alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 10.10

                        Assignment of Trademark to Y Sake

                                   ASSIGNMENT

         WHEREAS, Alive Enterprises, Inc., a corporation organized and existing
under the laws of the State of Hawaii, United States of America, with a
principal place of business at 3264 South Kihei Road, Kihei, Maui, Hawaii 96753
("Assignor"), has adopted, used and is using in commerce, and is the owner of
the domain name(s) and trademark(s), including any applications or registrations
thereof, identified on the attached Schedule A (collectively, the "Assets"); and

         WHEREAS, Y Sake LLC, a limited liability company organized and existing
under the laws of the State of Hawaii, United States of America, with a
principal place of business at 3264 South Kihei Road, Kihei, Maui, Hawaii 96753,
United States of America ("Assignee"), is desirous of acquiring said Assets and
the goodwill of the business associated therewith;

         NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of and in exchange for the sum of Ten
Dollars ($10.00) and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and
sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, Assignor does hereby agree as
follows:

         1. Assignor represents and warrants that it owns all right, title and
interest in and to the Assets, and had full power and authority to execute and
enter into this agreement on behalf of the Assignee.

         2. Assignor does hereby sell and assign unto the Assignee all right,
title and interest in and to said Assets, together with the good will of the
business connected with and symbolized by said Domain Name, and all the rights
for recovery, damages and profits for past infringements, if any.

         3. Assignor does hereby agree to cooperate with Assignee and take all
such action as may be necessary to assign from Assignor to Assignee the Assets,
including, without limitation, the full and complete execution of a Registrant
Name Change Agreement, or such other form as may be required by the particular
domain name registrar(s) and InterNIC to accomplish the same result, and to take
all action necessary to ensure that the Assets are transferred to and stand in
the name of Assignee.

/s/ Shep Gordon_____________________

/s/ J. Patrick Kenny__________________

                                       73
---

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 amended Annual Report on Form 40-F/A for
the fiscal year ended June 30, 2006 of Energy Metals Corporation (the Company)
as filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (the Commission) on
the date hereof (the Report) and pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, I, Paul Matysek,
Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify that to the best of my
knowledge:

| | (1) | the Report fully complies with the requirements of
      Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended;
      and                   
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| |     |                                                                                                                                                                 
| | (2) | the information contained in the Report fairly presents,
      in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
      operations of the Company.

|Date: October 30, 2006 |                        
|---------------------- | -----------------------
|                       |                        
|                       |                        
|                       | /s/ Paul Matysek       
|                       | Paul Matysek           
|                       | Chief Executive Officer

---
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Olga L. Bogdanov, Chapter 7 Trustee

of Amherst Technologies , LLC, et al.,

Plaintiff

v. Civil No.

Airport Network Solutions, Inc.,

Defendant

1:07-mc-13-SM

ORDER

In accordance with the Report Regarding Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of

Law issued by Bankruptcy Judge J. Michael Deasy on January 23, 2007, the Plaintiffs Motion

for Default Judgment is granted. Default judgment shall be entered against the Defendant.

SO ORDERED.

Date : February 9, 2007 /s/ Steven J. McAuliffe

United States District Judge

cc; Olga L. Bogdanov, Esq.

Daniel W. Sklar, Esq.

Airport Network Solutions, pro se

US Bankruptcy Court - NH, Clerk

Geraldine L. Karonis, Esq.

