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


 


	$7,052	January 5, 2012


 


FOR VALUE RECEIVED on January 5, 2012,
RNK Global Development Acquisition Corp. (formerly RNK China Acquisition Corp.), a British Virgin Islands Company, having an office
at Suite 101, No.26 Wen Hua East Road, Huilongguan, Changpin, Beijing, 102208, China (the “Borrower”),
hereby promises to pay to the order of Robert Koltun (the “Lender”),
the principal amount of SEVEN THOUSAND FIFTY TWO DOLLARS ($7,052) on or before March 31, 2012 (the “Maturity
Date”).


 


Interest shall accrue on all amounts outstanding
hereunder at a fixed annual rate equal to seven percent (7%). Interest shall be computed on the basis of the actual number of days
elapsed and a year of 365 days and shall not be compounded.


 


This Note may be prepaid, in whole or from
time to time in part, without premium or penalty.


 


If permitted by law, Borrower shall reimburse
the holder hereof for all costs and expenses incurred by the holder and shall pay the reasonable fees and disbursements of the
holders counsel in connection with the collection of this Note and/or the enforcement of holder’s rights hereunder.


 


No amendment, modification or waiver of
any provision of this Note nor consent to any departure by Borrower therefrom shall be effective unless the same shall be in writing
and signed by the holder hereof and such waiver or consent shall be effective only in the specific instance and for the specific
purpose for which given.


 


Borrower hereby waives any requirements
of notice of dishonor and protest. This Note shall be governed in all respects by the laws of The State of New York without giving
effect to the conflict of law provisions thereof This Note shall be binding upon Borrower and its successors and assigns and the
terms hereof shall inure to the benefit of holder and its successors and assigns, including subsequent holders hereof; provided,
however, that this Note shall not be assignable or transferable without the prior written consent of Borrower.


 


The holding of any provision of this Note
to be invalid or unenforceable by a court of competent jurisdiction shall not affect any other provisions, and the other provisions
of this Note shall remain in full force and effect.


 


Unless otherwise specified by the holder
hereof on the date when payment is due, payment under this Note shall be made at and all notices to holders shall be delivered
to, the addresses set forth in the first paragraph of this Note.


 



    	 



    	 



    

 


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has
executed or caused this instrument to be duly executed and delivered by its authorized representative as an instrument under seal
as of the date first written above.


 


RNK Global Development Acquisition Corp.


 


/s/ Remo Richli


 


By: Remo Richli


 






    	2
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 89 (Friday, May 8, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Page 25520]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-12211]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Land Management
[UTU-60470, UTU-69463]


Utah; Proposed Reinstatement of Terminated Oil and Gas Leases

    In accordance with Title IV of the Federal Oil and Gas Royalty 
Management Act (Pub. L. 97-451), a petition for reinstatement of oil 
and gas leases UTU-60470 and UTU-69463 for lands in Carbon County, 
Utah, was timely filed and required rentals accruing from April 1, 
1998, the date of termination, have been paid.
    The lessee has agreed to new lease terms for rentals and royalties 
at rates of $5 per acre and 16-\2/3\ percent, respectively. The $500 
administrative fee for each lease has been paid and the lessee has 
reimbursed the Bureau of Land Management for the cost of publishing 
this notice.
    Having met all the requirements for reinstatement of the lease as 
set out in Section 31 (d) and (e) of the Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 
(30 U.S.C. 188), the Bureau of Land Management is proposing to 
reinstate leases UTU-60470 and UTU-69463, effective April 1, 1998, 
subject to the original terms and conditions of the lease and the 
increased rental and royalty rates cited above.
Robert Lopez,
Group Leader, Minerals Adjudication Group.
[FR Doc. 98-12211 Filed 5-7-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-DQ-M
Exhibit 32.2

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 Amendment No. 1 to the Annual Report of Synergy Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (the "Company") on
Form 10-K/A for the year ended December 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Bernard Denoyer, Senior Vice
President, Finance of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that:



/s/ BERNARD DENOYER Bernard Denoyer Senior Vice President, Finance


November 8,
2010

---



QuickLinks
No. 12-6965.

