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

[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 101 (Friday, May 24, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Page 31626]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-12455]

[[Page 31626]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

[Public Notice 8330]

Notice of Public Meeting of the President's Emergency Plan for 
AIDS Relief (PEPFAR) Scientific Advisory Board

SUMMARY: In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), 
the PEPFAR Scientific Advisory Board (hereinafter referred to as ``the 
Board'') will hold a conference call on Thursday, June 20th at 10:00 
am-12:00 pm. The call will be operator assisted and is open to the 
public.
    The meeting will be hosted by the Office of the U.S. Global AIDS 
Coordinator, and led by Dr. Amy DuBois, who is the Acting Director of 
the Office of Research and Science, and the Designated Federal Officer 
for the SAB.
    The Board serves the Global AIDS Coordinator in a solely advisory 
capacity concerning scientific, implementation, and policy issues 
related to the global response to HIV/AIDS. These issues are of concern 
as they influence the priorities and direction of PEPFAR evaluation and 
research, the content of national and international strategies and 
implementation, and the role of PEPFAR in international discourse 
regarding an evidence-based HIV response. Topics for the meeting will 
include an update on PEPFAR-funded combination prevention studies and 
implementation science awards; recommendations to Ambassador Goosby on 
lubricant safety, and data management.
    The public may call into this conference call at the following 
number: (800) 260-0702 with Confirmation Number: 293699. To ensure that 
an adequate number of lines are provided, please pre-register by 
emailing PEPFAR_SAB@state.gov. To view the documents which will be 
discussed on this call, please visit http://www.pepfar.gov/sab/index.htm. If you would like to submit a written public comment, please 
email your comments to PEPFAR_SAB@state.gov. While the call is open to 
public attendance, the Board will determine procedures for public 
participation.
    For further information about the meeting, please contact Dr. Amy 
DuBois, Acting Director of the Office of Research and Science, Office 
of the U.S. Global AIDS Coordinator at (202) 663-2706 or 
duboisa@state.gov.

