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

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### International Trade Commission

          - [Investigation No. AA1921-129 (Third Review)]

# AGENCY:

United States International Trade Commission.

# ACTION:

Termination of five-year review.

# SUMMARY:

The subject five-year review was initiated in July 2010 to determine whether revocation of the antidumping duty finding on polychloroprene rubber from Japan would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury. On August 24, 2010, the Department of Commerce published notice that it was revoking the order effective August 4, 2010, “{b}ecause the domestic interested parties did not participate in this sunset review * * *.” (75 FR 51981). Accordingly, pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1675(c)), the subject review is terminated.

# DATES:

*Effective Date:*                         August 4, 2010.                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

                        Mary Messer (202-205-3193), Office of Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street, SW., Washington, DC 20436. Hearing-impaired individuals are advised that information on this matter can be obtained by contacting the Commission's TDD terminal on 202-205-1810. Persons with mobility impairments who will need special assistance in gaining access to the Commission should contact the Office of the Secretary at 202-205-2000. General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its Internet server (                        *http://www.usitc.gov*).                    

Authority: This review is being terminated under authority of title VII of the Tariff Act of 1930; this notice is published pursuant to section 207.69 of the Commission's rules (19 CFR 207.69).

Issued: September 17, 2010.

By order of the Commission.

Marilyn R. Abbott,

Secretary to the Commission.

[FR Doc. 2010-23746 Filed 9-22-10; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7020-02-P
QuickLinks
 -- Click here to rapidly navigate through this document

 
 

Exhibit 10.20    
    


November 3,
2003 


Via Fax: (407) 872-3977

And email: kevinjodonnell@aol.com  


Mr. Kevin
O'Donnell

Advantage Group, LLC

27 North Summerlin Avenue

Orlando, FL 32801 



	Re:	 	Stratus Services Group, Inc./ALS, LLC and Advantage Group, LLC Receivables





Dear
Mr. O'Donnell: 


        Please
let this serve as written confirmation of the agreement between Stratus and Advantage regarding Stratus' outstanding receivables to ALS, LLC, or Advantage Services Group,
(collectively "Advantage").
This letter shall serve as confirmation that, as of today's date, $225,000.00 is due and outstanding by Stratus to Advantage plus interest at a rate Prime + 1.5%. 


        Stratus
hereby agrees that it will pay to Advantage the sum of a minimum of $5,000.00 per week, and a minimum of $20,000 every four (4) weeks, beginning Monday,
October 27th, and continuing until the balance above is paid in full. 



        As
security for Advantage's cooperation in collecting on these amounts due and owing, Stratus hereby pledges as collateral only, to Advantage, a Warrant with a term of five
(5) years to purchase two (2) million shares of its common stock at an exercise price of the lower of $.15 per share or 75% of the share trading price, in the latest arms length trade.
The Warrant shall be exercisable, in whole or in part, at the election of Advantage, upon or after the date of notification by Advantage to Stratus that Stratus has not complied with the foregoing
payment obligations. While the Warrant will be issued, it will be held as collateral, and will only be released to Advantage in the event of a default by Stratus under the terms of this letter
agreement, which default would continue for ten (10) days without cure. Moreover, if such a default occurs and is not cured in ten (10) days, and the Warrant must be released to
Advantage, Advantage agrees that it will not exercise the warrant for a period of (i) six (6) months from the date hereof, or (ii) fifteen (15) days from the date of
notification as set forth in the preceding sentence, whichever is later. Advantage shall have the right, but not the obligation, to apply funds owed to it by Stratus pursuant to the terms of this
Letter Agreement only, in whole or in part in exercising the Warrant. Stratus shall, upon such exercise only, have the obligation to register the shares underlying the Warrant, in accordance with the
registration rights granted to Advantage in connection therewith. 





 

        If
the same meets with your approval, please sign where indicated below and return a copy to the undersigned. 



	 	 	Very truly yours,
	

 	
 	

/s/ Michael A. Maltzman
	

 	
 	

Michael A. Maltzman

Executive Vice President

And Chief Financial Officer





AGREED TO AND ACCEPTED BY:



ADVANTAGE GROUP, LLC



	

By:	
 	

KEVIN O'DONNELL
 Kevin O'Donnell





	

Title:	

 	
 	

 
	 	
	 	 





	 	 	 
	cc:	 	Suzette N. Berrios, Esq.

Mr. Jeffrey Raymond

Mr. Joseph J. Raymond

Mr. Joseph J. Raymond, Jr.




2









QuickLinks



Exhibit 10.20
<PAGE>

                                                                 Exhibit 10.66



                    FIFTH AMENDMENT TO COST SHARING NATIONAL
                                 IRU AGREEMENT

     THIS FIFTH AMENDMENT TO COST SHARING NATIONAL IRU AGREEMENT ("Amendment")
is made and entered into as of the ____ day of June 2000, by and between LEVEL 3
COMUNICATIONS, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company ("Grantor") and
SPLITROCK SERVICES, INC., a Delaware corporation ("Grantee").  This Amendment
modified and amends that certain Cost Sharing National IRU Agreement dated
April 26, 1999 between Grantor and Grantee (the "Agreement").

