alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 17 (Wednesday, January 28, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 4989]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-1715]


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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION


Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request

Upon Written Request, Copies Available From: U.S. Securities and 
Exchange Commission, Office of Investor Education and Advocacy, 
Washington, DC 20549-0213.

Extension:
    Rule 15c1-6; OMB Control No. 3235-0472; SEC File No. 270-423.

    Notice is hereby given that pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act 
of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) the Securities and Exchange Commission 
(``Commission'') has submitted to the Office of Management and Budget 
(``OMB'') a request for approval of extension of the existing 
collection of information provided for in the following rule: Rule 
15c1-6 (17 CFR 240.15c1-6) under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 
(15 U.S.C. 78a et seq.) (``Exchange Act'').
    Rule 15c1-6 states that any broker-dealer trying to sell to or buy 
from a customer a security in a primary or secondary distribution in 
which the broker-dealer is participating or is otherwise financially 
interested must give the customer written notification of the broker-
dealer's participation or interest at or before completion of the 
transaction. The Commission estimates that 556 respondents collect 
information annually under Rule 15c1-6 and that each respondent would 
spend approximately 10 hours annually complying with the collection of 
information requirement (approximately 5,560 hours in aggregate).
    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required 
to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a 
currently valid control number.
    Comments should be directed to: (i) Desk Officer for the Securities 
and Exchange Commission, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, 
Office of Management and Budget, Room 10102, New Executive Office 
Building, Washington, DC 20503 or by sending an e-mail to: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#bdeed5dcdac8dbc9dce2fcd5d0d8d9fdd2d0df93d8d2cd93dad2cb"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="de8db6bfb9abb8aabf819fb6b3bbba9eb1b3bcf0bbb1aef0b9b1a8">[email protected]</span></a>; and
    (ii) Charles Boucher, Director/Chief Information Officer, 
Securities and Exchange Commission, c/o Shirley Martinson, 6432 General 
Green Way, Alexandria, VA 22312 or send an e-mail to <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#0c5c5e4d53416d65606e63744c7f696f226b637a"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="f6a6a4b7a9bb979f9a94998eb6859395d8919980">[email protected]</span></a>. Comments must be submitted within 30 days of this 
notice.

    Dated: January 21, 2009.
Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E9-1715 Filed 1-27-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
##### 



1.
    
    I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Matritech, Inc. (the registrant):2.
    
    Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit
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 all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and
cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;4.
    
    The registrant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) and 15d-15(e)) for the
registrant 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 the registrant, 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.
    
    [Paragraph omitted in
accordance with SEC
transition instructions
contained in SEC Release
33-8238 and 34-47986.]c.
    
    Evaluated the effectiveness
of the registrants
disclosure controls and
procedures and presented in
this report our conclusions
about the effectiveness of
the disclosure controls and
procedures, as of the end of
the period covered by this
report based on such
evaluation; andd.
    
    Disclosed in this report any
change in the registrants
internal control over
financial reporting that
occurred during the
registrants second fiscal
quarter that has materially
affected, or is reasonably
likely to materially affect,
the registrants internal
control over financial
reporting; and
 5.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation
of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the audit committee of
registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):
 a.
    
    All significant deficiencies
and material weaknesses in
the design or operation of
internal controls over
financial reporting which are
reasonably likely to
adversely affect the
registrants ability to
record, process, summarize
and report financial
information; andb.
    
    Any fraud, whether or not
material, that involves
management or other employees
who have a significant role
in the registrants internal
controls over financial
reporting.
 Date: August 10, 2006/s/ Stephen D. ChubbStephen D. ChubbChief Executive Officer
Exhibit 15.5



|     |  |     
|---- |  | ----
|LOGO |  | LOGO

April 26, 2013

Securities and Exchange Commission

100 F Street, N.E.

Washington, DC 20549

Commissioners:

We have read the statements made by PetroChina Company Limited
(copy attached), which we understand will be filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, pursuant to Item16 F of Form20-F, as part of the Form 20-F of PetroChina Company Limited dated April 26, 2013. We agree with the statements
concerning our Firm in such Form 20-F.

