alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
exv10w7a



 












EXHIBIT
10.7A





RENEWAL OF BUSINESS CONSULTANT AGREEMENT




     This Renewal Agreement, entered into this 6th day of February 2006, with an
effective date of January 1, 2006, is by and between White Mountain Titanium Corporation, a Nevada
corporation (the “Company”), and Crosby Enterprises, Inc., a Washington corporation (“CE”).



Recitals:




     WHEREAS, on or about August 1 ,2005, the parties hereto entered into a Business Consultant
Agreement dated August 1, 2005 (the “Business Consultant Agreement”), whereby CE agreed to perform
certain consulting services for the Company; and



     WHEREAS, the initial term of the Business Consultant Agreement expired on December 31, 2005,
and the parties desire to extend the term of the agreement with certain modifications as set forth
herein.



     NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual terms and conditions set forth herein, the
parties hereto agree as follows:



     1. Pursuant to Paragraph 2 of the Business Consultant Agreement, the Company hereby exercises
its option to renew the agreement for an additional five months from the effective date hereof,
provided that if during such renewal term the common stock of the Company shall be approved for
listing on the TSX Venture Exchange or the Toronto Stock Exchange, the Company shall have the
option to terminate the agreement effective with the date of listing on the exchange.



     2. Paragraph 3 of the Business Consultant Agreement is amended to reduce the monthly
compensation payable to CE to $6,500 per month. No additional shares of common stock of the
Company or other consideration shall otherwise be paid to CE in connection with this renewal.



     3. Except as amended hereby, the Business Consultant Agreement shall continue to be, and shall
remain, in full force and effect during the extended term thereof. The amendments thereto set
forth herein shall not be deemed (i) to be a waiver of, or consent to, or a modification or
amendment of, any other term or condition of the Business Consultant Agreement or (ii) to prejudice
any right or rights which the parties may now have or may have in the future under or in connection
with the Business Consultant Agreement or any of the instruments or agreements referred to therein,
as the same may be amended, restated, supplemented or otherwise modified from time to time.



     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, each of the parties has executed this document the respective day and year
set forth below.



 









 





	 	 	 	 	 
	 	White Mountain Titanium Corporation

 	 
	Date:  February 7, 2006 	By  	/s/ Michael P. Kurtanjek
 	 
	 	 	Michael P. Kurtanjek, President 	 
	 	 	 	 
	 
	 	Crosby Enterprises, Inc.

 	 
	Date:  February 7, 2006 	By  	/s/ Howard M. Crosby
 	 
	 	 	Howard M. Crosby, President 	 
	 	 	 	 
	 



2
*November 1, 2017*

2017-Ohio-8371.]

2017-1127.

#### Miller v. Wiedenbein.

In Mandamus. On respondent’s motion to dismiss. Motion granted. Cause dismissed.

O’Connor, C. J., and O’Donnell, Kennedy, French, O’Neill, and DeWine, JJ., concur.

Fischer, J., dissents and would grant an alternative writ.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Eddie V. Ghingoree, Appellant.

[54 NYS3d 95]

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Suffolk County (Toomey, J.), rendered November 7, 2014, convicting him of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the seventh degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the summary denial of the defendant’s motion to withdraw his plea of guilty.

Ordered that the matter is remitted to the County Court, Suffolk County, for further proceedings on the defendant’s motion to withdraw his plea of guilty in accordance herewith, and thereafter a report to this Court limited to the County Court’s findings with respect to the motion and whether the defendant has established his entitlement to the withdrawal of his plea, and the appeal is held in abeyance pending receipt of the County Court’s report, which shall be filed with all convenient speed.

Only when a motion to withdraw a plea is “patently insufficient on its face” should a court deny the motion without making any inquiry *(People v Mitchell,*21 NY3d 964, 967 [2013]). Here, the defendant’s motion was not patently insufficient on its face. The defendant allegedly was misinformed by his former counsel about the risk of deportation arising from a pending immigration case relating to a prior offense, as well as the separate risk of deportation resulting from the subject plea in light of the status of the pending immigration case. The defendant’s allegations are not belied by the plea minutes or by former counsel’s subsequent explanations to the County Court in support of his motion to be relieved as counsel. Under the circumstances, the court should have afforded the defendant a reasonable opportunity to present his contentions to enable the court to make an informed determination (see *People v Tinsley,*35 NY2d 926, 927 [1974]).

