alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>



                                                                  Exhibit 10(b)

                                 REPRESENTATION OF COUNSEL



I, Sandra M. DaDalt, in my capacity as counsel to Sun Life of Canada (U.S.)
Variable Account F (the "Account") have reviewed this Post-Effective
Amendment to the Registration Statement of the Account which is being filed
pursuant to paragraph (b) of Rule 485 under the Securities Act of 1933. Based
on my review of this Post-Effective Amendment and such other material
relating to the operations of the Account as I deemed relevant, I hereby
certify as of the date of filing this Post-Effective Amendment, that the
Post-Effective Amendment does not contain disclosure which would render it
ineligible to become effective pursuant to paragraph (b) of Rule 485.

I hereby consent to the filing of this representation as part of this
Post-Effective Amendment to the Registration Statement of the Account.

                                         /s/ SANDRA M. DADALT
                                         -----------------------
                                         Sandra M. DaDalt, Esq.


April 5 , 2000
Charles KINNEY, petitioner, v. Michele R. CLARK.

No. 17-1539.

Supreme Court of the United States

June 18, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeal of California, Second Appellate District denied.
Michael Angelo LENA, petitioner, v. CALIFORNIA.

No. 17-5697.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 16, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeal of California, First Appellate District denied.
ex_116748.htm


Exhibit 4.4


 


BIOLARGO, INC.


2018 EQUITY INCENTIVE PLAN


NOTICE OF STOCK OPTION GRANT


 


Unless otherwise defined herein, the terms defined in the BioLargo, Inc. (“BioLargo”) 2018 Equity Incentive Plan (the “Plan”) will have the same meanings in this Notice of Stock Option Grant and the electronic representation of this Notice of Stock Option Grant established and maintained by BioLargo or a third party designated by BioLargo (this “Notice”).


 


Name:


 


Address:


 


You (the “Participant”) have been granted an option to purchase shares of Common Stock of BioLargo under the Plan subject to the terms and conditions of the Plan, this Notice and the Stock Option Award Agreement (the “Option Agreement”), including any applicable country-specific provisions in any appendix attached hereto (the “Appendix”), which constitutes part of the Option Agreement.


 


	
			Grant Number:

				 
	 	 
	
			Date of Grant:

				 
	 	 
	
			Vesting Commencement Date:

				 
	 	 
	
			Exercise Price per Share:

				 
	 	 
	
			Total Number of Shares:

				 
	 	 
	
			Type of Option:

				
			             Non-Qualified Stock Option

			
	 	 
	 	
			             Incentive Stock Option

			
	 	 
	
			Expiration Date:

				
			                     , 20    ; This Option expires earlier if Participant’s Service terminates earlier, as described in the Option Agreement.

			
	 	 
	
			Vesting Schedule:

				
			[Insert applicable vesting schedule]

			



 


By accepting (whether in writing, electronically or otherwise) the Option, Participant acknowledges and agrees to the following:


 


Participant understands that Participant’s employment or consulting relationship or Service with BioLargo or a Parent or Subsidiary or Affiliate is for an unspecified duration, can be terminated at any time (i.e., is “at-will”), except where otherwise prohibited by applicable law and that nothing in this Notice, the Option Agreement or the Plan changes the nature of that relationship. Participant acknowledges that the vesting of the Options pursuant to this Notice is subject to Participant’s continuing Service as an Employee, Director or Consultant. Participant acknowledges that the Vesting Schedule may change prospectively in the event that Participant’s service status changes between full- and part-time status and/or in the event that Participant is on a leave of absence, in accordance with BioLargo’s policies relating to work schedules and vesting or as determined by the Committee. Furthermore, the period during which Participant may exercise the Option after a termination of Service will commence on the Termination Date (as defined in the Option Agreement). Participant also understands that this Notice is subject to the terms and conditions of both the Option Agreement and the Plan, both of which are incorporated herein by reference. Participant has read both the Option Agreement and the Plan. By accepting the Option, Participant consents to electronic delivery as set forth in the Option Agreement.
Waseem DAKER, petitioner, v. Homer BRYSON, Commissioner, Georgia Department of Corrections, et al.

No. 17-5855.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 16, 2017.

Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed *in forma pauperis* denied, and petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit dismissed. See Rule 39.8.
I 

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 4241 

To amend the Higher Education Act of 1965 to rename master promissory 

notes for loans made under part D to student loan contracts. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

SEPTEMBER 6, 2019 

Ms. UNDERWOOD (for herself, Mr. LEVIN of California, and Mrs. LURIA) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Education and Labor 

A BILL 

To amend the Higher Education Act of 1965 to rename 

master promissory notes for loans made under part D 

to student loan contracts. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Student Loan Contract 

5 Act of 2019’’. 

6 SEC. 2. STUDENT LOAN CONTRACT AND LOAN DISCLO7 SURES. 

8 (a) STUDENT LOAN CONTRACT.—Section 

9 432(m)(1)(D) of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 4241 IH

1 U.S.C. 1082(m)(1)(D)) is amended by adding at the end 

2 the following: 

3 ‘‘(iv) STUDENT LOAN CONTRACT.— 

4 ‘‘(I) IN GENERAL.—Any master 

5 promissory note form described in this 

6 subparagraph that is developed or 

7 used for loans made under part D for 

8 periods of enrollment beginning on or 

9 after the date of enactment of the 

10 Student Loan Contract Act of 2019 

11 shall be referred to as a ‘student loan 

12 contract’. 

13 ‘‘(II) CLARIFICATION ON USE.— 

14 A student loan contract for loans 

15 made under part D for a student shall 

16 only be used with respect to loans 

17 made under part D for the periods of 

18 enrollment that are in the same award 

19 year for which the initial loans for 

20 which the contract is used were 

21 made.’’. 

22 (b) CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.—Section 

23 485(l)(2)(B) of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 

24 U.S.C. 1092(l)(2)(B)) is amended by inserting before the 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 4241 IH

1 period at the end the following: ‘‘or the student loan con2 tract’’. 

3 (c) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

4 this section shall take effect with respect to academic year 

5 2019–2020 and each succeeding academic year. 

Æ 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
HANZADA FOR IMPORT & EXPORT COMPANY, LTD., petitioner, v. Hassanin ALY.

No. 17-14.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 2, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit denied.
Antonio BARBA, petitioner, v. W.L. MONTGOMERY, WARDEN.

No. 17-8790.

Supreme Court of the United States

June 11, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.
Terry L. CONNER, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 16-9665.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 2, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit denied.
George RAFIDI, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 16-8725.

Supreme Court of the United States

July 17, 2017.

Petition for rehearing denied.
# L_2012341EN.01002801.xml

| 13.12.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 341/28 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.12.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 341/28

---

DECISION OF THE EEA JOINT COMMITTEE

No 175/2012

of 28 September 2012

amending Annex XI (Electronic communication, audiovisual services and information society) to the EEA Agreement

THE EEA JOINT COMMITTEE,

Having regard to the Agreement on the European Economic Area (‘the EEA Agreement’), and in particular Article 98 thereof,

Whereas:

| (1) | Commission Recommendation 2010/572/EU of 20 September 2010 on regulated access to Next Generation Access Networks (NGA) (1) is to be incorporated into the EEA Agreement. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

Commission Recommendation 2010/572/EU of 20 September 2010 on regulated access to Next Generation Access Networks (NGA) (1) is to be incorporated into the EEA Agreement.

| (2) | Annex XI to the EEA Agreement should therefore be amended accordingly, |
| --- | --- |

(2)

Annex XI to the EEA Agreement should therefore be amended accordingly,

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Article 1

The following point shall be inserted after point 26k (Commission Recommendation 2011/750/EU) of Annex XI to the EEA Agreement:

| ‘26l. | 32010 H 0572: Commission Recommendation 2010/572/EU of 20 September 2010 on regulated access to Next Generation Access Networks (NGA) (OJ L 251, 25.9.2010, p. 35).’ |
| --- | --- |

‘26l.

Article 2

The texts of Recommendation 2010/572/EU in the Icelandic and Norwegian languages, to be published in the EEA Supplement to the Official Journal of the European Union, shall be authentic.

Article 3

This Decision shall enter into force on 29 September 2012, provided that all the notifications under Article 103(1) of the EEA Agreement have been made to the EEA Joint Committee (*1).

Article 4

This Decision shall be published in the EEA Section of, and in the EEA Supplement to, the Official Journal of the European Union.

Done at Brussels, 28 September 2012.

For the EEA Joint Committee

The President

Atle LEIKVOLL

---

(1)  
  OJ L 251, 25.9.2010, p. 35.

1

(*1)  No constitutional requirements indicated.

*1

---
April 5, 2012



### JUDGMENT 

## The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

RALPH O. DOUGLAS , Appellant

NO. 14

- 11

- 00527

- CV V.

