alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
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 Quarterly Report of Infinite Group, Inc. (the "Company")
on Form 10-QSB for the period ending September 30, 2002 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Clifford G. Brockmyre II, Chief Executive Officer and acting Chief Financial
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 result of operations of the
Company.


ss/ Clifford G. Brockmyre
-------------------------

Clifford G. Brockmyre II
Chief Executive Officer and acting Chief Financial Officer
November 14, 2002


                                       21
BKEP-12.31.2012-EX10.13


Exhibit 10.13


*** Where this marking appears throughout this Exhibit 10.13, information has been omitted pursuant to a request for confidential treatment and such information has been filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission separately.


FIRST AMENDMENT TO 
CRUDE OIL STORAGE SERVICES AGREEMENT


This FIRST AMENDMENT TO CRUDE OIL STORAGE SERVICES AGREEMENT, (the “Amendment”) is effective March 1st, 2013 (the “Effective Date”), made by and between BKEP Crude, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, (the “Operator”) and Vitol, Inc., a Delaware corporation, (the “Customer”), each referred to individually as “Party” or collectively as “Parties”.


RECITALS


WHEREAS, the parties previously entered into that certain Crude Oil Storage Services Agreement dated effective May 1st, 2010 (the “Original Agreement”), as amended by that Certain Crude Oil Storage Services Agreement dated effective November 1st, 2010 (the “November Agreement” and, together with the Original Agreement, the “Agreement”).


WHEREAS, the parties desire to amend the Agreement as hereinafter described by modifying the Fees of said Agreement. 


NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises set forth below, and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the undersigned Parties hereto agree as follows: 


Ratification of Prior Agreement.  The Parties hereby agree and confirm that (i) the November Agreement amended certain terms of the Original Agreement, including the dedicated Operating Capacity (as defined in the Original Agreement) to be provided under the Agreement, and (ii) the Shell Capacity (as defined in the November Agreement) under the Agreement is two million fifty thousand (2,050,000) barrels. 


Monthly Storage Fee.   Commencing on the Effective Date, the monthly storage fee as set forth in Section 4 of the Agreement will change to *** per Barrel of Shell Capacity (the “Monthly Storage”), for a total of ***, regardless of the actual volume of Crude Oil placed in the facility.  


Counterparts.   This Amendment may be executed in several counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original and each of which alone, and all of which together, shall constitute one and the same amendment.  


Effect of Amendment.    This Amendment shall be effective as of the Effective Date.   Except as expressly amended or modified herein, all other terms, covenants, and the conditions of the Agreement shall be unaffected by this Amendment and shall remain in full force and effect.  In the event of conflict between the provisions of this Amendment and the provisions of the Agreement, this Amendment shall prevail.  


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have executed this Amendment effective as of the Effective Date above. 




BKEP Crude, LLC, a Delaware limited 
liability company 


/s/ Alex G. Stallings


Title: CFO and Secretary 




Vitol, Inc., a Delaware Corporation


/s/ Mike A. Loya


Title: President
# cpsaat50
#### The John S. Smith.1 Mayo *v.*The John S. Smith.

*(District Court, E. D. New York.*

April 6, 1886.)

Collision —Tripping Anchor—Drift—Negligence—Notice of Intention to Drift.

When the schooner W. tripped her anchor knowing that, as the wind and tide then were, she would drift rapidly, and across the course of vessels coming up the bay; and, having done so, drifted and collided with a tug, having the schooner A. in tow, which was within hailing distance when the anchor was tripped; and nothing showed that the tug had notice beforehand of the schooner’s intention to drift, or could have avoided her after the drift had begun: *held,*that the schooner W. was liable for the collision.

In Admiralty.

*Wilcox, Adams & Macklin,*for libelant, Elisha Mayo.

*Edward D. McCarthy,*for the tug.

*Butler, Stillman & Hubbard,*for the schooner Frank Atwood, in tow of the tug.

1

 Reported by R. D. & Wyllys Benedict, Esq., of the New York bar.

Benedict, J.

Situated as the schooner Phebe J. Woodruff was, and with the wind and tide as it was, it was a fault in the Woodruff to trip her anchor when she did. She knew that she would drift rapidly the moment her anchor broke ground, and that her drift would carry her across the course of vessels coming up the bay. It was her duty, before taking such a drift, to be sure that it would not endanger any vessel near. If she knew of the presence of the tug or tow when she tripped, it was a fault not to hold on by her anchor till the tow, then within hailing distance, had passed. If she was ignorant of the presence of the tug and tow, that ignorance was a fault.