Accordingly, we hold the appeal in abeyance and remit the matter to the County Court, Suffolk County, for further proceedings in accordance with *People v Tinsley*(35 NY2d 926 [1974]), followed by a report to this Court setting forth the County Court’s findings with respect to the motion and whether the defendant has established his entitlement to the withdrawal of his plea.

Chambers, J.R, Hall, Maltese and Brath-waite Nelson, JJ., concur.
# DLA Aviation employee receives national recognition for excellence in service

/ Published July 31, 2019
RICHMOND, VA, 
Maurice Sanabria, chief, Defense Logistics Agency Aviation’s Command Support Directorate’s Command Programs Office was bestowed the Excellence in Service Award for 2019 by the League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC) for his accomplishments in the advancement of diversity/inclusion and for his work in the community

He received the award during the organization’s 90th Annual Convention and Exposition held in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, July 9-13.

The award recognizes excellence in public service in the advancement of education, economic, health, and diversity accomplishments of Department of Defense civilian employees and military veterans in government service, who are Hispanics that have supported the DLA’s mission, whose attributes best epitomized the qualities and core values of their respective federal/military service and promoted a positive image of those in uniform. 

Kathie Rowland, deputy chief of staff, DLA Aviation, nominated Sanabria for serving as the Command Support Directorate representative on DLA Aviation’s Special Emphasis Program Committee. In the nomination, she stated Sanabria provided input to SEPC on possible solutions, programs and activities that contribute to the recruitment, promotion and retention of employees from special emphasis groups. He also planned and executed activities in support of special observances, including Hispanic Heritage Month and Holocaust Remembrance Day.

The award also recognized Sanabria for his tireless humanitarian efforts after Hurricane Maria, a deadly category 5 hurricane, devastated Puerto Rico, leaving those living there without electricity, water, telecommunications or transportation systems.

Mr. Sanabria was also recognized for his work in promoting Puerto Rican musical traditions through workshops in Greater Richmond public schools.
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

August 4, 2015

No. 04-15-00427-CV

CRAWFORD MEDICAL SUPPLIES, LLC, Sam Maddali, Prem Swaroop Kalidindi, and 

Maddali Realty, LLC,

Appellants

v.

HUNTLEIGH HOME MEDICAL, LTD. and Jane Elizabeth Flores,

Appellees

From the 57th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2013-CI-00404

Honorable Michael E. Mery, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

This is an interlocutory appeal of the trial court’s order denying in part appellants’ motion 

to compel arbitration. On July 27, 2015, appellants filed a motion requesting a stay of further 

trial court proceedings pending the resolution of this appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 29.3. The 

motion is GRANTED. All further proceedings in the underlying cause are STAYED pending 

the disposition of this appeal.

_________________________________

Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 4th day of August, 2015.

___________________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
June 4, 2014

CAAP-12-0000685

#### State v. Tuia

Affirmed
#### People v Robinson

2d Dept: 145 AD3d 805

denied
From: Steve Moose [mailto:smoose@statesville.net] 

Sent: Thursday, March 28, 2013 9:07 AM

To: Telander, Jeff

Subject: Fw: Emailing: ltr to Jeff Telander.doc

----- Original Message ----- 

From: "StuWeller" <sweller@statesville.net>

To: <smoose@statesville.net>

Sent: Thursday, March 28, 2013 8:18 AM

Subject: Emailing: ltr to Jeff Telander.doc

>

> The message is ready to be sent with the following file or link 

> attachments:

>

> ltr to Jeff Telander.doc

>

>

> Note: To protect against computer viruses, e-mail programs may prevent

> sending or receiving certain types of file attachments. Check your e-mail

> security settings to determine how attachments are handled.