    Dated: May 20, 2013.
Amy Dubois,
Acting Director, Office of Research and Science, Office of the U.S. 
Global AIDS Coordinator, Department of State.
[FR Doc. 2013-12455 Filed 5-23-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4710-10-P
```
April 18, 2013


 


		Re:	Eos Petro, Inc. Loan



 


Dear Vicki P. Rollins:


 


Reference is made to the Loan Agreement
dated June 18, 2012, as subsequently amended (the “Loan”) by and between Eos Petro, Inc. (“Eos”)
and Vicki P. Rollins (“Lender,” collectively referred to with Eos as the “Parties”).


 


You are hereby requested in this letter
(this “Letter Agreement”) to indicate your agreement to, and acknowledgement of, the following:


 


		1.	The Parties hereby agree that the maturity date of the Loan is extended to August 31, 2013.



		2.	The Parties hereby acknowledge that the following is a complete and accurate summary of the amount
loaned to Eos under the Loan, the interest accruing thereon, the maturity date of the Loan, as amended by this Letter Agreement,
and any consideration given or promised to be given to Lender under the Loan through the date first written above:



On June 18, 2012, Eos entered into the Loan to obtain
a $350,000 loan from Lender. The maturity date of the Loan is August 31, 2013, and the Loan and accrues interest at 6% per annum.
In the event that the Loan is not repaid on or before the maturity date, all unpaid principal and accrued unpaid interest thereon
will begin to accrue interest at a rate of 18% per annum. Eos agreed to issue to Lender 175,000 warrants to purchase common stock
with an exercise price of $2.50 and a two-year term. These warrants were converted into warrants of Cellteck, Inc., Eos’
parent company, with substantially similar terms on October 12, 2012, pursuant to the terms of a merger agreement between Cellteck,
Inc. and Eos.


 


Please acknowledge your agreement to, and
acceptance of, the foregoing by signing this Letter Agreement below. Please return a signed copy to the undersigned, it being agreed
that this Letter Agreement may be executed in counterparts and signatures received by electronic transmission shall have the same
effect as original signatures.


 


Sincerely,


 


NIKOLAS KONSTANT, signing in his

individual capacity
and as the CEO of Eos

Petro, Inc., a Delaware corporation


 


	/s/ Nikolas Konstant	 


 


ACKNOWLEDGED AND AGREED TO ON APRIL 18, 2013 BY: 


	 	 
	Vicki P. Rollins
	 	 
	By:	 /s/ Vicki Rollins	 
	Name:	Vicki P. Rollins	 


 




    	Page 1
EXHIBIT 32.a

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 Boston Capital Tax Credit Fund II L.P. (the "Fund") on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, John P. Manning, Principal Executive Officer of the Fund's general partner, Boston Capital Associates II, L.L.C., 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, after due inquiry:



|(1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a)-15 or 15(d)-15 of the Securities and 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 Fund.



|                  |  |                            
|----------------- |  | ---------------------------
|Date:             |  |                            
|November 16, 2009 |  | /s/ John P. Manning        
|                  |  |                            
|                  |  | John P. Manning            
|                  |  | Principal Executive Officer
|                  |  |                            
|                  |  |                            



A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other

document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to the Fund and will be retained by the Fund and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Exhibit 23.4


                   CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PETROLEUM ENGINEERS

     Ryder  ScotT  Co.  hereby  consents  to the use of its oil and gas  reserve
reports in the Form S-4 Registration Statement (the "Registration  Statemen") to
be filed with the Securities and Exchange  Commission on approximately  July 11,
1997 by Magnum Hunter Resoures, Inc., Magnum Hunter Production, Inc., Hunter Gas
Gathering,  Inc., Gruy Petroleum  Management Co., Conmag Energy  Corporation and
Rampart  Petroleum,  Inc.  and to the  reference  to our firm under the captions
"Prospectus   Summary,"   "Business  and   Properties"   and  "Experts"  in  the
Registration Statement.


                                             RYDER SCOTT CO.


                                             /s/ John R. Warner
                                        BY:----------------------------------
                                             John R. Warner, P.E.
                                             Group Vice President
July 11, 1997
LAWRENCE BERKELEY LABORATORY

Bldg: 90 Room: 4000 510 486-6493

April 13, 1995

MEMORANDUM

TO: Terry Logee, DOE

FROM: Isaac Turiel, LBL

RE: Meeting with Bob Wisbey, Advance Transformer Co.

On April 11 and 12 1995, Bob Wisbey of Advance Transformer visited the Lawrence

Berkeley Labor at' `> to clarify ' some me of

the 7., 3 _1

, 1 9Q

^

C

1 V AE

ATE

f1

f

to A comments or, the

fluorescent lamp ballast engineering analysis. Mr. Wisbey was representing the NEMA

ballast section. Attendees from LBL were:

Barbara Atkinson

Peter Biermayer

Jim Logan

Francis Rubinstein

Isaac Turiel

The items discussed were:

1. Source data for determination of watts, BEF and BF for each lamp/ballast combination

2. Methodology for calculation of normalized fixture watts

3. Three and four-lamp product classes

With respect to item 1, we compared the NEMA database to the LBL database. The

differences between the databases were found to be slight. The NEMA database will be

used for the LBL reanalysis because it is more up to date in terms of excluding ballasts

that have been removed from the market.

With respect to item 2, we discussed corrections to fixture wattage and light output. The

NEMA approach was compared to the revised LBL approach (as developed by Francis

Rubinstein). For the example studied, we found that the two approaches yielded similar

corrections. We decided to use the LBL approach, which is based on the Advanced

Lighting Guidelines. (ALG). LBL will now correct for the impact on light output when

various lamp/ballast combinations are placed in a fixture.

With respect to item 3, NEMA stated that engineering/economic analysis of 1 and 2-lamp

Lamp Ballasts Workshop March 17, 1995 Comment 16
April 13, 1995

ballasts should be performed for these ballasts in 3 and 4-lamp fixtures and that 1 and 2-

lamp magnetic ballasts should be compared with 1 and 2-lamp electronic ballasts. LBL

stated that they will use the LRI survey to determine market shares of various ballast

types and fixture types by number of lamps.

Lamp Ballasts Workshop March 17, 1995 Comment 16
#### HOLLIS W. BUTTON, Complainant, Appellee, *vs.*JOSEPH J. SCHROYER, Defendant, Appellant.

APPEAL IN EQUITY PROM GREEN CIRCUIT COURT.

A court of equity has jurisdiction in cases arising out of contracts for the sale and conveyance of real estate, to relieve against forfeiture, and to foreclose the equity of the delinquent vendee.

The relation of the parties to “title bonds” or “land contracts” (as these instruments are frequently called), is analogous to that of an equitable mortgagor and mortgagee for purchase money.

Although a court of equity will relieve against a forfeiture for non-compliance on the part of the vendee in the payment of the purchase money at the day, yet it will decree payment within a reasonable time, or foreclosure of the right to redeem.

. The complainant entered into a -written contract with the defendant for the sale of a certain tract of land. A part of the purchase money was paid down, the remainder to be paid in installments, and when fully paid, a conveyance of the title in fee simple to be made. Some of the installments of purchase money remained unpaid after they had become due and payable by the terms of the contract (the vendee being in possession), and the vendor filed his bill to foreclose or extinguish the equity of redemption of the vendee. The Circuit Court made the usual decree of foreclosure and sale, as in case of mortgage, and the defendant appealed.

*Per Curiam.*

This is an ordinary case of a contract for the sale and conveyance of real estate, part of the j urchase money having been paid and possession taken, and the title withheld as security for the remainder of the purchase money. There is no doubt but that a court of equity has jurisdiction in such cases, as *599well to relieve tbe vendor as tbe vendee npon failure to comply. Tbe relation between tbe parties is analogous to that of equitable mortgagor and mortgagee. Tbe former bas an equity of redemption, tbe latter bas tbe correlative ngbt of foreclosure. A court of equity will relieve against forfeiture from non-compliance on tbe part of tbe vendee, but will enforce performance within a reasonable time.

But as tbe title did not pass by tbe contract, but remained in tbe vendor, we tbink tbe decree of sale erroneous. Tbe proper decree in sucb cases is, that tbe money due upon tbe contract be paid within sucb reasonable time as tbe court may direct, or that tbe vendee be foreclosed of bis equity of redemption. ' .

Decree reversed and cause remanded.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                          23,099
<SECURITIES>                                    24,113
<RECEIVABLES>                                   20,739
<ALLOWANCES>                                     4,229
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                71,454
<PP&E>                                          24,971
<DEPRECIATION>                                  14,378
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  93,881
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           56,132
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           126
<OTHER-SE>                                      35,217
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    93,881
<SALES>                                         32,437
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               122,005
<CGS>                                           14,518
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   54,907
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                71,110
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 2,679
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (4,058)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (1,698)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (2,360)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (2,360)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.19)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.19)


</TABLE>
<
EXHIBIT 31.2
                  CERTIFICATION OF THE CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

     I, Linda Bryson, Chief Financial Officer of Quantum Companies, Inc. certify
that:

(1) I have reviewed this periodic report on Form 10-QSB of Quantum Companies,
Inc;

(2) Based on my knowledge, this periodic report does not contain any untrue
statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make
the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements
were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this periodic
report;

(3) Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this periodic report, fairly present in all material
respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the
registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this periodic report;

(4) The registrant's other certifying officers and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and we have:

     a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures 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 periodic report is being
     prepared;

     b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and
     procedures as of the date within 90 days prior to filing date of this
     periodic report (the "Evaluation Date"); and

     c)presented in this periodic report our conclusions about the effectiveness
     of the disclosure controls and procedures based on our evaluation as of the
     Evaluation Date;

(5) The registrant's other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on
our most recent evaluation, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee
of registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent
function):

     a) all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal
     controls which could adversely affect the registrant's ability to record,
     summarize and report financial data and have identified for the
     registrant's auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; and

     b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
     employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal
     controls; and
<PAGE>

(6) The registrant's other certifying officers and I have indicated in this
periodic report whether or not there were significant changes in internal
controls or in other factors that could significantly affect internal controls
subsequent to the date of our most recent evaluation, including any corrective
actions with regard to significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.


Date: November 10, 2004           /s/ Linda Bryson
                                   -----------------
                                  Linda Bryson
                                  Chief Financial Officer
<PAGE>
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3819 Introduced in House (IH)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 3819

    To extend the commercial space transportation liability regime.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            October 15, 2009

Mr. Gordon of Tennessee (for himself, Mr. Hall of Texas, Ms. Giffords, 
and Mr. Olson) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                  Committee on Science and Technology

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
    To extend the commercial space transportation liability regime.

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

SECTION 1. COMMERCIAL SPACE TRANSPORTATION LIABILITY REGIME EXTENSION.

    Section 70113(f) of title 49, United States Code, is amended by 
striking ``December 31, 2009.'' and inserting ``December 31, 2012.''.
                                 <all>
```
*Present*— Chancellors Hutsos, Mathews and Ruteeegs.