     Whereas, for good and valuable consideration, Grantor and Grantee hereby
agree as follows:

1.  Amendment.  Grantor and Grantee hereby amend Section 3.02 of the Agreement
    ---------
    by deleting the second sentence in its entirety and inserting in lieu
    thereof the following sentence:

         The Option may be exercised by Grantee by written notice to Grantor
         referring specifically to this Section 3.02 delivered at any time prior
         to August 31, 2000 (the "Option Period"); provided, Grantor may, in its
         sole discretion, extend the Option Period if Grantor determines that
         fibers are available in the Grantor Cable to serve as the Option
         Fibers.

2.  Ratification. Except as amended by the First, Second, Third, Fourth and this
    ------------
    Fifth Amendment, the original terms and provisions of the Agreement shall
    continue in full force and effect and the Agreement, as amended by the
    First, Second, Third, Fourth and this Fifth Amendment, is hereby ratified
    and confirmed.

3.  Counterparts.  This Fifth Amendment may be executed in counterparts and may
    ------------
    be delivered by facsimile transmission.


LEVEL 3 COMMUNICATIONS, LLC                   SPLITROCK SERVICES, INC.


By: ____________________________              By: __________________________

Title: _________________________              Title: _______________________

Date: __________________________              Date: ________________________
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.1


                            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 Land O'Lakes, Inc. (the "Company") on
Form 10-K for the year ending December 31, 2002 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on March 27, 2003 (the "Report"), I, John E. Gherty, Chief
Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as
adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

         (1)  The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a)
              or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

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



                               By:  /s/ John E. Gherty
                                  -------------------------------
                                  John E. Gherty
                                  President & Chief Executive Officer
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          NOV-30-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             DEC-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               NOV-30-1998
<CASH>                                          42,480
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    7,396
<ALLOWANCES>                                   (1,271)
<INVENTORY>                                        167
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                53,704
<PP&E>                                          19,377
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (7,080)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  70,463
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           10,636
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        86,198
<OTHER-SE>                                    (27,423)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    70,463
<SALES>                                         23,090
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                23,090
<CGS>                                           16,688
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   16,688
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                14,286
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   7
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (6,270)
<INCOME-TAX>                                       264
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (6,534)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (6,534)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.43)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.43)
        

</TABLE>
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v William E. Hackworth, Appellant.

[775 NYS2d 623]

Appeal from a judgment of the Oneida County Court (Michael L. Dwyer, J.), rendered April 26, 2001. The judgment convicted defendant, upon a jury verdict, of burglary in the second degree, robbery in the second degree, and robbery in the third degree.

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously modified on the law by reversing that part convicting defendant of robbery in the third degree, vacating the sentence imposed thereon and dismissing count four of the indictment and as modified the judgment is affirmed.

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him of burglary in the second degree (Penal Law § 140.25 [2]), robbery in the second degree (§ 160.10 [1]), and robbery in the third degree (§ 160.05). Defendant’s contention that the evidence is legally insufficient to support the conviction is unpreserved for our review *(see People v Hines,*97 NY2d 56, 61 [2001], *rearg denied*97 NY2d 678 [2001]). We reject defendant’s further contention that the judgment of conviction should be reversed based on prosecutorial misconduct *(cf. People v Mott,*94 AD2d 415 [1983]). However, we agree with defendant, and the People concede, that count four of the indictment charging rob*1065bery in the third degree must be dismissed because that crime is a lesser included offense of robbery in the second degree *(see*CPL 300.40 [3] [b]), and thus we modify the judgment accordingly. Finally, the sentence is not unduly harsh or severe. Present—Green, J.P., Pine, Scudder, Kehoe and Gorski, JJ.
Exhibit 32


                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 on Form 10-KSB of Globus
International Resources Corp(the "Company") for the fiscal year ended September
30, 2003 (the "Report"), the undersigned each hereby certifies that: (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.


Dated: DECEMBER 8, 2004                    /s/ YURY GREENE
                                           -------------------------------------
                                           Yury Greene
                                           Chief Executive Officer

Dated: DECEMBER 8, 2004                    /s/ HERMAN ROTH
                                           -------------------------------------
                                           Herman Roth, Chief Financial
                                           Officer

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company, and forwarded to
the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
583 A.2d 350

#### BARBARA FIGURED AND WILLIAM FIGURED AND JASON FIGURED v. PARALEGAL TECHNICAL SERVICES, INC., RONAL F. AUSTIN, AND RONALD E. FREEMAS.

April 2, 1990.

This matter having been duly considered and the Court having determined that certification was improvidently granted;

*667It is ORDERED that the within appeal be and hereby is dismissed. (See 117 *N.J.*118, 564 A.2d 847)
#### LOUISIANA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY v. SHAMROCK DEMOLITION WASTE HAULERS OF LOUISIANA, LLC.

No. 2010-2460.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Dec. 17, 2010.

*9In re Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality; —Plaintiff; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of E. Baton Rouge, 19th Judicial District Court Div. A, No. 580,287; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2010 CA 0089.

Denied.
#### BROWN *v.*WILLIAMS.