Case 1:07-mc-00013-SM Document 3-1 Filed 02/09/07 Page 1 of 1
19

A.14. Survey of Terms of Bank Lending to Farmers, Selected Quarters

Percent except as noted

USDA Farm Production Region

NE LS CB NP AP SE DL SP MN PA

Proportion of farm loans

outstanding, 2002 Q4 survey,

region share of national

total 2.5 9.6 27.6 17.5 10.1 5.0 4.4 8.8 5.5 8.9

Sample coverage, 2002 Q4

survey, sample share of total

regional loans 14.9 7.0 21.0 12.3 14.8 13.7 5.8 8.9 12.7 49.7

Avg. loan size, 2002 Q4 survey

(thousands of dollars) 41.6 16.9 33.2 20.3 45.3 47.7 35.5 74.3 20.6 65.3

Survey date Weighted average interest rate during sample week

1995: Q1 11.7 10.7 10.0 9.9 8.6 7.2 10.4 10.4 9.4 9.4

Q2 9.0 10.4 9.3 9.4 8.5 10.2 10.7 10.1 9.3 9.3

Q3 9.6 10.3 9.3 9.8 8.1 9.6 10.4 10.1 9.4 9.5

Q4 10.8 10.3 8.3 9.6 7.9 10.1 10.3 9.8 9.3 8.9

1996: Q1 8.8 9.9 8.0 9.4 7.3 9.4 10.9 9.9 8.9 8.1

Q2 10.3 10.2 7.3 9.0 8.1 9.6 10.4 9.8 8.7 8.3

Q3 8.3 9.9 8.9 9.4 7.6 9.4 10.0 9.4 8.9 8.1

Q4 10.1 9.9 9.3 9.0 7.5 9.3 9.9 9.1 9.0 8.6

1997: Q1 8.8 9.5 9.5 9.3 8.0 9.9 9.5 9.5 10.1 8.7

Q2 9.4 10.1 9.2 9.5 8.3 9.9 10.2 9.7 10.0 8.7

Q3 9.3 9.8 9.6 9.9 8.5 10.1 9.9 9.7 10.5 8.7

Q4 9.2 9.5 9.3 9.8 7.5 9.8 9.4 9.4 10.1 8.8

1998: Q1 9.3 9.0 9.4 9.8 7.3 10.0 10.3 9.8 9.6 8.5

Q2 9.2 9.4 9.2 9.7 7.6 10.2 10.3 9.6 9.8 8.4

Q3 10.2 9.5 9.5 9.5 8.8 9.5 9.7 9.5 9.6 8.5

Q4 9.4 9.2 8.7 9.0 8.3 9.4 9.7 9.2 9.1 8.0

1999: Q1 8.4 8.9 8.9 9.1 8.2 9.0 9.6 9.1 9.0 7.5

Q2 9.6 9.1 8.8 9.0 8.0 9.0 9.8 9.0 8.7 8.0

Q3 10.2 8.9 8.7 9.3 8.2 8.9 10.0 8.8 9.0 8.5

Q4 9.1 9.2 8.8 9.4 8.3 8.8 9.8 9.0 9.5 8.8

2000: Q1 9.4 9.2 9.2 9.6 8.4 9.8 9.3 10.0 9.8 8.4

Q2 10.7 9.5 9.7 9.7 9.1 9.1 10.5 10.0 10.1 9.5

Q3 10.5 10.30 10.0 10.3 9.7 9.2 10.5 10.0 10.6 9.7

Q4 10.7 9.3 9.9 10.1 9.2 9.4 9.2 10.3 10.3 9.8

2001: Q1 9.3 9.1 9.4 9.7 8.4 7.8 9.5 9.0 9.8 8.8

Q2 8.2 8.7 8.3 8.8 7.4 8.1 8.3 9.2 8.6 7.9

Q3 8.3 9.8 7.9 8.2 6.3 7.6 8.7 8.8 7.8 7.2

Q4 6.9 7.9 6.3 7.0 5.2 6.3 8.7 7.6 6.1 5.2

(.23) (.78) (.38) (.29) (.36) (1.71) (.42) (.79) (.33) (.35)

2002: Q1 6.9 7.8 6.7 7.2 5.2 5.5 7.3 7.4 6.8 4.9

(.12) (.37) (.26) (.22) (.63) (1.14) (.39) (.45) (.26) (.25)

Q2 6.8 7.4 6.4 7.2 5.0 5.9 7.6 7.5 6.5 5.1

(.14) (.29) (.27) (.21) (.48) (1.03) (.23) (.34) (.36) (.26)

Q3 6.4 7.5 5.8 6.5 4.6 6.0 7.5 7.3 6.5 5.3

(.43) (.29) (.50) (.68) (.67) (1.19) (.34) (.68) (.41) (1.06)

Q4 5.7 6.9 5.1 5.5 4.6 5.2 6.7 7.6 6.4 4.5

(.35) (.45) (.47) (1.01) (.56) (.62) (.68) (.35) (.47) (.62)

Notes. NE is Northeast, LS is Lake States, CB is Cornbelt, NP is Northern Plains, AP is Appalachia, SE is Southeast, DL is Delta States,

SP is Southern Plains, MN is Mountain States, and PA is Pacific. The numbers in parentheses are standard errors. They are calculated from

100 replications of a bootstrap procedure (resampling of banks) in each region.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Best Management Products, Inc.

v. Civil No. 07-cv-151-JM

New England Fiberglass, LLC et al.

O R D E R

The individual defendant, Mark Richardson, filed a pleading entitled Answer, Affirmative

Defenses and Counterclaims dated June 22, 2007. It appears that the pleading was intended to be

filed both on behalf of Mr. Richardson individually and on behalf of the corporate defendant, New

England Fiberglass, LLC. Pursuant to LR 83.6 (b) and (c), however, an individual may not appear

for a corporation pro se. 