#### Johnson *v.*Mercer, Warden.

C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.
Third Department,

December, 2003

(December 3, 2003)

#### In the Matter of Joseph J. Balok Jr., an Attorney, Respondent. Committee on Professional Standards, Petitioner.

[768 NYS2d 388]

Per Curiam.

Respondent was admitted to practice by this Court in 1967. He maintains an office for the practice of law in the City of Elmira, Chemung County.

Respondent has admitted the misconduct charged and specified in the petition of charges filed in this disciplinary proceeding, including the allegations that during the early months of 1999, he used $23,883.55 of client funds to cover his law office payroll for a two-week period, to satisfy a personal mortgage and to pay real estate taxes on a building that he owned.

We view respondent’s conversion of client funds a most serious violation of an attorney’s ethical obligations and find that such professional misconduct warrants his disbarment.

We further direct respondent to cooperate with petitioner in the prompt formulation of an order of restitution and/or reimbursement pursuant to Judiciary Law § 90 (6-a), which petitioner shall submit for entry by this Court *(see e.g. Matter of McGinn,*252 AD2d 660 [1998]).

Mercure, J.P., Peters, Rose, Lahtinen and Kane, JJ., concur. Ordered that respondent is found guilty of the professional misconduct charged and specified in the petition; and it is fur*888ther ordered that respondent is disbarred, and his name is stricken from the roll of attorneys and counselors-at-law of the State of New York, effective immediately; and it is further ordered that respondent is directed to cooperate with petitioner in the prompt formulation of an order of restitution and/or reimbursement pursuant to the provisions of Judiciary Law § 90 (6-a), which order petitioner shall submit to this Court for entry; and it is further ordered that respondent is commanded to desist and refrain from the practice of law in any form, either as principal or as agent, clerk, or employee of another; he is forbidden to appear as an attorney and counselor-at-law before any court, judge, justice, board, commission, or other public authority or to give to another an opinion as to the law or its application, or any advice in relation thereto; and it is further ordered that respondent shall comply with the provisions of this Court’s rules regulating the conduct of disbarred attorneys (see 22 NYCRR 806.9).
#### George T. DALEY, Appellant, v. SEARS, ROEBUCK & COMPANY, Appellee.

No. 11067.

United States Court of Appeals *Sixth*Circuit.

April 20, 1950.

Sindell & Sindell, Jack G. Day, Cleveland, Ohio, for appellant.

Thompson, Hiñe & Flory, Thomas E. Lipscomb, Cleveland, Ohio, for appellee.

Before ALLEN, McALLISTER and MILLER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

This cause was heard upon the record, briefs and argument of counsel;

And the Court being of the opinion that the ruling is controlled by Steinbeck v. John Hauck Brewing Co., 7 Ohio App. 18 and Turoff v. Richmond, 76 Ohio App. 83, 61 N.E.2d 486. See also: Den Braven v. Public Service Electric & Gas Co., 115 N.J.L. 543, 181 A. *46;*Abar v. Ramsey Motor Service, 195 Minn. 597, 263 N.W. 917; Bennett v. McGoldrick-Sanderson Co., 15 Wash.2d 130, 142-144, 129 P.2d 795.

On the authority of said cases and for the reasons stated by the District Judge in his Memorandum Opinion, it is ordered that the Judgment of the District Court he affirmed. 90 F.Supp. 561.
|                                                                          
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                          
|View History: Annual Download Data (XLS File)                            
|View History: Annual                                                      
|View History: Annual                                                      
|View History:                                                             
|                                                                          
|Arizona Natural Gas Lease and Plant Fuel Consumption  (Million Cubic Feet)
|                                                                          
|                                                                          
|Arizona Natural Gas Lease and Plant Fuel Consumption  (Million Cubic Feet)
|                                                                          