#### Ladson and Rose vs. Ward and Blake, executors of F. Rose.

MARCH, 1793.

«ase assesnr.

BEbE.EE BOOK, P. 109.

This was a bill filed for the recovery of certain legacies, and the settlement of an estate in the hands of the execu - tors.

*315A father he. qu.eaths legacies to tl'.s children of a deceasedsonr This shall not be con-r.trued to be in salis&c* tion of a debt due by tin; father to the son’s estate,

There were many points disputed in this case, but they were chiefly questions of fact, and of account, and involved no point of any importance but one. It was as follows: Francis Rose, the father of Thomas Rose, was indebted to the latter on a stated account, appearing on the son’s books. After the son’s death, the father got possession of the books and papers of his son; and at his own death be left them in the condition he found them, the charge open and subsisting. He bequeathed several legacies to bis grand children, the children of his son Thomas.

It was contended for the complainants, who were interested in the father’s estate, that these legacies were given in satisfaction of the debt above mentioned.

The court however stated, that it could not discover any thing like an intention in the testator to give the legacies to his grand children in satisfaction of this debt to bis son; nor any design to make the legacies conditional, and to depend upon the executor of the son releasing the debt due by the father to the son’s estate» That unless there had appeared an intention in the testator to do this, the court would not raise, such a presumption. For the doctrine that legacieswcre generally supposed tobebequeath-ed in satisfaction of pre-existing debts (which had many limitations) could not have any application to this case. The debt due by the father was to the son’s estate — the legacies were to the grand children — they were indistinct rights — creditors, and perhaps legatees of the son, might have an interest in the son’s estate, so that the executors of the son could not properly release the deb t. The court therefore decreed in favor of the legacies to the grand children, without considering the same to be in satisfaction of the debt.