For the foregoing reasons, the court will construe this filing as an Answer, Affirmative

Defense and Counterclaims entered on behalf the individual defendant Richardson only. Counsel

shall appear and file an Answer for the corporate defendant, New England Fiberglass, LLC, on or

before July 16, 2007, or the file will be referred to the Clerk for entry of default as to the corporate

defendant pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(a). 

So Ordered.

June 25, 2007 /s/ James R. Muirhead 

 James R. Muirhead

 U.S. Magistrate Judge

cc: David A. Anderson, Esq.

Mark Richardson, Pro Se

Case 1:07-cv-00151-JL Document 8 Filed 06/25/07 Page 1 of 1
# United Stat es Court of A ppeals For the First C ircuit

No. 03-2224 HÉCTOR E. COLÓN-RODRÍGUEZ, in his personal capacity and as President of Fundación Eco-Cultural, Inc. and doing business as the Eco-Logic Co., Inc. & TM; ECO-LOGIC CO., INC., & TM; FUNDACIÓN ECO-CULTURAL, INC., represented by its president Héctor Colón-Rodríguez, Plaintiffs, Appellees,

v. CARLOS D. LÓPEZ-BONILLA, Hon., in his personal capacity and official capacity as Mayor of the Municipality of Rincón; ALEXIS ROSADO, Director of the Department of Public Works of the Municipality of Rincón and member of the Municipality's Procurement Board, ZAYDA RODRÍGUEZ-MORALES, in her personal capacity and official capacity as President of the Procurement Board, Municipality of Rincón; MUNICIPALITY OF RINCÓN,represented by its Mayor Hon. Carlos D. López-Bonilla; PERSONS AZ, Defendants, Appellants.

ERRATA SHEET

The opinion of this Court issued on April 22, 2004 is amended as follows:

On pag e 3, line 12, "June 19, 2003" should be replace wit h "June 19, 2002"
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 10.4

                              TERMINATION AGREEMENT

      THIS TERMINATION AGREEMENT (the "Termination Agreement") is entered into
and made effective this 11th day of February 2004, by and between CANARGO ENERGY
CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation ("CanArgo") and CORNELL CAPITAL PARTNERS,
LP, a Delaware limited partnership ("Cornell").

      WHEREAS, on December 17, 2003, CanArgo and Cornell entered into that
certain Standby Equity Distribution Agreement, as well as the related
Registration Rights Agreement, Placement Agent Agreement, Escrow Agreement and
the Secured Compensation Debenture of even date therewith (together with the
Standby Equity Distribution Agreement, the "Transaction Documents"); and

      WHEREAS, the parties hereto now desire to terminate the Transaction
Documents.

      NOW, THEREFORE, for good and valuable consideration, the receipt and
sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged by each of the parties hereto, the
parties hereto hereby terminate and cancel the Transaction Documents as of the
date hereof and none of the parties to the Transaction Documents shall have any
further rights or obligations arising from or relating to the Transaction
Documents.

      IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned parties have entered into this
Termination Agreement on this 11th day of February 2004.

                                    CANARGO ENERGY CORPORATION

                                    By: ________________________________________
                                    Name:  Vincent McDonell
                                    Title: Director & Chief Financial Officer

                                    CORNELL CAPITAL PARTNERS, LP

                                    BY:  YORKVILLE ADVISORS, LLC
                                    ITS: GENERAL PARTNER

                                    By: ________________________________________
                                    Name:  Mark Angelo
                                    Title: Portfolio Manager & President

                                    SOLELY WITH RESPECT TO THE PLACEMENT
                                    AGENT AGREEMENT:

                                    NEWBRIDGE SECURITIES CORPORATION

                                    By: ________________________________________
                                    Name:
                                    Title:
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

 FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE 

United States of America, Plaintiff, 

 v. Cr. No. 05-08-01-JD Tracy Sutter Petrucelli, 

Defendant, and Jalbert & Company CPA’s, P.C., 

Garnishee. 