|Decade                                                                                                                            | Year-0 | Year-1 | Year-2 | Year-3 | Year-4 | Year-5 | Year-6 | Year-7 | Year-8 | Year-9
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------
|1960's                                                                                                                            |        |        |        |        |        |        |        | 33     | 20     | 34    
|1970's                                                                                                                            | 50     | 50     | 44     | 39     | 0      | 0      | 0      | 0      | 0      | 0     
|1980's                                                                                                                            | 0      | 222    | 7      | 7      | 7      | 6      | 5      | 6      | 5      | 35    
|1990's                                                                                                                            | 71     | 45     | 41     | 49     | 61     | 57     | 58     | 51     | 46     |       
|- = No Data Reported;  -- = Not Applicable;  NA = Not Available;  W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data.
|                                                                                                                                 
|Release Date: 5/31/2024                                                                                                          
|Next Release Date: 6/28/2024
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 Rambo Medical Group, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the year ended May 31, 2014 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Dianwen Ju, Chief Executive 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 results of operations of the Company.  A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.   /s/ Dianwen Ju Name: Dianwen Ju Title: Chief Executive Officer    Date: September 15, 2014
Exhibit 10.70



 Exhibit 10.70 
 Translation 
  

					
		  	MACONOMY A/S	  	
		  	Vordingborggade 18-22	  	
		  	2100 Copenhagen	  	
		  	Denmark	  	
		  	CVR no. 13703973	  	
		  	(the “Company”)	  	

 and 
  

					
		  	Claus Thorsgaard	  	
		  	Fabritius Allé 6	  	
		  	2930 Klampenborg	  	
		  	Denmark	  	
		  	(the “Executive Officer”)	  	

 have today conclude this addendum to the agreement of 18 December 2008 (the “Service Agreement”)

  

	1.	Background and purpose 

  

	1.1	With a view to ensuring a reasonable situation for the Company as well as the Executive Officer in the event of a Change of Control situation, the Executive Officer and
the Company have agreed to enter into this addendum to the Service Agreement. 

  

	2.	Change of Control situation 

  

	2.1	The Company and the Executive Officer agree that a Change of Control situation exists where a third party or a combination of third parties become obligated to make a
redemption offer to other shareholders of the Company according to the provisions of s. 31 of the Danish Securities Trading Act (værdipapirhandelsloven) (or such other provisions replacing s. 31 of the Securities Trading Act).


  

	3.	Severance pay/bonus 

  

	3.1	In addition to the agreed notice period etc., the Executive Officer is entitled to an additional severance pay corresponding to 12 months’ total remuneration if,
after the conclusion of this addendum, a Change of Control situation arises or if such situation must be expected to arise, see clause 2 above, and the Executive Officer is terminated by the Company less than one year after the occurrence of the
Change of Control situation. 

  

	3.2	Where the Executive Officer is not terminated by the Company within one year of the Change of Control situation, see clause 3.1 above, and the Executive Officer has not
resigned from his position within this period, the Executive Officer is, in addition to his other remuneration, entitled to an extraordinary bonus corresponding to the total remuneration for the past 12 months. This bonus will fall due for payment
one year after the Change of Control situation. 








 Translation 

 

	4.	Warrants 

  

	4.1	All of the Executive Officer’s warrants in the company will vest in the event of a Change of Control situation, see clause 2 above, to the effect that the warrants
may be exercised fully by the Executive Officer at a time determined by the Executive Officer during the first two years after the Change of Control situation. 


 

	5.	Other aspects 

  

	5.1	All other aspects of the Service Agreement will remain unchanged. 

 The addendum is executed in two copies, each party receiving one copy. 

[handwritten: 24 February 2010] 
  

			
	 [signature]
	  	[signature]
	 (Company)
	  	(Executive Officer)
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 89 (Friday, May 8, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Pages 25521-25522]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-12243]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

National Park Service


Draft General Management Plan / Draft Environmental Impact 
Statement, Marsh-Billings National Historical Park, Vermont

AGENCY: National Park Service Interior.

ACTION: Notice of availability of Draft General Management Plan/Draft 
Environmental Impact Statement.

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

SUMMARY: Pursuant to Council on Environmental Quality regulations and 
National Park Service policy, this notice announces the availability 
for public review of a Draft General Management Plan/Draft 
Environmental Impact Statement for Marsh-Billings National Historical 
Park, Windsor County, Vermont. In accordance with the National 
Environmental Policy Act 102(2)(C) of 1969, the environmental impact 
statement was prepared to assess the impacts of implementing the 
general management plan.

