alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EX 10.47-ARC NYRR 3.31.2012 10-Q




SECOND AMENDMENT TO


SECOND AMENDED AND RESTATED ADVISORY AGREEMENT 




This SECOND AMENDMENT TO SECOND AMENDED AND RESTATED ADVISORY AGREEMENT is entered into as of April 13, 2012, among American Realty Capital New York Recovery REIT, Inc. (the “Company”), New York Recovery Operating Partnership, L.P. (the “OP”) and New York Recovery Advisors, LLC (the “Advisor”).


RECITALS


WHEREAS, the Company, the OP and the Advisor entered into that certain Second Amended and Restated Advisory Agreement (the “Advisory Agreement”), dated as of September 2, 2010, as amended on June 23, 2011; and


WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 24 of the Advisory Agreement, the Company, the OP and the Advisor desire to make certain amendments to the Advisory Agreement.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises made hereunder, and for good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the parties hereto, intending to be legally bound, hereby agree as follows:


		
	1.
	Amendment to Section 10(d) of the Advisory Agreement.  Effective April 13, 2012, Section 10(d) of the Advisory Agreement is hereby replaced in its entirety with the following:




“(d)    Asset Management Fee.  The Company shall pay an Asset Management Fee to the Advisor or its assignees as compensation for services rendered in connection with the management of the Company’s assets in an amount equal to 0.75% per annum of Average Invested Assets; provided, however, that the Asset Management Fee shall be reduced by any amounts payable to New York Recovery Properties, LLC under Section 4.2 of the Management Agreement (the “Oversight Fees”), such that the aggregate of the Asset Management Fee and the Oversight Fees does not exceed 0.75% per annum of Average Invested Assets. The Asset Management Fee is payable on the first business day of each month for the respective current month in the amount of 0.0625% of Invested Assets as of such date.




[Signature page follows.]





IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned, intending to be legally bound hereby, have duly executed this agreement as of the date first set forth above.


AMERICAN REALTY CAPITAL NEW YORK RECOVERY REIT, INC.






By:    ___/S/Edward M. Weil_____
Name:    Edward M. Weil, Jr.
Title:    President




NEW YORK RECOVERY OPERATING PARTNERSHIP, L.P.


		
	By:
	American Realty Capital New York Recovery REIT, Inc., 




its General Partner






By:    ___/S/Edward M. Weil_____
Name:    Edward M. Weil, Jr.
Title:    President




NEW YORK RECOVERY ADVISORS, LLC


		
	By:
	New York Recovery Special Limited Partnership, LLC, 




its Member


		
	By:
	American Realty Capital III, LLC, 




its Managing Member






By:    ___/S/ Nicholas S. Schorsch____
Name:    Nicholas S. Schorsch
Title:    Authorized Signatory
**Exhibit
      32.1**






**CERTIFICATION
      OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE**


**OFFICER
      REGARDING PERIODIC REPORT CONTAINING**


**FINANCIAL
      STATEMENTS**






I,
      Neil
      Smit, the President and Chief Executive Officer of Charter Communications
      Holdings, LLC and Charter Communications Holdings Capital Corporation (the
      "Company") in compliance with 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
      Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, hereby certify that, the
      Company's Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2006 (the
      "Report") filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission:




·
            fully
                complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) 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
                Company.









/s/
      Neil
      Smit


Neil
      Smit


President
      and Chief
      Executive Officer


March
      30,
      2007
454 A.2d 157

#### In the Matter of Wilson. Appeal of Elizabeth Coyle.

Argued May 24, 1982.

Charles C. Shainberg, for appellant; David 0. Williams, for Wilson, participating party; Alton G. Grube, for Children, participating party.

Before BROSKY, WIEAND and BECK, JJ.

Order affirmed.
**Exhibit 23.1**

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLICACCOUNTING FIRM**

We hereby consent to theincorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Form S-8(No. 333-84411, 333-39904, 333-59282, 333-71470,333-91794 and 333-109036) of Liberate Technologies of our reportdated August 12, 2005 relating to the financial statements, management’sassessment of the effectiveness of internal control over financial reportingand the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting, whichappears in this Form 10-K.
| /s/ PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS  LLP |
|---------------------------------|
| San Jose, California            |
| August 12, 2005            |

 

----
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 6095 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 6095

 To require the Secretary of Defense to request modifications relating 
  to certain permits issued under the Federal Water Pollution Control 
                      Act, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            October 26, 2023

  Ms. McClellan (for herself, Mrs. Kiggans of Virginia, Ms. Ross, Ms. 
   Mace, Mr. Scott of Virginia, Mr. Fitzpatrick, Mr. Pappas, and Mr. 
   Lawler) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
   Committee on Armed Services, and in addition to the Committee on 
  Transportation and Infrastructure, for a period to be subsequently 
   determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such 
 provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To require the Secretary of Defense to request modifications relating 
  to certain permits issued under the Federal Water Pollution Control 
                      Act, and for other purposes.