 FINAL ORDER OF CONTINUING GARNISHMENT

 On February 23, 2012, a Writ of Continuing Garnishment and 

Clerk=s Notice were issued in the above-captioned action by this 

Court. The Garnishee and the Defendant were served with copies of 

the Application, Clerk=s Notice and Writ of Continuing Garnishment 

on February 25, 2012, and March 1, 2012, respectively. As stated in 

Plaintiff=s motion, Garnishee verbally stated to Plaintiff that at 

the time of service of the Writ, it had in its possession, custody 

or control, personal property, in the form of semi-monthly non-exempt 

disposable earnings, belonging to and due defendant, Tracy Sutter 

Petrucelli. Defendant agreed to waive her right to a hearing 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ' 3202(d). Therefore, it is 

 ORDERED that Garnishee pay Two Hundred Fifty and 00/100 Dollars 

($250.00) of the Defendant=s semi-monthly non-exempt disposable 

earnings (earnings remaining after all deductions required by law 

have been withheld) beginning April 1, 2012, and thereafter, to 

Plaintiff and continue said payments until the debt to Plaintiff is 

paid in full or until the Garnishee no longer has possession, custody 

or control of any property belonging to the Defendant or until further 

Case 1:05-cr-00008-JD Document 37 Filed 03/09/12 Page 1 of 2
Order of this Court. Said payments shall be made payable to Clerk, 

U.S. District Court and mailed to U.S. District Court, 55 Pleasant 

Street, Room 110, Concord, NH 03301. 

 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, that Defendant shall keep the United 

States Attorney=s Office currently informed, in writing, of any 

change in her employment, place of residence, or telephone number. 

Defendant shall provide such information to the United States 

Attorney=s Office at the address listed above. 

SO ORDERED THIS DAY OF , 2012.

_____________________________ 

 Joseph A. DiClerico 

Senior U.S. District Court Judge 

cc: U.S. Attorney=s Office 

 Tracy Sutter Petrucelli, pro se 

 Jalbert & Company CPA’s, P.C. 

9th March /s/ Joseph A. DiClerico, Jr.

Case 1:05-cr-00008-JD Document 37 Filed 03/09/12 Page 2 of 2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America

v. Case No. 05-cr-255-01-PB

Darisnel Mercado

O R D E R

The defendant has moved to continue the February 7, 2006

trial in the above case, citing defense counsel’s scheduling

conflict with the trial date. The government does not object to a

continuance of the trial date.

Accordingly, in order to accommodate counsel’s scheduling

conflict and to allow the parties additional time to properly

prepare for trial, the court will continue the trial from

February 7, 2006 to April 4, 2006. In agreeing to continue the

trial, the court finds pursuant to 18 U.S.C.A. § 3161(h)(8)(A)

that for the above-stated reasons, the ends of justice served in

granting a continuance outweigh the best interests of the public

and the defendant in a speedy trial.

Case 1:05-cr-00255-PB Document 11 Filed 01/13/06 Page 1 of 2
2

The January 25, 2006 final pretrial conference is continued

until March 21, 2006 at 3:45 p.m.

SO ORDERED.

/s/Paul Barbadoro 

Paul Barbadoro

United States District Judge

January 13, 2006

cc: Paul Haley, Esq.

Mark Irish, AUSA

United States Probation

United States Marshal

Case 1:05-cr-00255-PB Document 11 Filed 01/13/06 Page 2 of 2
#### GLASSELL-HICKS CO., Inc., v. SMITH.

No. 5758.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. Second Circuit.

Feb. 6, 1939.

*860Barksdale, Bullock, Warren, Clark & Van Hook, of Shreveport, for appellant.

Foster, Hall & Smith, of Shreveport, for appellee.

HAMITER, Judge.

A judgment against defendant for the sum of $109.33 is asked by plaintiff in this suit. Of the mentioned amount $95 is alleged to be for money advances made, while the balance, or $14.33, is claimed as interest that has accrued on the funds loaned.

There was judgment in the trial court in favor of plaintiff for $95. The interest item was rejected. Defendant appealed.

 This court has no jurisdiction of the appeal. The case is of a civil nature and is one of which the district court had concurrent jurisdiction; and when the aforementioned interest charge is excluded or eliminated from the amount demanded by plaintiff, as must be done for the purpose of determining jurisdiction, the sum remaining is below our authorized jurisdictional limits. Article 7, section 29 of the Louisiana Constitution of 1921; Todd v. Shreveport Producing & Refining Corp., 7 La.App. 120.

The appeal is therefore dismissed.
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be

published and is not precedent except under the limit ed circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

_________________

No. 99-60002

Summary Calendar

_________________

THOMAS W BOOZER,

Petitioner-Appellant,

versus

COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE,

Respondent-Appellee.

Appeal from the Decision

of the United States Tax Court

(9328-97)

August 23, 1999

Before EMILIO M. GARZA, DeMOSS, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Thomas Boozer appeals the Tax Court’s decision holding him liable for addition to tax based

on his failure to file income tax returns. See 26 U.S.C. § 6651(a)(1).

We review the Tax Court’s findings of fact for clear error and its conclusions of law de novo

.