Whether the tug was not in fault is the remaining question. I do not think that the tug was chargeable with the knowledge of the schooner’s intention to trip her anchor when she did. The spanker gave no such notice. It had been up for some hours. The presence of the crew of the Woodruff at the windlass gave no such notice. They had been at work there for some time. The act of drifting first gave notice of the schooner's intention to drift, and the act was observed by the tug as soon as it commenced. Want of lookout on the tug, therefore, was no cause of the accident. Neither was it a fault on the part of the tug to keep going, notwithstanding the drift of the schooner. To stop would have been fatal. Her only way was to port or starboard. She did the former, and I am not satisfied that it was an error so to do. But if it was an error, it was no fault. A mistake on the part of the tug in adopting a method of escape from an imminent peril, caused by the change of the schooner *399from a vessel at anchor to a vessel drifting rapidly athwart her course, should not, in my opinion, be imputed to hor as a fault.

The libel must be dismissed, with costs.
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 140 (Thursday, July 23, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 36550]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-17475]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

Internal Revenue Service


Open Meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Multi-Lingual 
Initiatives Issue Committee

AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.

ACTION: Notice of meeting.

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

SUMMARY: An open meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Multi-Lingual 
Initiatives Issue Committee will be conducted. The Taxpayer Advocacy 
Panel is soliciting public comment, ideas, and suggestions on improving 
customer service at the Internal Revenue Service.

DATES: The meeting will be held Thursday, August 13, 2009.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Marisa Knispel at 1-888-912-1227 or 
718-488-3557.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given pursuant to section 
10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. (1988) 
that a meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Multi-Lingual Initiatives 
Issue Committee will be held Thursday, August 13, 2009, at 2 p.m. 
Eastern Time via telephone conference. The public is invited to make 
oral comments or submit written statements for consideration. Due to 
limited conference lines, notification of intent to participate must be 
made with Marisa Knispel. For more information please contact Ms. 
Knispel at 1-888-912-1227 or 718-488-3557, or write TAP Office, 10 
MetroTech Center, 625 Fulton Street, Brooklyn, NY 11201, or contact us 
at the Web site: http://www.improveirs.org.
    The agenda will include various IRS issues.

    Dated: July 16, 2009.
Shawn F. Collins,
Acting Director, Taxpayer Advocacy Panel.
[FR Doc. E9-17475 Filed 7-22-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4830-01-P
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                          11,606
<SECURITIES>                                    49,988
<RECEIVABLES>                                    1,205
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               118,642
<PP&E>                                         265,287
<DEPRECIATION>                                   8,642
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 441,391
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          128,128
<BONDS>                                        173,814
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          258,638
<PREFERRED>                                        279
<COMMON>                                            96
<OTHER-SE>                                    (130,774)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   441,391
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               114,568
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               119,205
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 3,796
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              16,988
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (25,421)
<INCOME-TAX>                                       186
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (24,260)
<DISCONTINUED>                                   3,687
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (20,573)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (9.30)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (9.30)
        

</TABLE>
**Exhibit 12.2**

**CERTIFICATION**

I, ZhouMingchun, certify that: 

1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 20-F of PetroChina Company Limited (the“Company”); 

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact oromit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report; 

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in allmaterial respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the Company as of, and for, the periods presented in this report; 

4. The Company’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the Company and have: 

(a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to theCompany, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared; 

(b) Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internal control over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to provide reasonable assurance regardingthe reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles; 

(c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the Company’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls andprocedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and 

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

5. The Company’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based onour most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the Company’s auditors and the audit committee of the Company’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions): 

(a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reportingwhich are reasonably likely to adversely affect the Company’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and 

(b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the Company’s internal control over financial reporting. 

 

Date: April 26, 2012
Exhibit 10.4

 



 

March 14, 2013

 

CONFIDENTIAL

 

COMBIMATRIX CORPORATION

310 Goddard,Suite 150

Irvine, CA 92618

 

Attention:  Scott Burell

 

RE: Proposed Capital Formation

 

Dear Mr. Burell:

 

Pursuant to the Engagement Agreement dated July 13, 2012 and the Addendum Letter dated September 10, 2012, entered into by and between C.K. Cooper & Company, Inc. (“CKCC”)  and CombiMatrix Corporation (the “Company”),  the Company agrees to pay CKCC the agreed upon 6.0% (six percent) cash placement agent fee for the contemplated capital formation transaction with Alpha Capital and its affiliates.  As a gesture of good faith, CKCC will forego any further right of first refusal as it relates to the Agreements.