    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 ``Department of Defense PFAS Discharge 
Prevention Act''.

SEC. 2. STORMWATER DISCHARGE PERMITS FOR DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 
              FACILITIES.

    (a) Request for Revision.--Not later than one year after the date 
of enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Defense shall, with respect 
to each permit under section 402(p) of the Federal Water Pollution 
Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1342(p)) that applies to a Department of Defense 
facility, request from the State that issued the permit, or the 
Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, as applicable, 
approval of a modification to such permit, or a revision to an 
applicable stormwater management plan, to require--
            (1) monitoring of discharges of perfluoroalkyl and 
        polyfluoroalkyl substances not less frequently than quarterly; 
        and
            (2) implementation of appropriate best management practices 
        or control technologies to reduce such discharges consistent 
        with the requirements of such Act.
    (b) Funding.--Of the funds authorized to be appropriated by this 
Act, or otherwise made available to the Secretary in each fiscal year, 
for perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances remediation efforts, 
not less than 1 percent shall be obligated or expended annually for 
testing for such substances in stormwater runoff at Department of 
Defense facilities.
                                 <all>
```
akca-ex1012_135.htm



 

Exhibit 10.12

 


		
	

	
Akcea Therapeutics, Inc.

55 Cambridge Parkway, Suite 100

Cambridge, MA 02142

 




 

MEMORANDUM

 


	
Date:
	
 
	
March 9, 2018

	
To:
	
 
	
Akcea Board of Directors

	
From:
	
 
	
Paula Soteropoulos, President & CEO

	
Subject:
	
 
	
Board of Director Compensation




 


	
 
	
 
	
 
	
 

	
 
	
 
	
 
	
 

	
 
	
 
	
 
	
 




 

Akcea values the contributions made by its Board of directors.  In recognition of these valuable contributions, Akcea will provide each non-employee Director1 with the compensation described in this memo.

Cash Compensation

Each non-employee Director will receive cash compensation based on his/her role on the Board and Board committees:

 


	
Role
	
Cash Compensation

	
Board Member (Base retainer)
	
$40,000

	
Chairman of the Board (Additional)
	
$25,000

	
Committee Chairs (Additional)
	
 

	
-Audit
	
$18,000

	
-Compensation
	
$12,500

	
-Nominating & Gov.
	
$8,000

	
 
	
 

	
Committee Member (Additional)
	
 

	
-Audit
	
$9,000

	
-Compensation
	
$6,000

	
-Nominating & Gov.
	
$4,500




 

Equity Compensation

Each non-employee Director will receive an initial stock option award upon joining the Board, and will receive an annual stock option award for each year of continued service, as follows:

 


	
Stock Option Award
	
No. of Shares

	
Initial Stock Option Equity Grant
	
53,000

	
Annual Stock Option Equity Grant
	
26,400




 

The exercise price of each option will be the fair market value of Akcea’s common stock on the date of grant.

The options will vest over a four-year period in equal annual installments and be subject to the terms of Akcea’s 2015 Equity Incentive Plan.  The vesting of the options will accelerate in the case of a change of control of Akcea, as further described your option agreement and the 2015 Equity Incentive Plan.

Akcea reserves the right to amend this compensation policy at any time

	
	 





	
1 
	
 Employees of Ionis who serve on the Akcea Board are not eligible for compensation as Akcea Board members.
SWINOMISH TIP SUBMITTALS: Versions and Components

___________________

Most recent version

 Superseded by a more recent submittal

+ Added to previous submittal(s)

Blank cell = Not included in submittal

Parts of Submittal Submittal Received 06.28.12 Supplementary Submittal

Received 09.24.13

Cover Correspondence Cover Letter + Cover Email + CoSwinomish TIP Submittal Checklist Swinomish TIP Submittal ChecklistAppendix V List page 1  AppAppendix V List – page 2 Appendix V List – page 2Resolution 2012‐03‐047  Ordinance 307 Ordinance 307DOI Approval Letter with Effective

Date

DOI Approval Letter with EffectiveDate

Resolution 2013‐11‐202   Constitution and By‐Laws of the

Swinomish Indian TribalCommunity

Constitution and By‐Laws of theSwinomish Indian TribalCommunity

TIP Part I  TIP PTIP, Part II, Swinomish Tribal Code,

Title 19, Chapter 2

   

Public Notices Public NoticesPublic Hearing Certification Public Hearing CertificationPublic Comments Memorandum Public Comments Memorandum
Parts of Submittal Submittal Received 06.28.12 Supplementary Submittal

Received 09.24.13

EPA TAS Determination  EPA TAS Application TAS ApplicationBoundaries Memorandum Boundaries MemorandumResources Memorandum  ResoQAPP for Air Quality Monitoring QAPP for Air Quality Monitoring2010 Oxidant Analysis 2010 Oxidant Analysis2007 Emissions Inventory 2007 Emissions Inventory2011 Annual Data Summary 2011 Annual Data SummarySwinomish Tribal Code, Title 19,