See Stanford v. CIR

, 152 F.3d 450, 455 (5th Cir. 1998). In this case, where t he parties have

stipulated to the facts, the matter of whether or not the taxpayer’s failure to file is a question of law

subject to de novo review. See id. (case arising under 26 U.S.C. § 6652).

Boozer says that he was not requir ed t o file a tax return until the Government obtained a

court order requiring him to file. This argument hinges on the assumption that 26 U.S.C. § 6012's

directive to “make” a tax return is not a requirement to “file” a tax return. Boozer maintains that the-2-

Tax Court’s rejection of this assumption and holding that he was required to file a tax return despite

the absence of a court order directing him to file contravened the Fourth Amendment.

Boozer’s argument lacks merit. We have construed § 6012's requirement to “make” a tax

return as a requirement to “file” a tax return. S ee Moore v. CIR

, 722 F.2d 193, 196 (5th Cir. 1984)

(observing that the taxpayer has an “obligation to file established by 26 U.S.C. § 6012"); Steinbrecher

v. CIR

, 712 F.2d 195, 198 (5th C ir. 1983) (per curiam) (“Section 6012(a) . . . provides that

individuals meeting certain requirements shall file income tax returns.” (emphasis deleted)); see also

In re Ripley

, 991 F.2d 440, 444 n.15 (5th Cir. 1991) (indicating that § 6651(a) is a sanction for failing

to comply with § 6012(a)). Additionally, we have rejected as “without merit” t he co ntention that

requiring the filing of a tax return violates the Fourth Amendment. H allow ell v. CIR

, 744 F.2d 406,

408 (5th Cir. 1984). “[T]he amendment was not intended to prevent the ordinary procedure . . . of

requiring tax returns to be made, often under oath.” F lint v. Stone Tracy Co.

, 220 U.S. 107, 175,

31 S. Ct. 342, 358, 55 L. Ed. 389, ___ (1911); see also White v. CIR , 72 T.C. 1126, 1130 (1979)

(“It is further established that the requirement for filing ordinary and reasonable returns and

respondent’s inspection thereof, does not violate a taxpayer’s protecti on against unreasonable search

and seizure under the Fourth Amendment.”).

Accordingly, we hold that the Tax Court did not err in finding Boozer liable for additions to

tax pursuant to § 6651(a)(1), and affirm.
#### FAN DISC CORPORATION, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. THE MASTER PRODUCTS CO., Defendant-Appellee.

No. 03-1422.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

Aug. 5, 2003.

ORDER

Upon consideration of the parties stipulation of dismissal, the appeal is hereby REACTIVATED.

The parties having so agreed, it is ORDERED that the proceeding is DISMISSED under Fed. R.App. P. 42(b). Each party shall bear its own costs.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Larry FERRIER, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 00-50428.

D.C. No. CR-98-00030-RT-1.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted March 10, 2003.*

Decided March 17, 2003.

Before CANBY, O’SCANNLAIN and T. G. NELSON, Circuit Judges.

*

 This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM**

Larry Ferrier appeals his conviction and 87-month sentence imposed after his jury trial for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute and possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 846, 841(a)(1).

Pursuant to *Anders v. California,*386 U. S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), counsel for Ferrier has filed a brief stating that there are no meritorious issues for review, and a motion to withdraw as counsel of record. Ferrier has not filed a pro se supplemental brief.

Our independent review of the record pursuant to *Penson v. Ohio,*488 U.S. 75, 83, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), discloses no further issues for review. Counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED and the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
ex_154826.htm


Exhibit 10.6


 


Christos P. Traios


10, Sp. Trikoupi Street


18538 Piraeus – Greece


 


Date: July 12, 2019


 


Petrogress, Inc.


1013 Centre Rd, Suite 403-A


Wilmington, DE 19805


 


 


 


 


Re:     Extension of Maturity Date of Revolving Line of Credit Agreement


==


 


 


Please be advised that the undersigned hereby extends the maturity date of that certain Revolving Line of Credit Agreement dated July 13, 2017 (the “Credit Agreement”) pursuant to which the undersigned provided a revolving line of credit in the principal amount of up to $1,000,000 to Petrogress, Inc. (the “Company”). Consequently, the date hereof July 13, 2020 shall be the final Maturity Date of the Line of Credit Note.


 


 


 


 


	
			 

				
			 

				
			 Sincerely,

				
			 

			
	
			 

				
			 

				
			 

				
			 

			
	 	 	 	 
	
			 

				
			 

				
			 

				
			 

			
	
			 

				
			 

				
			 Christos P. Traios

				
			 

			



 


 


 


AGREED AND ACKNOWLEDGED:


 


Petrogress, Inc.


 


 


 


By: /s/ Christos P. Traios


       President and Chief Executive officer