> 

Page 1
To:Jeff Telander 

From: Steve Moose 

 Statesville Brick Co, Statesville, NC 

Jeff we thank you for the opportunity to listen into the phone conference. We found the 

meeting helpful in trying to understand the direction the EPA is taking. We have a few 

concerns. 

Health Based Studies. What approaches has EPA considered that would not tighten the 

limits? 

New Control techniques. We at Statesville Brick fire our products with wood, a 

renewable resource. Has any studies been made on any type control that could be used in 

conjunction with our firing process? 

We, Statesville Brick, are a small company with somewhat limited resources due to our 

size. How is it that EPA would consider lumping into a category with companies that are 

worldwide and have unlimited resources due to their diversified operations? The cost for 

additional controls would be a burden insurmountable for us. 

This is not saying we do not care for our environment; we have a good relationship with 

our local EPA regional office and will always keep the environment in mind. Also we 

appreciate the members of the BIA in helping us understand the decisions that could 

affect our business.
**Exhibit 12.2**

** **

**CERTIFICATION**

 

I, Daniel Crandall, certify that:

 

1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 20-F of RoyalStandard Minerals Inc.;

 

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untruestatement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstancesunder 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 otherfinancial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operationsand cash flows of the Company as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

 

4. The company’s other certifying officer(s) and I areresponsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the Companyand 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 Company, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by otherswithin those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;

        

b.Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internal control over financial reporting to be designedunder our supervision, to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation offinancial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles;

      

c.Evaluated the effectiveness of the Company’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusionsabout the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based onsuch evaluation; and

     

d.Disclosed in this report any change in the Company’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the periodcovered by the annual report that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the Company’s internalcontrol over financial reporting; and

5. The company’s other certifying officer(s) and I havedisclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the Company’s auditors andthe audit committee of the Company’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 whichare reasonably likely to adversely affect the Company’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 Company’sinternal control over financial reporting.
ENTRY REMOVED AS ENTERED IN 

ERROR
Exhibit
32








Section
1350 Certification of Periodic Report


By
the Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer


Pursuant
to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002








Pursuant
to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, each
of the undersigned officers of ALLETE, Inc. (ALLETE), does hereby certify
that:




1.
            The
      Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of ALLETE for the quarterly period ended
      June 30, 2009, (Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section
      13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m);
      and




2.
            The
      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
      respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
      ALLETE.










Date:  August
5,
2009                                                          Donald J.
Shippar




Donald J.
Shippar


Chairman and Chief
Executive Officer














Date:  August
5,
2009                                                         
Mark A.
Schober




Mark A.
Schober


Senior Vice President
and Chief Financial Officer











This
certification shall not be deemed “filed” for purposes of Section 18 of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 or otherwise subject to liability pursuant to
that section. Such certification shall not be deemed to be incorporated by
reference into any filing under the Securities Act of 1933 or the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, except to the extent that ALLETE specifically incorporates
it by reference.





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 ALLETE and will be retained by ALLETE and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.
# Subsistence employees forgo shaving to raise cancer awareness

/ Published Nov. 27, 2019
PHILADELPHIA, 
Beards of all sizes, filled with shades of red, brown, white, gray, black and even a few multi-colored, appeared on the faces of several men from the Defense Logistics Agency Troop Support Subsistence supply chain during “No-Shave November.”

The voluntary national event held each November seeks to bring cancer awareness and encourage participants to donate the money typically used for shaving supplies to a local charity according to the No-Shave November website.
#### David B. et al., Appellants, v Andrew Millar, Defendant, and St. Peter and Paul Roman Catholic Church et al., Respondents.

[769 NYS2d 731]

— In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for negligent hiring, the plaintiffs appeal from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (O’Connell, J.), dated October 29, 2002, as granted the cross motion of the defendants St. Peter and Paul Roman Catholic Church and Roman Catholic Diocese of Rockville Centre for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The Supreme Court correctly granted the cross motion of the defendants St. Peter and Paul Roman Catholic Church and Roman Catholic Diocese of Rockville Centre (hereinafter the church defendants) for summary judgment dismissing the complaint without affording the plaintiff further disclosure. The plaintiffs attempted to prevent summary judgment dismissing their complaint by, in effect, relying on CPLR 3212 (f). A party opposing a motion for summary judgment “must demonstrate [an] acceptable excuse for [the] failure to [tender proof in admissible form]; mere conclusions, expressions of hope or unsubstantiated allegations or assertions are insufficient.” *(Zuckerman v City of New York,*49 NY2d 557, 562 [1980]). The mere hope of discovering some evidence during further disclosure is insufficient to defeat summary judgment *(see Kershis v City of New York,*303 AD2d 643 [2003]).

The plaintiffs argue that there are issues of fact with respect *764to the applicability of the doctrine of respondeat superior. This argument is not properly before this Court since it is raised for the first time in their reply brief *(see Coppola v Coppola,*291 AD2d 477 [2002]). In any event, it is without merit *(see Anonymous v Dobbs Ferry Union Free School Dist.,*290 AD2d 464, 465 [2002]).

The plaintiffs’ remaining contentions are without merit. Altman, J.P., Goldstein, Crane and Mastro, JJ., concur.
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 104 (Monday, June 1, 1998)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 29687]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-14436]



[[Page 29687]]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 62

[WY-001-0001b; FRL-6104-8]


Approval and Promulgation of State Plans for Designated 
Facilities and Pollutants; Wyoming; Control of Landfill Gas Emissions 
From Existing Municipal Solid Waste Landfills

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The EPA is proposing to approve the Wyoming plan and 
associated regulations for implementing the Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) 
Landfill Emission Guidelines at 40 CFR part 60, subpart Cc, which were 
required pursuant to section 111(d) of the Clean Air Act (Act). The 
State's plan, which was submitted to EPA on February 13, 1998, 
establishes performance standards for existing MSW landfills and 
provides for the implementation and enforcement of those standards.
    In the final rules section of this Federal Register, the EPA is 
approving the State's submittal in a direct final rule without prior 
proposal because the Agency views this as a noncontroversial action and 
anticipates no adverse comments. A detailed rationale for the approval 
is set forth in the direct final rule. If no adverse comments are 
received in response to this proposed rule, no further activity is 
contemplated in relation to this rule. If EPA receives adverse 
comments, the direct final rule will be withdrawn and all public 
comments received will be addressed in a subsequent final rule based on 
this proposed rule. EPA will not institute a second comment period on 
this proposed rule. Any parties interested in commenting on this action 
should do so at this time.

DATES: Comments must be received in writing on or before July 1, 1998.

ADDRESSES: Written comments on this action should be mailed to Vicki 
Stamper, 8P2-A, at the EPA Regional VIII Office listed. Copies of the 
documents relevant to this proposed rule are available for public 
inspection during normal business hours at the Air Program, 
Environmental Protection Agency, Region VIII, 999 18th Street, Suite 
500, Denver, Colorado 80202-2466. Copies of the State documents 
relevant to this proposed rule are available for public inspection at 
the Air Quality Division, Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality, 
122 West 25th Street, Cheyenne, Wyoming 82002.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Vicki Stamper, EPA Region VIII, (303) 
312-6445.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: See the information provided in the direct 
final action of the same title which is located in the Rules and 
Regulations section of this Federal Register.

    Dated: May 21, 1998.
Carol Rushin,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region VIII.
[FR Doc. 98-14436 Filed 5-29-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-22-00203-CR

André Webb, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

FROM THE 403RD DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY

NO. D-1-DC-19-301919, THE HONORABLE BRENDA KENNEDY, JUDGE PRESIDING

O R D E R

PER CURIAM

Appellant’s brief on appeal was originally due July 6, 2022. On counsel’s 

motions, the time for filing was extended to October 6, 2022. Appellant’s counsel has now filed 

a fourth motion, requesting that the Court extend the time for filing appellant’s brief. We grant 

the motion for extension of time and order appellant to file a brief no later than October 31, 

2022. No further extension of time will be granted and failure to comply with this order will 

result in the referral of this case to the trial court for a hearing under Rule 38.8(b) of the Texas 

Rules of Appellate Procedure.

It is ordered on October 13, 2022.

Before Justices Goodwin, Baker, and Kelly

Do Not Publish