A covenant or mutual agreement, on sale of all the equipment owned in the operation of a barber-shop in a town, with the good will of that business, that, as a part of the trade and an inducement to buy, the seller would not thereafter again operate a barber-shop in that town, construed as meaning that the seller stipulated not to engage in his *805occupation as a barber in that town under all circumstances at any time in the future, was unreasonable and void.

No. 6379.

August 20, 1928.

Equitable petition. Before Judge Hardeman. Jefferson superior court. November 16, 1927.

*M. O. Barwich*and *Q. L. Bryant,*for plaintiff.

*■Hardeman & Hardeman,*for defendant.

Atkinson, J.

1. A contract “in general in restraint of trade” is against the policy of the law, and can not be enforced. Civil Code (1910), § 4253. It has been held by this court that a stipulation in a contract of sale of a ticket broker’s business, that the ■ vendor will not engage in a similar business in a named city, which, though unlimited as to time, is in all other respects reasonable, is valid and enforceable. *Swanson*v. *Kirby,*98 *Ga.*586 (26 S. E. 71). It has also been held that where the restraint or inhibition relates to the right of a person to follow a particular profession, and deprives the person from practicing his profession under any and all circumstances for all time in a restricted territory, the stipulation is unreasonable and unenforceable. *Rakestraw*v. *Lanier,*104 *Ga.*188, 202 (30 S. E. 735, 69 Am. St. R. 154). The principle last above stated will apply where the restriction relates to the right of a barber to carry on his vocation and inhibits him within a named town from carrying on his vocation for all time and under all circumstances.

2. A petition alleged that the plaintiff purchased from the defendant “all of the equipment owned by him in the operation of a barber-shop in the town of Wadley, . . together with the good will of said business” for a stated sum, and that, as a part of the trade and an inducement to petitioner to buy, there “was a mutual agreement between plaintiff and defendant, that defendant after selling out to plaintiff would not again operate a barber-shop in the town of Wadley.” The foregoing allegations are to be construed most strongly against the pleader. When so construed, they mean that the defendant was a barber, and that he had stipulated not to engage in his occupation as a barber in the town of Wadley under any circumstances at any time in the future. The alleged covenant was therefore unreasonable and void; and the judge did not err in sustaining the general demurrer to the petition filed by the plaintiff, seeking injunction to prevent continued violation of *806the covenant, and to recover damages already accrued from its breach. *Judgment affirmed.*

*All the Justices concur.*
#### Eikel & Brenstedt v. F. A. Hanscom.

(No. 6053.)

Appeal from McLennan County.

Henry Pickles, counsel for appellants.

Anderson, Flint & Anderson, counsel for appellee.

Opinion by

White, P. J.

§ 473. *Attachment bond; not invalid because signed by partnership as surety; case stated.*Appellants insti*574tuted suit against appellee to recover an alleged indebtedness, and sued out-' an attachment, which was levied on appellee’s property. The attachment bond was signed by appellants as principals, and by Tom Padgitt, J. Shapera & Co. and Hersfell & Cameron as sureties. On motion of appellee the attachment bond was quashed, upon the ground that there was but one legal surety thereto; the other two proposed sureties being commercial firms, or partnerships. Judgment was rendered in favor of appellants for their debt, interest and costs. *Held:*The coprt erred in quashing the attachment bond. The signature of a partnership bond may be valid. “It cannot be.assumed as matter of law that the conjunction of two names signed as sureties to an attachment bond, as is usual in the style of partnership, represents a partnership consisting of two persons. If it did, and the partnership name was thus signed to an attachment bond, it would not necessarily vitiate the bond. In such case the presumption would be that the officer who took the bond satisfied himself that the member of the firm who signed the partnership name had authority to sign it.” [Donnelly v. Elser, (69 Tex. 282.]

June 1, 1889.

• § 474. *Erroneous quashal of attachment not ground for reversal.*When an attach ment is quashed the jurisdiction over the property obtained by it is taken away. Its dissolution, with all the consequences, takes effect at once, and as to personal property puts the parties in the same position as if no attachment had issued. It is true that, if the proceeding be erroneously quashed, the rule may work a hardship upon the plaintiff therein. The reversal of the judgment, however, can afford him no redress. [R. S. art. 182; Blum v. Addington, Sup. Ct. Tex. 9 S. W. Rep. 82.]

Being without authority to reinstate the attachment, although the same was erroneously quashed, the judgment in favor of appellants for their debt, interest and cost is

Affirmed.
Exhibit 31.1I, Donald L. Grill, certify that:1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Fentura Financial, Inc.; 2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis quarterly report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition,results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presentedin this report; 4. The registrant’s other certifying officers and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and we have: (a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosurecontrols and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, ismade known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period inwhich this report is being prepared;  (b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this reportbased on such evaluation; and  (c) disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter(the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting; and5. The registrant’s other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and theaudit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions): (a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operationof internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adverselyaffect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financialinformation; and  (b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employeeswho have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting     Dated: November 10, 2006 /s/ Donald L. Grill     Donald L. Grill    Chief Executive Officer
583 A.2d 316

#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. WARREN LEVERETT.

February 6, 1990.

Petition for certification denied.