THE HONORABLE TEXAS BOARD OF PARDONS AND PAROLES , Appellee

____________________

This cause, an appeal from the judgment in favor of appellee, The Honorable Texas Board of Paroles and Pardons, signed June 2, 2011, was heard on the transcript of the record. The record shows that the judgment is not final. We therefore order the appeal
DISMISSED

.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.
Exhibit








Exhibit 10.2
FORM OF EXTENSION OF TERM
OF EMPLOYMENT PERIOD
MEMORANDUM




		
	To:
	     


		
	From:
	Patricia Smith Lawler,


EVP/Human Resources Division
		
	Re:
	Extension of Employment Period


		
	Date:
	June ___, 2018


The Board of Directors of BankFinancial, NA (the “Bank”) and its Human Resources Committee have completed their annual review of your Employment Agreement with the Bank dated                      and have determined to offer to amend your Employment Agreement to extend the term of the “Employment Period” as referenced in Section 2(a) of your Employment Agreement to                     .
If you are agreeable to amending your Employment Agreement as provided above, please sign and date this document in the space indicated below and return it to me by no later than _________________. 
If you do not sign and return this document to me by such date, the term of your Employment Period and the Anniversary Date applicable to your Employment Agreement will remain unchanged. 


		
	Name:
	     




		
	Signature:
	     




		
	Date:
# L_2009323EN.01001101.xml

| 10.12.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 323/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.12.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 323/11

---

Information concerning the date of entry into force of the Agreements on Extradition and on Mutual Legal Assistance between the European Union and the United States of America

The Agreements on Extradition and on Mutual Legal Assistance between the European Union and the United States of America, both signed in Washington DC on 25 June 2003
   (1), enter into force on 1 February 2010, in accordance with Article 22 of the Agreement on Extradition and Article 18 of the Agreement on Mutual Legal Assistance.

1

---

(1)  
  OJ L 181, 19.7.2003, p. 27.

1

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from Swift Energy
Income  Partners  1989-B  Ltd.'s  balance  sheet  and  statement  of  operations
contained  in its Form 10-Q for the  quarter  ended  September  30,  1998 and is
qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                   SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                         1,000
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  209,945
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               210,945
<PP&E>                                         8,663,667
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (6,309,920)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 2,649,662
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          131,076
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       0
<OTHER-SE>                                     2,463,556
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   2,649,662
<SALES>                                        704,668
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               713,822
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  1,062,475
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (446,387)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (446,387)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (446,387)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  0
<FN>
<F1>Includes  lease  operating  expenses,  production  taxes  and  depreciation,
depletion and  amortization  expense.  Excludes general and  administrative  and
interest expense.
</FN>

        

</TABLE>
# C_2014045EN.01000302.xml

| 15.2.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 45/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.2.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 45/3

---

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 4 December 2013 — European Commission v Council of the European Union

(Case C-121/10) (1)

1

(Action for annulment - State aid - Article 108(1) and (2) TFEU - Aid granted by Hungary for the purchase of agricultural land - Competence of the Council of the European Union - Existing aid scheme - Appropriate measures - Two indissolubly connected aid schemes - Change of circumstances - Exceptional circumstances - Economic crisis - Manifest error of assessment - Principle of proportionality)

2014/C 45/05

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: V. Di Bucci, L. Flynn, A. Stobiecka-Kuik and K. Walkerová, acting as Agents)

Applicant:

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: É. Sitbon and F. Florindo Gijón, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Interveners in support of the defendant: Republic of Lithuania (represented by: D. Kriaučiūnas and L. Liubertaitė, acting as Agents), Hungary (represented by: G. Koós, M. Fehér and K. Szíjjártó, acting as Agents), Republic of Poland (represented by: M. Szpunar, acting as Agent)

Interveners in support of the defendant:

Re:

Re:

Action for annulment — Annulment of Council Decision 2009/1017/EU of 22 December 2009 on the granting of State aid by the authorities of the Republic of Hungary for the purchase of agricultural land between 1 January 2010 and 31 December 2013 (OJ 2009 L 348, p. 55) — Lack of competence — Misuse of powers — Infringement of the principle of sincere cooperation between Member States and institutions — Manifest error of assessment.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders the European Commission to pay the costs; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the European Commission to pay the costs;

| 3. | Orders the Republic of Lithuania, Hungary and the Republic of Poland to bear their own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the Republic of Lithuania, Hungary and the Republic of Poland to bear their own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 134, 22.5.2010.