 

If this letter is acceptable, please acknowledge by signing below.  No other terms or conditions of the Agreements are being modified as a result of the execution of this letter.

 

	
 
    	
Very truly yours,
    
	
 
    	
C.K. COOPER &   COMPANY, INC.
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
By:
    	
/s/ Alexander G.   Montano
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
Name:
    	
Alexander G. Montano
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
Title:
    	
Managing Director
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
Accepted and agreed to   as of the date first written above:
    	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
COMBIMATRIX   CORPORATION
    	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
By:
    	
/s/ Scott Burell
    	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
Name:
    	
Scott Burell
    	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
Title:
    	
Chief Financial Officer
    	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    


 

 

4 Park Plaza, Suite 1900 ·  Irvine, California 92614

TEL: 949 477-9300 · FAX: 949 477-9211 ·  TOLL -FREE: 888 477-9301 · administration@ckcooper.com
sec10k123112_10-7a.htm


EXHIBIT 10.7(a)







SCHEDULE A TO EXHIBIT 10.6(a)







The following individuals entered into Director Deferred Fee Plans with The Ohio Valley Bank Company identified below which are identical to the Director Deferred Fee Plan, dated December 18, 2012, between Anna P. Barnitz and The Ohio Valley Bank Company filed herewith.








	
Name

	 	
Date of Director Deferred Fee Plan


	 	 	 
	
Thomas E. Wiseman

	 	
December 18, 2012


	 	 	 
	
Steven B. Chapman

	 	
December 18, 2012


	 	 	 
	
Harold A. Howe

	 	
December 18, 2012


	 	 	 
	
Brent A. Saunders

	 	
December 18, 2012


	 	 	 
	
David W. Thomas

	 	
December 18, 2012


	 	 	 
	
Lannes C. Williamson

	 	
December 18, 2012


	 	 	 
	
Jeffrey E. Smith

	 	
May 20, 2003
#### KANSAS CITY POWER & LIGHT CO. et al. v. CHAPMAN; Secretary of the Interior, et al.

Civ. A. No. 4276-50.

United States District Court District of Columbia, Civil Division.

Jan. 8, 1952.

*409E. Fontaine Broun, Wilmer & Broun, Henry T. Rathbun, Washington, D. C, R. T. Jackson, Baker, Hostetler & Patterson, Sidney D. L. Jackson, Jr., Cleveland, Ohio, for plaintiff.

Hubert H. Margolies, Bernard Gekoski, Attys., Department of Justice, Washington, D. C., for defendant.

LETTS, District Judge.

The motion of plaintiffs to strike from affidavits of defendants submitted in support of defendants’ motion ■ for summary judgment requires the action of the court. It is the opinion of the court that such motion might properly be sustained at least in part in view of the requirements of Rule 56(e), Fed.Rules Civ.Proc., 28 U.S. C.A., or upon the grounds of relevancy, materiality or competency.

In considering the assailed affidavits as appropriately presented and giving them their probative value the court is moved to say they in no manner or degree affect the court’s ruling on the motion of defendants for summary judgment: accordingly, the motion of plaintiffs to strike portions of defendants’ affidavits is denied. Such action is, of course, without prejudice to the right of plaintiffs to interpose appropriate objections when the affiants are introduced as witnesses before the trial •court. The sitting judge will be in the most favorable position to rule on the relevancy and materiality of offered evidence.

Although an able judge of the court has in ruling on defendants’ motion to dismiss, • held that plaintiffs have standing to sue, this court has examined that aspect of the motion for summary judgment with care. Perhaps it is enough to say that this court fully agrees with Judge McLaughlin in his disposition of that controversy in his ruling on the motion to dismiss. Such agreement is not one merely of .concurrence but rests upon the considered views of this court after a close study and appraisal of defendants’ contention.

It does not appear that the defendants have established or demonstrated the non-existence of any genuine issue of fact. Under the rule all doubts must be resolved against them. The plaintiffs must be given the benefit of all favorable inferences which reasonably may be drawn from the record upon which defendants rest their motion. If the truth here in issue be peculiarly within the knowledge of defendants Rule 56 was not designed to deny plaintiffs the privilege of cross-examination.

The court finds that the record reveals genuine issues as to material facts, and concludes that it is without the power to adjudicate the controversy' in the summary manner suggested by defendants.

The motion for summary judgment will be overruled.