Chapter 4, Subchapter IX ‐ Hearings, Appeals, Computation of

Time and Law Applicable

SwinChapHeaTime 

T
**Exhibit 23.1**

 

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM 

 

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement on Form S-8 (Nos. 333-124354, 333-102082,333-88770, 333-88730, 333-30088, 333-88811, 333-48260, 333-52644, 333-75736 and 333-111548) of TIBCO Software Inc. of our report dated February 10, 2006 relating to the financial statements, management’s assessment of the effectiveness ofinternal control over financial reporting and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting, which appears in this Form 10-K. 

 

/S/    PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS LLP 

 

San Jose, California 

February 10, 2006
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

April 24, 2007 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice
Michael F. Cavanagh Elizabeth A. Weaver 132541 Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Justices Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 132541 COA: 269783 Cheboygan CC: 03-002709-FH JOHN LAVELL WILLIAMS, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the October 26, 2006 order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because the defendant has failed to meet the burden of establishi ng entitlement to relief under MCR 6.508(D).

K ELLY , J., would grant leave to appeal.

d0416 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.

April 24, 2007

Clerk
#### Nelson CELADA, AKA Nelson Mauricio Celada De Leon, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 15-73917

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted May 24, 2017 *

Filed June 2, 2017

*394Frank P. Sprouls, Esquire, Attorney, Law Office of Ricci and Sprouls, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioner

OIL, Matthew Allan Spurlock, Attorney, DOJ—U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent

Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, and SILVERMAN and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2),

MEMORANDUM **

Nelson Celada, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to reopen in absen-tia deportation proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen. *Avagyan v. Holder,*646 F.3d 672, 674 (9th Cir. 2011). We deny the petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Celada’s motion to reopen as untimely, where he filed the motion over nineteen years after his final order of deportation, *see*8 C.F.R. §§ 1003.2(c)(2), 1003.23, and he has not demonstrated the due diligence necessary to warrant equitable tolling of the filing deadline, *see Avagyan,*646 F.3d at 679 (equitable tolling is available to an alien who is prevented from filing a motion to reopen due to deception, fraud, or error, as long as1 the alien exercises due diligence in discovering such circumstances).

In light of this disposition, we do not reach Celada’s remaining contentions regarding the alleged ineffective assistance of counsel.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Exhibit 31(a)

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

PERSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Michael R. Sayre, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this
quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Pinnacle Data Systems, Inc.;

2. Based on my knowledge, this 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 report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this 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 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-15(e) and 15d-15(e)), for the registrant and have:

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) 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

c) 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

5. The registrants
other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the audit committee of the registrants board of directors (or persons
performing the equivalent functions):

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.

Date: May 11, 2007



|                       
|-----------------------
|/s/ Michael R. Sayre   
|Chief Executive Officer
Efficiency and Renewables Advisory Committee Resolution Regarding Medium Voltage Dry-Type Distribution Transformers January 12, 2012

WHEREAS, the Efficiency and Renewables Adviso ry Committee (“ERAC”) was established by the U.S. Department of Energy (“DOE”) as a Federal advisory committee under the Federal Advisory Committee Act to advise the Secretar y of Energy regarding the portfolio of DOE’s Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy;

WHEREAS, on July 29, 2011, DOE published a notice of intent to form a subcommittee under the ERAC to negotiate new Federal energy conser vation standards for medium-voltage dry-type and liquid-immersed distributi on transformers (“MV subcommittee”) and on August 12, 2011, DOE published a similar notice of intent to fo rm a subcommittee under the ERAC to negotiate new Federal energy conservation standards for lo w-voltage dry-type distribution transformers (“LV subcommittee”);