Very truly yours,

/s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers

Hong Kong

April 26, 2013





LOGO
Exhibit 99.1





Certification


Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002





Pursuant to section 906
    of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of section 1350,
    chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code), each of the undersigned officers
    of Orchid BioSciences, Inc., (the Company), does  hereby certify, to such officers
    knowledge, that:





The Annual Report on Form 10-K  for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2002 (the Form 10-K) of the Company  fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the  Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and the information contained in the Form 10-K  fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results  of operations of the Company.





|Dated: April 2, 2003 | /s/ GEORGE POSTE           
|-------------------- | ---------------------------
|                     | GEORGE    POSTE, DVM, Ph.D.
|                     | Chairman of the Board      
|                     |                            
|Dated: April 2, 2003 | /s/ ANDREW P. SAVADELIS    
|                     | ANDREW P.    SAVADELIS     
|                     | 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 furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its  staff upon request.













---
Exhibit 10.6

 



Florida East Coast Railway, LLC
  Summary of Employment Terms

 

	
Employee:
    	
 
    	
Robert Stevens (“Employee”)
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
Title:
    	
 
    	
Vice President, Chief Engineering Officer
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
Base Salary:
    	
 
    	
$160,000.00 per annum
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
Annual Discretionary Bonus:
    	
 
    	
Commencing for the 2011 fiscal year (paid in the first quarter of   2012), a target bonus of 35% of base salary, subject to the discretion of   management of the Company. Any bonus will be paid in cash or partially in   cash and partially in restricted stock. Any receipt of restricted stock will   be subject to award agreements provided by the Company and signed by the   Employee.
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
Additional Performance-Based Restricted Stock:
    	
 
    	
Additional restricted stock with a value equivalent to $100,000 (as   of the grant date) in each year below to the extent the Company achieves   EBITDA (earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization, and   excluding non-recurring items and gains or losses on asset sales) equal to or   greater than the levels contained in the table below:
    


 

	
For the fiscal year ended
   December 31,
    	
 
    	
EBITDA greater than
   or equal to:
    
	
2011
    	
 
    	
$
    	
92 million
    
	
2012
    	
 
    	
$
    	
106 million
    
	
2013
    	
 
    	
$
    	
129 million
    


 

	
 
    	
 
    	
Any receipt of restricted stock will be subject to award agreements   provided by the Company and signed by the Employee.
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
Annual Stock Bonus Vesting:
    	
 
    	
To the extent annual discretionary bonuses are paid partially in   stock, shares awarded shall vest over three years (one-third per annum on   each successive anniversary of the date on Which the stock portion of bonus   is awarded).
    


 

Summary of Employment Terms Acknowledgement

 

This will acknowledge that I have been provided the Summary of Employment Terms and that I understand and agree to the terms and conditions expressed herein. I further understand that this Summary of Employment Terms and my acknowledgement does not guarantee continued employment and that employment with the Florida East Coast Railway, LLC, is on an at-will basis. Further, I acknowledge that nothing herein confers any severance or similar rights.

 

	
/s/ Robert B Stevens
    	
 
    	
Dec 3, 2010
    	
 
    
	
Employee Name
    	
 
    	
Date
    	
 
    


 

Receipt of the attached term sheet does not constitute any guarantee of continued employment.
NLNK-2012.12.31-EX10.3




Exhibit 10.3



Iowa State University Research Park Corporation
2711 South Loop Drive, Suite 4050
Ames, Iowa 50010-8648


Memorandum of Agreement




DATE:        October 31, 2012


TO:        Carl Langren
BioProtection Systems Corporation
2503 S. Loop Drive, Suite 5100
Ames, IA 50010


FROM:    Steven T. Carter, President


		
	RE:
	ADDENDUM TO THE LEASE BETWEEN ISU RESEARCH PARK CORPORATION AND BIOPROTECTION SYSTEMS CORPORATION DATED AUGUST 22, 2005.




The following information constitutes additions to the Lease Agreement between ISU Research Park Corporation (Landlord) and BioProtection Systems Corporation (Tenant).  Upon signatures of appropriate representatives of Landlord and Tenant affixed to this Memorandum, this Memorandum becomes a part of that Lease Agreement dated August 22, 2005.