1

---
EXHIBIT 32.1


                  STATEMENT PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


I, Ian M. Herman, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of Global
Aircraft Solutions, Inc. (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 Company's Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended
June 30, 2006 (the "Report"), which this statement accompanies, 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.



Dated, August 14, 2006

/s/ Ian M.Herman

-----------------------
Ian M. Herman
Chief Executive Officer
FILED

September 18, 1998

Cecil W. Crowson

Appellate Court Clerk

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE

AT NASHVILLE

MAY 1998 SESSION

STATE OF TENNESSEE, * No. 01C01-9705-CC-00175

Appellant, * Williamson County

vs. * Hon. Henry Denmark Bell, Judge

LONNY D. HAZELWOOD, * (Rule 9, Interlocutory Appeal)

Appellee. *

CONCURRING OPINION

I concur in the result reached by the majority, I write separately only to

express my belief that at most this record demonstrates negligence on the part of

the district attorney’s office in making the blood alcohol test results available to the

defense in a timely fashion. While this negligence did in fact deprive the defendant

of the means to conduct a full defense to the charges against him, I find no

evidence of bad faith on the part of the prosecutor’s office as suggested by the

majority’s reference to State v. Golden, 941 S.W.2d 905 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1996). 

Nevertheless, the defendant must not be denied, even through negligence, of the

ability to defend himself. I therefore concur that the judgment of the trial court must

be affirmed.

______________________________

JERRY L. SMITH, JUDGE
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    EXHIBIT 12.3

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                             COMPUTATION OF RATIO OF TOTAL DEBT TO EBITDA (AS DEFINED)

                                          1995           1996        1997       1998         1999
<S>                                     <C>           <C>         <C>        <C>          <C>
Total debt                              $32,074       $ 19,124    $ 50,000   $ 45,000     $266,557
EBITDA (as defined)                      13,168         17,213      24,522     43,547       50,562
                                        -------       --------    --------   --------     --------
Ratio                                       2.4            1.1         2.0        1.0          5.3
                                        =======       ========    ========   ========     ========
</TABLE>


                                       xxvii
# In the United States Court of Federal Claims

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

MATTHEW DRIGGERS, *

* No. 19

- 1 436 V

Petitioner, * Special Master Christian J. Moran

*

v. * Filed: October 14, 2021

*

SECRETARY OF HEALTH * Stipulation; influenza (“flu”) vaccine;

AND HUMAN SERVICES, * anaphylaxis; chronic urticaria.

*

*

Respondent. *

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Jeffrey S. Pop

, Jeffrey S. Pop & Associates

, Beverly Hills, CA , for Petitioner;

Amanda Pasciuto

, United States Dep’t of Justice, Washington, DC, for

Respondent.

UNPUBLISHED DECISION 1

On October 12

, 2021 , the parties filed a joint stipulation concerning the

petition for compensation filed by Matthew Driggers on September 18, 2019.

P etitioner alleged that the influenza (“flu”) vaccine he received on September 20,

2016, which is contained in the Vaccine In jury Table (the “Table”), 42 C .F.R.

§100.3(a), caused him to suffer from anaphylaxis and chronic urticaria . Petitioner

represents that there has been no prior award or settlement of a civil action for

damages on his behalf as a result of his condition.

R espondent denies that the vaccine either caused petitioner to suffer from

anaphylaxis or chronic urticaria, or any other injury or his current condition.

1 T he E

- Government Act

, 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2012) (Federal Management and

Promotion of Electronic Government Services) , requires that the Court post this decision on its

website. Pursuant to Vaccine Rule 18(b), the parties have 14 days to file a motion proposing

redaction of medical information or other information described in 42 U.S.C. § 300aa

- 12(d)(4).

Any redactions ordered by the special master will appear in the document posted on the website.2

Nevertheless, the parties agree to the joint stipulation, attached hereto. The

undersigned finds sa id stipulation reasonable and adopts it as the decision of the

Court in awarding damages, on the terms set forth therein.

Damages awarded in that stipulation include:

A lump sum payment of $35,000.00 in the form of a check payable to

petitioner. This amount represents compensation for all damages that

would be available under 42 U.S.C. § 300aa

- 15(a).

In the absence of a motion for review filed pursuant to RCFC, Appendix B,

the clerk is directed to enter judgment according to this de cision and the attached

stipulation. 2

IT IS SO ORDERED

.

s /Christian J. Moran

Christian J. Moran

Special Master

2 Pursuant to Vaccine Rule 11(a), the parties can expedite entry of judgment by each

party filing a notice renouncing the right to seek review by a United States Court of Federal

Claims judge.