WHEREAS, the MV subcommittee held eight subcommittee meetings and two public webinars between September and December 2011, and ha s reported to the ERAC that the MV subcommittee has reached consensus regarding proposed energy conservation standards for medium-voltage dry-type distribution transformers in equipment class 8;

WHEREAS, the MV subcommittee has di rected DOE to resolve certain technical issues to allow scaling from the consensus regarding medium -voltage dry-type distri bution transformers in equipment class 8 to propose energy conserva tion standards for medium-voltage dry-type distribution transformers in equipment classe s 5, 6 7, 9 and 10 that DOE anticipates the MV subcommittee will also approve by consensus;

WHEREAS, the ERAC need not recommend speci fic energy conservation standards for medium-voltage liquid-immersed or low-voltage dry-type distribution transformers because the MV and LV subcommittees did not reach consensus on energy conservation standards for these distribution transformer superclasses;

NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the ERAC:

 Recommends that the Secretary of Energy pr opose the energy c onservation standards recommended by consensus of the MV subc ommittee for medium-voltage dry-type
distribution transformers in equipment class 8; and

 Recommends that the Secretary of Energy propose the scaled energy conservation standards for medium-voltage dry-type distri bution transformers in equipment classes 5, 6, 7, 9 and 10 once the MV subcommittee approves the standards by consensus.
P.1 

OAR Box 1500 

Prepped by Ollie Stewart 

Document Number: 

18) ll-C-44 

Docket Number: 

A-94-52 

Printed 8/5/2008 1:51:2 7 PM Sheet 18 of 343 
...ito sr«, 

o 

/ 

P.2 

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

NATIONAL RISK MANAGEMENT RESEARCH LABORATORY 

AIR POLLUTION PREVENTION AND CONTROL DIVISION 

RESEARCH TRIANGLE PARK, NC 27711 

A-94-52 

OFFICE OF 

RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT 

September 9, 1996 

Mr. Robert Lacovara 

Director of Technical Services 

Composites Fabricators Association 

1735 North Lynn Street, Suite 950 

Arlington, VA 22209-2022 

Dear Mr. Lacovara: 

After reading two recent reports from your open molding styrene emissions test project, 

I have a continuing concern that statements such as "the EPA Category II Quality Assurance 

Project Plan qualification provides a level of recognition and confidence in this work..." give a 

false impression to CFA members that this project is recognized by EPA regulatory bodies due to 

its QA category level. The QA category does not provide recognition or confidence in the work. 

It only provides a specific level of scrutiny. Your statements also give the false impression that 

the optimization study was conducted under EPA's Category II QA requirements. We do not 

have a QA plan for the optimization study. There were no audits conducted, and auditing is a 

requirement for Category II projects. 

Further, I understand from EPA personnel who attended a meeting with you last week 

that you are well into Phase II. EPA has received no Phase II QA plan, test plan, or amendment 

to the original plan (Phase I, dated August 1995). We are not overseeing the experiments, have 

not been kept informed, and have no plans to audit. Therefore please refrain from mentioning 

EPA Category II QA requirements in your reports or any writing regarding any phases of this 

project other than Phase I. 

Please contact me at 919-541-1439 if you require any further clarification. 

Sincerely, 

cc: Carlos Nunez, EPA 

Geddes Ramsey, EPA 

Madeline Strum, EPA 

Steve McNally, CFA 

Larry Craigie, Dow Chemical 

Shirley Wasson 

QA Staff 

I 

Recycled/Recyclable • Printed with Vegetable Oil Based Inks on 1(10% Recycled Paper (40% Postconsumer)
<PAGE>


Exhibit 32

                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
                     AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO
                      SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT

         In connection with the Report of Joystar, Inc. (the "Company") on Form
10-KSB for the for the year ended December 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, William Alverson,
Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial 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/ William Alverson
-------------------------------------
William Alverson
Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer
March 31, 2006
Ross Jay LAWSON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 4D18-767

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

[May 30, 2018]

Ross Jay Lawson, Lowell, pro se.

No appearance required for appellee.

Per Curiam.

Affirmed. *See**Fitzpatrick v. State* , 868 So.2d 615 (Fla. 2d DCA), *rev. denied* , 891 So.2d 550 (Fla. 2004).

Warner, Damoorgian and Levine, JJ., concur.