should be affirmed

. (3) When reviewing a motion to withdraw and an accompa nying brief
under Rule 26 (c), this Court must be satisfied that the appellant’s counsel has made a conscientious examination of the record and the law for arguable claims. 1 This
Court must also conduct its own revi ew of the record and determine whether “ the appeal is indeed so fr ivolous that it may be decided without an adversary presentation.” 2

1 Penson v. Ohio , 488 U.S. 75, 82

- 83 (1988); McCoy v. Court of Appeals of Wisconsin , 486 U.S. 429, 442 (1988); Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967). 2 Penson , 488 U.S. at 8 2

.3

(4) The Court has reviewed the record carefully and concluded that the appeal is wholly without merit and devoid of any arguably appealable issue

. We
also are satisfied that counsel made a conscientious effort to examine the record and the law and properly determined that Hunt could not raise a meritorious claim on appeal. NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the Superior
Court is AFFIRMED. The motion to withdraw is moot.

BY THE COURT:

/s/ K aren L

. V alihura

__________________ Justice
Exhibit
32.1











Certification
of Chief Executive Officer





Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as
created by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned
officer of Tanger Properties Limited Partnership (the “Operating
Partnership”) hereby certifies, to such officer’s knowledge,
that:





(i)the accompanying Quarterly Report on
Form 10-Q of the Operating Partnership for the quarter ended March 31, 2009 (the
“Report”) fully
complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d), as applicable,
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and





(ii)the information contained in the
Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and
results of operations of the Operating Partnership.








Date:
      May 14, 2009
            /s/
      Steven B. TangerSteven
      B. Tanger
              President
      and Chief Executive Officer of Tanger GP Trust, Sole General Partner of
      the Registrant