Tenant has requested and Landlord agrees to extend the lease for Suites 3500- 3532 (±3,634 rentable square feet) and Suite 3900 (±3,147 rsf) in the following manner:


Sq. Ft.        Sq. Ft.        Monthly    Monthly    Annual           Annual
Base        Operating    Base        Operating    Base           Operating
Term        Rents        Rents        Rents        Rents        Rents           Rents


Suites 3500- 3532 (containing ±3,634 rsf)
11/1/2012-
10/31/2013    $11.90        Actual        $3,603.72    Actual        $43,244.64    Actual


Suite 3900 (containing ±3,147 rsf)
11/1/2012-
10/31/2013    $12.75        Actual        $3,343.69    Actual        $40,124.28    Actual









BioProtection Systems Corp.
Page Two
October 31, 2012




Tenant leases the space as is.  Any modifications will be at the Tenant’s sole expense.  Landlord agrees to release Tenant from this lease obligation upon Tenant’s move into another facility at the ISU Research Park.  Subject to the terms of this Memorandum, Tenant agrees that all terms and conditions of the August 22, 2005 Lease and those described in this Memorandum shall remain in force.


Tenant continues to be responsible for their custodial services and the cost & maintenance for the fume hoods and plumbing in the labs & kitchen & the equipment in Rm 3531.  This agreement does not preclude other tenants from using the equipment in Rm 3531.  Gas & water usage, as well as utility costs for the HVAC system, will be prorated & invoiced monthly.  Electricity is metered separately & is invoiced directly from the provider.


Please sign and return both originals to my office by November 2, 2012 if you concur with the above terms.  We will then send a fully executed copy for your records.




AGREED
FOR                            FOR
BioProtection Systems Corp.                ISU Research Park Corporation


/s/ Carl Langren                    /s/ Steven T. Carter            


VP Finance                        Director                
Title                            Title
November 6, 2012                    November 6, 2012            
Date                            Date
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 00-2282

ROBERT CARLYLE BERRETT,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

GRACE INEZ ELMO,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

Maryland, at Greenbelt. Alexander Williams, Jr., District Judge.

(CA-98-1428-DKC)

Submitted: April 20, 2001 Decided: May 1, 2001

Before MICHAEL and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Robert Carlyle Berrett, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Robert Carlyle Berrett appeals the district court’s order dismissing his civil action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and

agree that there is no subject matter jurisdiction. Accordingly,

we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Berrett v.

Elmo, No. CA-98-1428-DKC (D. Md. Sept. 14, 2000). We dispense with

oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would

not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                         851,585
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                               24,186,777
<ALLOWANCES>                                   200,000
<INVENTORY>                                  8,594,572
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            36,883,296
<PP&E>                                      24,775,872
<DEPRECIATION>                              12,168,077
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              89,042,940
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       28,611,954
<BONDS>                                     84,378,434
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                        1,900,000
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       114,181
<OTHER-SE>                                   4,038,371
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                89,042,940
<SALES>                                     48,505,707
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            48,505,707
<CGS>                                       33,016,868
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               33,016,868
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            10,087,802
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           4,566,169
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                834,868
<INCOME-TAX>                                   335,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            499,868
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   499,868
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .04
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .04


</TABLE>
#### UNITED STATES v. MIXON et al.

No. 28485.

United States District Court N. D. Ohio, E. D.

Nov. 21, 1951.

Don C. Miller, Cleveland, Ohio, for plaintiff.

Paul M. Perkins, Canton, Ohio, for defendants.

FREED, District Judge,

This is an action by the United States against George Mixon and Randolph Mix-on to recover alleged rent overcharges.

Defendant, George Mixon, seeks his dismissal from this action by motion. By supporting affidavit this defendant states that he has not had control of the premises and has not controlled the rents which are claimed to have been excessive. He asserts that he holds a mere naked legal title and that codefendant Randolph Mixon, as owner of the equitable title, has received the rental income.

Although the motion is not so designated, defendant’s reliance upon matters outside the pleadings brings it within Rule 56, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A., governing summary judgment procedure. Rule 12(b).