[[Page 25522]]

    The Draft General Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact 
Statement presents a Proposal and a Management Alternative, then 
assesses the potential environmental and socioeconomic effects of the 
actions presented on site resources, visitor experience, and the 
surrounding area. The Proposal and the Alternative differ in their 
approaches to management. The Proposal calls for a strong partnership 
between the Woodstock Foundation, Inc. (which operates Billings Farm & 
Museum, located on private property within the park boundary), and the 
National Park Service to manage the park. The Alternative describes how 
the park could operate if these two organizations worked independently.

DATES: The formal public review period is to start on or about May 8, 
1998, for 60 days (watch for Environmental Protection Agency Federal 
Register Notice on May 8). Two public forums will be held during the 
month of May. The dates, times, and location of the two public forums 
will be advertised in local media outlets.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Copies of the document will be available for 
review at the following locations:

Marsh-Billings National Historical Park, 54 Elm Street, Woodstock, VT 
05091
Woodstock Town Hall, Woodstock, Vermont
Norman Williams Public Library, Woodstock, Vermont

    To request copies of the document, please call (802) 457-3368 ext. 
14, fax (802) 457-3405, or write to the Superintendent, Marsh-Billings 
National Historical Park, PO Box 178, Woodstock, VT 05091.
    Comments on the Draft General Management Plan/Draft Environmental 
Impact Statement should be submitted to Rolf Diamant, Superintendent, 
Marsh-Billings National Historical Park, PO Box 178, Woodstock, VT 
05091. You can also fax your comments to the Superintendent at (802) 
457-3405.

    Dated: April 23, 1998.
Rolf Diamant,
Superintendent, Marsh-Billings National Historical Park.
[FR Doc. 98-12243 Filed 5-7-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-70-P
|                                                                        
|------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                        
|View History: Annual Download Data (XLS File)                          
|View History: Annual                                                    
|View History: Annual                                                    
|View History:                                                           
|                                                                        
|Indiana Natural Gas Number of Industrial Consumers  (Number of Elements)
|                                                                        
|                                                                        
|Indiana Natural Gas Number of Industrial Consumers  (Number of Elements)
|                                                                        

|Decade                                                                                                                            | Year-0 | Year-1 | Year-2 | Year-3 | Year-4 | Year-5 | Year-6 | Year-7 | Year-8 | Year-9
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------
|1980's                                                                                                                            |        |        |        |        |        |        |        | 5,497  | 5,696  | 6,196 
|1990's                                                                                                                            | 6,439  | 6,393  | 6,358  | 6,508  | 6,314  | 6,250  | 6,586  | 6,920  | 6,635  | 19,069
|2000's                                                                                                                            | 10,866 | 9,778  | 10,139 | 8,913  | 5,368  | 5,823  | 5,350  | 5,427  | 5,294  | 5,190 
|2010's                                                                                                                            | 5,145  | 5,338  | 5,204  | 5,178  | 5,098  | 5,095  | 5,064  | 5,015  | 4,904  | 4,716 
|2020's                                                                                                                            | 4,693  | 4,684  | 4,695  |        |        |        |        |        |        |       
|- = No Data Reported;  -- = Not Applicable;  NA = Not Available;  W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data.
|                                                                                                                                 
|Release Date: 5/31/2024                                                                                                          
|Next Release Date: 6/28/2024
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-7838

BRUCE ALLEN GAYNOR,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

DAVID A. GARRAGHTY, Warden, In his official

capacity; LORETTA K. KELLY, Warden; GARY L.

BASS, Deputy Warden; PATRICIA A. TERRANGI,

Deputy Warden; J. B. WATSON, Inmate Hearing

Officer; GARRETT P. WILLIAMS, Unit Manager;

BETSY A. ZOLICOFFER, Lieutenant,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, Chief

District Judge. (CA-96-1348-AM)

Submitted: July 2, 1998 Decided: July 21, 1998

Before NIEMEYER and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges, and HALL, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Bruce Allen Gaynor, Appellant Pro Se. Mark Ralph Davis, OFFICE OF

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for

Appellees.
2

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals from the district court’s order denying

relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1994) complaint. We have reviewed

the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible

error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district

court. Gaynor v. Garraghty, No. CA-96-1348-AM (E.D. Va. Nov. 21,

1997). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the

court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED