alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 10.6.2
 
 CHIP AND LOG SUPPLY AGREEMENT WAIVER AND AMENDMENT
   CATALYST PAPER CORPORATION CATALYST PAPER
   WESTERN FOREST PRODUCTS INC. rd
   A.
    
    Catalyst and Western are parties to a Chip and Log Supply Agreement (the Chip and Log Supply
Agreement) dated for reference the 8th day of June 1998 between MacMillan Bloedel Limited (a
predecessor to Western) and MB Paper Limited (a predecessor to Catalyst);
 B.
    
    Western intends to permanently shut down the timber processing facility located on the Fraser
River and referred to as the New Westminster Division in the definition of Specific MB
Sawmills in the Chip and Log Supply Agreement (the New Westminster Division); and
 C.
    
    The parties have agreed to amend the Chip and Log Supply Agreement to reflect the closure of
the New Westminster Division and to clarify certain other matters set out in the Chip and Log
Supply Agreement;
  1.
    
    Definitions




---



##### 



2.
    
    Waiver
  (a)
    
    in consideration of the change to the definition of the term Harmac Tenure
Commitment as set out below and effective upon Western commencing to supply Chips to
Harmac from or obtained in exchange for Chips from Westerns Saltair Sawmill as
contemplated by that definition, waives the obligation of Western to give Catalyst a
Termination Notice under section 6.2 of the Chip and Log Supply Agreement with respect
to any reduction in the Harmac Tenure Commitment as a result of the closure of the New
Westminster Division and waives the rights of Catalyst under Section 6.2 of the Chip
and Log Supply Agreement to issue a Termination Purchase Notice and to purchase any
Chips pursuant to Section 6.2 of the Chip and Log Supply Agreement that become
available as a result of any such reduction in the Harmac Tenure Commitment;
 (b)
    
    waives the obligation of Western to give Catalyst a Closure Notice under
Section 6.4 of the Chip and Log Supply Agreement with respect to the permanent closure
of the New Westminster Division, and waives the right of Catalyst under Section 6.4 of
the Chip and Log Supply Agreement to issue a Closure Purchase Notice and to purchase
any Chips pursuant to Section 6.4 of the Chip and Log Supply Agreement that become
available as a result of the permanent closure of the New Westminster Division.
  3.
    
    Amendment
   (a)
    
    for each Year, the volume of timber harvested from the Timber
Lands and processed through the Island South Division Chippers in such Year,
plus the lesser of: (i) (***);and (ii) the volume of timber (***)
in such Year; and
 (b)
    
    for each Five Year Period, the volume of timber harvested from
the Timber Lands and processed through the Island South Division Chippers in
such Five Year Period, plus the lesser of: (i) (***); and (ii) the volume of
timber (***) in such Five Year Period.
   2




---



##### 



4.
    
    Custom Cutting Operations
  5.
    
    General
   CATALYST PAPER CORPORATION as managing
partner for and on behalf of CATALYST PAPERBy:By:WESTERN FOREST PRODUCTS INC.By:By:
  3
Case 1:07-cv-01538-AKH Document 29-3 Filed 12/06/2007 Page 1 of 24
Case 1:07-cv-01538-AKH Document 29-3 Filed 12/06/2007 Page 2 of 24
Case 1:07-cv-01538-AKH Document 29-3 Filed 12/06/2007 Page 3 of 24
Case 1:07-cv-01538-AKH Document 29-3 Filed 12/06/2007 Page 4 of 24
Case 1:07-cv-01538-AKH Document 29-3 Filed 12/06/2007 Page 5 of 24
Case 1:07-cv-01538-AKH Document 29-3 Filed 12/06/2007 Page 6 of 24
Case 1:07-cv-01538-AKH Document 29-3 Filed 12/06/2007 Page 7 of 24
Case 1:07-cv-01538-AKH Document 29-3 Filed 12/06/2007 Page 8 of 24
Case 1:07-cv-01538-AKH Document 29-3 Filed 12/06/2007 Page 9 of 24
Case 1:07-cv-01538-AKH Document 29-3 Filed 12/06/2007 Page 10 of 24
Case 1:07-cv-01538-AKH Document 29-3 Filed 12/06/2007 Page 11 of 24
Case 1:07-cv-01538-AKH Document 29-3 Filed 12/06/2007 Page 12 of 24
Case 1:07-cv-01538-AKH Document 29-3 Filed 12/06/2007 Page 13 of 24
Case 1:07-cv-01538-AKH Document 29-3 Filed 12/06/2007 Page 14 of 24
Case 1:07-cv-01538-AKH Document 29-3 Filed 12/06/2007 Page 15 of 24
Case 1:07-cv-01538-AKH Document 29-3 Filed 12/06/2007 Page 16 of 24
Case 1:07-cv-01538-AKH Document 29-3 Filed 12/06/2007 Page 17 of 24
Case 1:07-cv-01538-AKH Document 29-3 Filed 12/06/2007 Page 18 of 24
Case 1:07-cv-01538-AKH Document 29-3 Filed 12/06/2007 Page 19 of 24
Case 1:07-cv-01538-AKH Document 29-3 Filed 12/06/2007 Page 20 of 24
Case 1:07-cv-01538-AKH Document 29-3 Filed 12/06/2007 Page 21 of 24
Case 1:07-cv-01538-AKH Document 29-3 Filed 12/06/2007 Page 22 of 24
Case 1:07-cv-01538-AKH Document 29-3 Filed 12/06/2007 Page 23 of 24
Case 1:07-cv-01538-AKH Document 29-3 Filed 12/06/2007 Page 24 of 24
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

----------------------------------------------------------------x

Julio Hurtado and Elda Montes

Plaintiffs,

- against -

NOMURA HOLDING AMERICA INC. and

NOMURA SECURITIES INTERNATIONAL, INC.

et al. (see Defendants’ List)

Defendants.

Index No.: 07cv05295 (AKH)

NOTICE OF THE NOMURA

PARTIES’ ADOPTION OF

ANSWER TO MASTER

COMPLAINT

_________________________

1:21-MC-00102

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE THAT Defendants NOMURA PARTIES (Nomura

Holding America Inc., Nomura Securities International Inc.) as and for their responses to

the allegations set forth in the Complaint by Adoption (Check-Off Complaint) related to

the Master Complaint filed herein and applicable to the above captioned matter hereby

adopts all of the responses and all of the affirmative defenses contained in the Answer

to the Master Complaint dated, filed and served July 31, 2007, In re World Trade Center

Lower Manhattan Disaster Site Litigation, 21 MC102 (AKH). The responses to all of the

allegations in the Master Complaint are adopted herein and are applicable to the CheckOff Complaint served and filed herein.

Case 1:07-cv-05295-AKH Document 40 Filed 10/23/2007 Page 1 of 3
PLEASE TAKE FURTHER NOTICE that Defendant, NOMURA PARTIES,

reserves the right to serve and file an amended answer and specifically reserves the

right to interpose a cross claim against any and all co-defendants.

PLAEASE TAKE FURTHER NOTICE that Defendant, NOMURA PARTIES, also

adopts all affirmative defenses and the jury demand therein.

WHEREFORE, Defendant, NOMURA PARTIES, demands judgment dismissing

the above captioned action against it along with the costs and disbursements of this

action.

Case 1:07-cv-05295-AKH Document 40 Filed 10/23/2007 Page 2 of 3
Dated: September 14, 2007

New York, New York

Yours, etc.

STRONGIN ROTHMAN & ABRAMS, LLP

s/ Dror M. Bikel

________________________________

Dror M. Bikel, ESQ.

Attorneys for Defendant

NOMURA HOLDING AMERICA, INC.

50 Broadway, Suite 2003

New York, NY 10004

(212) 931-8300

Case 1:07-cv-05295-AKH Document 40 Filed 10/23/2007 Page 3 of 3
EXHIBIT 32.1

 

 

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

OF AMBER RESOURCES COMPANY OF COLORADO

PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

 

     I certify that, to the best of my knowledge, the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Amber Resources Company of Colorado for the year ended December 31, 2010:

 

     (1) 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 aspects, the financial condition and results of operations of Amber Resources Company of Colorado.

 

 

 

/s/ Carl E. Lakey__________

Carl E. Lakey

Chief Executive Officer

 

March 30, 2011

 

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 has been provided to Amber Resources Company of Colorado and will be retained by Amber Resources Company of Colorado and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission upon request.

 

----
Case 1:07-cv-05376-AKH Document 15 Filed 10/15/2007 Page 1 of 7Case 1:07-cv-05376-AKH Document 15 Filed 10/15/2007 Page 2 of 7Case 1:07-cv-05376-AKH Document 15 Filed 10/15/2007 Page 3 of 7Case 1:07-cv-05376-AKH Document 15 Filed 10/15/2007 Page 4 of 7Case 1:07-cv-05376-AKH Document 15 Filed 10/15/2007 Page 5 of 7Case 1:07-cv-05376-AKH Document 15 Filed 10/15/2007 Page 6 of 7Case 1:07-cv-05376-AKH Document 15 Filed 10/15/2007 Page 7 of 7
# EUR-Lex - 52005AP0173 - EN

Important legal notice

*|*

# 52005AP0173

**European Parliament legislative resolution on the Council common position for adopting a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the recognition of professional qualifications (13781/2/2004 - C6-0008/2005 - 2002/0061(COD)) **

*
Official Journal 092 E , 20/04/2006 P. 0167 - 0284 *

P6_TA(2005)0171

Appointment to the ECB Executive Board *

European Parliament decision on the Council's recommendation on the appointment of Lorenzo Bini Smaghi as Executive Board Member of the European Central Bank (6289/2005 — C6-0054/2005 — 2005/0802(CNS))

The European Parliament,

- having regard to the Council's recommendation of 8 March 2005 (6289/2005) [1],

- having regard to Article 112(2)(b) of the EC Treaty, pursuant to which the Council consulted Parliament (C6-0054/2005),

- having regard to Rule 102 of its Rules of Procedure,

- having regard to the report of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs (A6-0094/2005),

1. Delivers a favourable opinion on the appointment of Lorenzo Bini Smaghi as Executive Board Member of the European Central Bank;

2. Instructs its President to forward this decision to the President of the Council for forwarding to the governments of the Member States.

[1] OJ L 68, 15.3.2005, p. 40.

--------------------------------------------------
145 So. 140

#### TRAVELERS’ FIRE INS. CO. v. YOUNG et al.

6 Div. 189.

Supreme Court of Alabama.

Dec. 22, 1932.

Kingman C. Shelburne and Bradley, Baldwin, All & White, all of Birmingham, for appellant.

Cora R. Thompson, of Birmingham, for appellee Brooks.

*672ANDERSON, C. J.

 In courts of equity, the general rule founded on the highest consideration of public policy is that all persons materially interested in the subject-matter and object of the suit, however numerous they may be, must be made parties. Story’s Equity Pleading, § 72; Harwell v. Lehman, Durr & Co., 72 Ala. 344; Prout v. Hoge, 57 Ala. 28. Though, at law, all parties having a joint interest must join- as plaintiffs in equity, it is sufficient if all parties interested in the subject-matter are before the court, either as complainants or respondents-. Seay v. Graves, 178 Ala. 131, 59 So. 469, Parkman’s Adm’r v. Aicardi & Tool, 34 Ala. 393; 73 Am. Dec. 457.

The relief sought by the respondent, D. R. Brooks, in cross-bill is based upon the lease sale contract Exhibit A-l of his cross-bill and made a part thereof. This lease sale contract was made by said Brooks and his wife jointly, and, prima facie, she is as much interested'in the object and the subject-matter as said Brooks; her name is in the preamble as party of the second part; and is signed by her. While in some parts of the instrument the party of the second part is in the singular, yet in other places “parties of the second part” is used, and we think the entire instrument shows that Lizzie Brooks was just as much a party thereto as her husband, D. R. Brooks. Lizzie Brooks was not a party respondent or complainant to the original bill, and, when D. R. Brooks sought relief under the cross-bill predicated upon a lease sale contract in which his wife had a material interest both in the object and subject-matter of the suit, she was a necessary party. Davis et al. v. Denham, 145 Ala. 247, 40 So. 277, Coster’s Ex’rs v. Bank of Georgia et al., 24 Ala. 37.

The trial court erred in not sustaining the demurrer to the cross-bill as for want of a necessary party, and the decree of the circuit court is reversed, and the cause is remanded.

Reversed and remanded.

GARDNER, BOULDIN, and POSTER, JJ., concur.
Case 1:07-cv-05393-AKH Document 17 Filed 06/23/2008 Page 1 of 2
Case 1:07-cv-05393-AKH Document 17 Filed 06/23/2008 Page 2 of 2
<PAGE>

                                                           Exhibit 10.7


                    AMENDMENT OF THE 1993 ROBINSON NUGENT, INC.
                         EMPLOYEE AND NON-EMPLOYEE DIRECTOR
                                 STOCK OPTION PLAN



This amendment of the 1993 Robinson Nugent, Inc. Employee and Non-Employee
Director Stock Option Plan was adopted by the Board of Directors on July 31,
1997, and approved by the shareholders at the Annual Meeting of Shareholders of
Robinson Nugent, Inc. held on November 6, 1997.

This stock option plan is hereby amended in the following respects:

Amendment to Section 4.  SHARES.

          The shares subject to the options and other provisions of the Plan
          shall be either authorized and unissued common shares or previously
          issued common shares acquired by the Company as treasury stock.  The
          total number of Common Shares with respect to which options may be
          granted are hereby increased by an additional 500,000 Common Shares
          and shall not exceed in the aggregate 1,000,000 Common Shares except
          as such number of Common Shares shall be adjusted in accordance with
          the provisions set forth in Section 6(h) of the Stock Option Plan. 
          Common Shares subject to options returned to the Company shall be
          available for future awards under the Stock Option Plan.  The Stock
          Option Plan is intended to ensure that the Company will continue to
          attract and retain key employees and directors who can be expected to
          contribute to the Company's growth and success.

                                       28
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 Connecticut Water Service, Inc. (the “ Company”) on Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Eric W. Thornburg, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby 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/   Eric W. Thornburg


Eric W. Thornburg


Chief Executive Officer


March 11, 2011
# Fourth Court of Appeals **San Antonio, Texas**
MEMORANDUM OPINION
N o. 04

- 19

- 00161

- CR Marilynn Meade MEDINA , Appellant

v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee From the 437th Judicial District Court , Bexar County, Texas Trial Court No. 2019CR0548W Honorable Lori I. Valenzuela , Judge Presiding
PER CURIAM Sitting: Irene Rios, Justice Beth Watkins, Justice Liza A. Rodriguez, Justice Delivered and Filed: June 12, 2019
DISMISSED Pursuant to a plea

- bargain agreement, appellant pleaded nolo contendere to possession of a controlled substance. The trial court deferred the adjudication of guilt and placed appellant on community supervision for a term of three years. On January 23, 2019, the trial court signed a certification of defendant’s right to appe al stating that this “is a plea

- bargain case, and the defendant has NO right of appeal.” See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 25.2(a)(2). “In a plea bargain case ... a defendant may appeal only: (A) those matters that were raised by written motion filed and ruled on befo re trial, or (B) after getting the trial court’s permission to04

- 19

- 00161

- CR

- 2

- appeal.” Id. 25.2(a)(2). The clerk’s record, which contains a written plea bargain, establishes the punishment assessed by the court does not exceed the punishment recommended by the prosecut or and agreed to by the defendant. See id. The clerk’s record does not include a written motion filed and ruled upon before trial; nor does it indicate that the trial court gave its permission to appeal. See id. The trial court’s certification, therefo re, appears to accurately reflect that this is a plea

bargain case and that appellant does not have a right to appeal. We must dismiss an appeal “if a certification that shows the defendant has the right of appeal has not been made part of the record.” Id. 25.2(d). We, therefore, warned appellant that this appeal would be dismissed pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 25.2(d), unless an amended trial court certification showing that s he had the right to appeal was made part of the appellate reco rd. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 25.2(d), 37.1; Daniels v. State , 110 S.W.3d 174 (Tex. App.

— San Antonio 2003, order). No such amended trial court certification has been filed. Rather, appellant’s appointed counsel has filed a response agreeing that appellant doe s not have the right to appeal. Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal pursuant to Rule 25.2(d).
PER CURIAM
DO NOT PUBLISH
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 19
- 1191

OSCAR ADILIO CRUZ

- QUINTANILLA , Petitioner ,

v. WILLIAM P. BARR , Attorney General , Respondent

.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals

.

Submitted : October 24, 2019 Decided: November 14, 2019

Before MOTZ, KEENAN, and HARRIS , Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by un published per curiam opinion

.
Abraham F. Carpio, CARPIO LAW FIRM, LLC, Hyattsville, Maryland , for Petitioner. Joseph H . Hunt, Assistant Attorney General, Melissa Neiman

- Kelting, Assistant Director , Sara J. Bayram, Office of Immigration Litigation , Civil Division, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

Un published opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM:
Oscar Adilio Cruz

- Quintanilla, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for
review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“Board”) denying his motion to
reopen and reconsider . We have reviewed the administrative record and Cruz

Quintanilla’s claims and conclude that the Board did not abuse its discretion in denying his
motion. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a) (2019) ; Mosere v. Mukasey, 552 F.3d 397, 400 (4th Cir. 2009) (stating standard of review)

. Accordingly, we deny the petition for review substantially for the reasons stated by the Board

. In re Cruz

- Quintanilla (B.I.A. Jan. 25, 2019). We dispense with oral argument because the fa cts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
PETITION DENIED
Order filed August 12, 2014

.

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________ NO. 14

- 14

- 00291

- CV

___________ IN THE ESTATE OF RUT H BAILEY, DECEASED

On Appeal from the Probate Court No 2 Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 531010002

O R D E R No reporter’s record has been filed in this case. The official court reporter
for the Probate Court No 2 informed this court that appellant had not made arrangements for payment for the reporter’s record. On July 16, 2014 , the clerk of
this court notified appellant that we would consider and decide those issues that do not require a reporter = s record unless appellant, within 15 days of notice, provided this court with proof of payment for the record. See T ex. R. App

. P. 37.3(c). Appellant has not provided this court with proof of payment

. Accordingly, we order appellant to file a brief in this appeal within thirty days of the date of this order. If appellant fails to comply with this order, the court will dismiss the appeal for want of pr osecution. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(b).

PER CURIAM
## Breadcrumb

-  Forest and Rangeland Ecosystem Science Center 

#           FRESC Corvallis Research Group      

      By Forest and Rangeland Ecosystem Science Center

-  Home 
-  Science 
-  Data 
-  Maps 
-  Multimedia 
-  Publications 
-  Web Tools 
-  Software 
-  News 
-  Connect 
-  Partners 
-  About 

The Corvallis Research Group (CRG) conducts research to support critical information needs of our tribal, federal, state, and other management partners as part of the larger mission of the USGS. 

Primarily, Pacific Northwest forest systems are the focus of our research, particularly forest ecosystem dynamics, fish and wildlife habitats, and responses to agents of change such as forest management activities, fire, non-native species, contaminants, and global climate change. CRG scientists also conduct research in aquatic, riparian, wetland, and coastal systems, exploring similar questions to those addressed in forests. Other specialized research programs address amphibians, native fish, small mammals, and birds, with special focus on threatened and endangered species, migratory birds, and other trust resources. CRG houses laboratories for forest biogeochemistry, conservation genetics, and contaminant ecology, with each focused on applying sophisticated analytical techniques to answer important questions regarding natural resources. 

The CRG is based in Corvallis, Oregon, with most of our laboratories and facilities located on the campus of Oregon State University (OSU). Many of our lead scientists hold courtesy faculty appointments at OSU, and we often conduct research in collaboration with scientists from OSU, U.S. Forest Service, Environmental Protection Agency, and other research organizations on and near the campus. 

**Contact Information**

USGS FRESCCorvallis Research Group3200 SW Jefferson WayCorvallis, OR 97331Phone: 541-750-1030FAX: 541-750-1069

### Contacts

#### Michael J Adams

##### Supervisory Research Ecologist

Forest and Rangeland Ecosystem Science Center

mjadams@usgs.gov

541-750-0980

#### Jason B Dunham

##### Supervisory Research Ecologist

Forest and Rangeland Ecosystem Science Center

jdunham@usgs.gov

541-750-0990

#### Collin Eagles-Smith

##### Supervisory Research Ecologist

Forest and Rangeland Ecosystem Science Center

ceagles-smith@usgs.gov

541-750-0949

#### Joan C Hagar

##### Research Wildlife Biologist

Forest and Rangeland Ecosystem Science Center

joan_hagar@usgs.gov

541-750-0984

#### Steven S Perakis

##### Supervisory Research Ecologist

Forest and Rangeland Ecosystem Science Center

sperakis@usgs.gov

541-750-0991

#### J David Wiens

##### Supervisory Research Wildlife Biologist

Forest and Rangeland Ecosystem Science Center

jwiens@usgs.gov

541-750-0961

#### R. Bruce Bury

##### Scientist Emeritus

Forest and Rangeland Ecosystem Science Center

buryb@usgs.gov

541-750-1010

#### Charles J. Henny

##### Scientist Emeritus

Forest and Rangeland Ecosystem Science Center

hennyc@usgs.gov

541-750-1013
#### In the Matter of Robert Codrington, Appellant, v Walter R. Kelly, as Superintendent of Attica Correctional Facility, Respondent.

Judgment unanimously vacated, determination confirmed and petition dismissed. Memorandum: Because the essential issue raised in this CPLR article 78 proceeding is whether the determination of the Hearing Officer is supported by substantial evidence, Special Term should not have decided the matter and instead, should have transferred it to this court *(see,*CPLR 7804 [g]). However, we may consider the matter as if it had been properly transferred *(Matter of McKins v Coughlin,*142 AD2d 987).

Whether Correction Officer Mussar authorized petitioner to delete names from the facility law library call-out list was a credibility issue for the Hearing Officer to resolve *(Matter of Perez v Wilmot,*67 NY2d 615; *Matter of McKins v Coughlin, supra; Matter of Summer v Kelly,*139 AD2d 972, *lv denied*72 NY2d 804). The Hearing Officer credited Mussar’s version, and the Hearing Officer’s determination of guilt is supported by substantial evidence. (Appeal from judgment of Supreme Court, Wyoming County, Bayger, J. — art 78.) Present — Dillon, P. J., Callahan, Green, Balio and Lawton, JJ.