When affidavits are relied upon to demonstrate that an issue of fact formally raised by the pleadings is not a “genuine” issue, there must be compliance with Rule 56(e). The Court may enter summary judgment only upon a showing by competent evidence, admissible at trial, that a trial would necessarily result in a directed verdict for the moving party. If such showing is attempted to be made by affidavit, it must clearly negate the allegations of the complaint. To put it in the affirmative, there must be convincing proof that no factual issues remain for determination to resolve the question raised. Dewey v. Clark, 86 U.S.App.D.C. 137, 180 F.2d 766, 772; Arnstein v. Porter, 2 Cir., 154 F.2d 464, 470.

Defendants’ failure to comply with the full mandate of the rule necessarily requires that the motion be overruled. Un*123der the Rules, movant may file additional "affidavits to be supplemented or opposed by depositions or by further affidavits.” And if that is done the instant motion may be renewed.

The motion, at this time, will be overruled.
**Exhibit      32.1**

**Certification**

**Pursuant      to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

**(Subsections      (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States      Code)**

|                                             |   |                                                |
|--------------------------------------------------|--------|-----------------------------------------------------|
|                                             |   |                                                |   |
| Date:  August                  9, 2007 |   | /s/                Harvey J. Berger, M.D.           |   |
|                                             |   | Harvey                J. Berger, M.D.               |   |
|                                             |   | Chairman                and Chief Executive Officer |   |
|                                             |   |                                                |   |

|                                             |   |                                                                                                                                  |
|--------------------------------------------------|--------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                                             |   |                                                                                                                                  |   |
| Date:  August                  9, 2007 |   | /s/                Edward M. Fitzgerald                                                                                               |   |
|                                             |   | Edward                M. Fitzgerald                                                                                                   |   |
|                                             |   | Senior                Vice President,Finance                  and Corporate Operations, andChief                    Financial Officer |   |
|                                             |   |                                                                                                                                  |   |
#### Kessya Kattury MOREIRA, a.k.a. Kasia Moreira, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 11-72437.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Dec. 19, 2012.*

Filed Dec. 21, 2012.

Kessya Kattury Moreira, pro se.

*673Chief Counsel Ice, Office of the Chief Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, OIL, Enitan Otun-la, Trial, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.

Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. *673See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Kessya Kattury Moreira, a native and citizen of Brazil, petitions pro se for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) denying her motion to reopen based on claims of changed country conditions and ineffective assistance of counsel. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen. *Siong v. INS,*376 F.3d 1030, 1037 (9th Cir.2004). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion by denying the portion of Moreira’s motion to reopen requesting remand to the immigration judge, because Moreira filed the motion over two and one-half years after issuance of the final order of removal, *see*8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(i), and her motion asserted only changes in personal circumstances occurring outside of Brazil that do not warrant an exception to the filing deadline, *see id.*§ 1229a(c)(7)(C)(ii); *He v. Gonzales,*501 F.3d 1128, 1132 (9th Cir.2007) (recognizing that a change in personal circumstances does not amount to a change in country conditions).

We dismiss as moot Moreira’s challenge to the denial of the portion of her motion to reopen requesting reissuance of the BIA’s prior order to allow her to timely seek judicial review, because the petition for review in No. 08-73868 has been reinstated as to her. *See Hemp Indus. Ass’n v. Drug Enforcement Admin.,*333 F.3d 1082, 1085 n. 3 (9th Cir.2003) (‘We find a case moot when interim relief ... ha[s] completely and irrevocably eradicated the effects of the alleged violation.” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
AGEN-Exhibit10.9




Exhibit 10.9
SCHEDULE TO INDEMNIFICATION AGREEMENT


The following is a list of the current and former directors and executive officers of Agenus who are party to an Indemnification Agreement, the form of which was filed as Exhibit 10.4 to our registration statement on Form S-1 (File No. 333-91747):


Noubar Afeyan, Ph.D.
Garo H. Armen, Ph.D.
Frank V. AtLee III
Brian Corvese
Gamil G. de Chadarevian
Tom Dechaene
Margaret Eisen
Renu Gupta
John Hatsopoulos
Wadih Jordan
Mark Kessel
Christine Klaskin
Bruce Leicher
Hyam Levitsky
Timothy Rothwell
Shalini Sharp
Pramod K. Srivastava, Ph.D.
Peter Thornton
Karen Valentine
Kerry Wentworth
Alastair Wood
Timothy Wright