alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EX-10.47









EXHIBIT 10.47




DEUTSCHE BANK AG, CAYMAN ISLANDS BRANCH

60 Wall Street

New York, NY 10005

c/o Private Wealth Management

280 Park Avenue

NYC 03-0434

New York, NY 10017

Attention: Lending/ Edward F. Kane, Managing Director




October 27, 2008




BioMimetic Therapeutics, Inc.

389-A Nichol Mill Lane

Franklin, TN

Attention: Larry Bullock, CFO



Thank you for the fully executed Time Promissory Note of BioMimetic and the executed signature
pages of BioMimetic on the Pledge Agreement and the Securities Account Control Agreement (the
“SACA”). The Note has been accepted by the Bank and the Bank will be bound by its obligations as
set forth in the Note (including, subject to terms and conditions thereof, those to make advances
to BioMimetic from time to time).



Enclosed are the Bank’s executed signature pages for the Pledge Agreement and the SACA. The Bank is
in the process of obtaining an executed signature page for the SACA from DB Securities.




	 	 	 	 	 
	 	Very truly yours,


Deutsche Bank AG, Cayman Islands Branch

 	 
	 	By:  	/s/ Ned Kane
 	 
	 	 	Name:  	 	 
	 	 	Title:  		 
	 
	 	 	 
	 	By:  	/s/ William M. Crane
 	 
	 	 	Name:  	William M. Crane 	 
	 	 	Title:  	Director
No. 1149.

#### Epstein *v.*United States.

June 3, 1946.

*David M. Palley*for petitioner.

*Solicitor General McGrath, Robert S. Erdahl*and *Beatrice Rosenberg*for the United States.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit denied.
* Pursuant to Local Rule 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in Local Rule 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

__________________ No. 95-40921 Summary Calendar

__________________ THOMAS C. SAWYER, Petitioner-Appellant,

versus GARY L. JOHNSON, TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE, INSTITUTIONAL DIVISION, Respondent-Appellee.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. C-94-CV-134

- - - - - - - - - - April 17, 1997 Before KING, JOLLY and DENNIS, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Thomas Sawyer, #579557, appeals from the district court's denial of his petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. We have reviewed the record and the briefs and AFFIRM the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the Respondent and denial of habeas relief. Sawyer’s contention that the trial court abused its discretion by denying his motionNo. 95-40921 -2- for a new trial based on newly discovered evidence is not a ground for relief on federal habeas corpus. See Jacobs v. Scott , 31 F.3d 1319, 1324 (5th Cir. 1994), cert. denied , 115 S Ct. 711 (1995). Sawyer’s jury-misconduct arguments fail because he does not show that the alleged misconduct prejudiced his right to a fair trial. See Drew v. Collins , 964 F.2d 411, 415-16 (5th Cir. 1992), cert. denied , 509 U.S. 925 (1993). His contention that the trial court improperly instructed the jury to continue deliberating and his challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence are procedurally barred. See Boyd v. Scott , 45 F.3d 876, 879-80 (5th Cir. 1994), cert. denied , 115 S. Ct. 1964 (1995). The trial court’s failure to appoint counsel to file a petition for discretionary review did not violate Sawyer’s right to equal protection. See Wainright v. Torna , 455 U.S. 586, 587-88 (1982); Ross v. Moffitt , 417 U.S. 600, 614-15 (1974). Sawyer’s failure to raise his Batson claim at trial precludes review of this claim. See Ward v. Whitley , 21 F.3d 1355, 1366 (5th Cir. 1994), cert. denied , 115 S. Ct. 1257 (1995). Nor was Sawyer was denied a fundamentally fair trial based upon the prosecutor’s remarks during closing argument. See Darden v. Wainwright , 477 U.S. 168, 181 (1986). Further, Sawyer is barred from challenging his sentence enhancement. See Randle v. Scott , 43 F.3d 221, 226 (5th Cir.), cert. denied , 115 S. Ct. 2259 (1995). Finally, Sawyer’s complaint that the district court failed to rule on his amended motion for relief from judgment is moot.No. 95-40921 -3- Sawyer’s motion for appointment of appellate counsel is
DENIED.
Exhibit 23.1

 

 

 

 

 

INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT

 

 

We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement Nos.333-56918 and 333-104787 on Form S-3, and 333-63101, 333-71990, 333-71992,333-81134 and 333-93193 on Form S-8 of WPS Resources Corporation of our reportdated March 8, 2004 (which report expresses an unqualified opinion and includesan explanatory paragraph relating to the adoption of new accounting principles),appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of WPS Resources Corporation forthe year ended December 31, 2003.

 

 

DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP

 

Milwaukee, WisconsinMarch 11, 2004
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Joseph McKoy, Appellant.

[852 NYS2d 869]

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon his plea of guilty of attempted assault in the second degree (Penal Law §§ 110.00, 120.05 [ 1]). Defendant failed to preserve for our review his challenge to the factual sufficiency of the plea allocution *(see People v Lopez,*71 NY2d 662, 665 [1988]), and this case does not fall within the rare exception to the preservation requirement *(see id.*at 666). Present— Martoche, J.P., Smith, Peradotto, Pine and Gorski, JJ.
Exhibit 32.1



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 Wisconsin Electric Power Company (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 26, 2010 (the "Report"), I, Gale E. Klappa, as Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of my knowledge, 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.



/s/GALE E. KLAPPA
Exhibit 32.1

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 Public Media Works, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the period ending February 28, 2010 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350, as adopted pursuant to section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of his knowledge:

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

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



|                   |  |                                          
|------------------ |  | -----------------------------------------
|Date: May 10, 2010 |  | /s/ Garret Cecchini                      
|                   |  | Garrett Cecchini, Chief
Executive Officer
|                   |  | (Principal Executive Officer)
**Taft Stettinius & Hollister LLP**One Indiana Square, Suite 3500  Indianapolis, Indiana 46204

 March 25, 2011

Saturna Investment Trust  c/o Saturna Capital  1300 North State Street  Bellingham, Washington 98225-4730

Re: Amendment to Form N-1A

Gentlemen:

 	In accordance with the registration of an indefinite number of units ("Units") registered by Saturna Investment Trust (the "Trust") for its Funds, we have been asked to provide the opinion of our counsel required to be filed as an exhibit to the Trust's registration statement on Form N-1A (the "Registration Statement"). In rendering this opinion, we have examined such documents, records and questions of law as we deemed it necessary to examine for the purpose of this opinion. Based on that examination and investigation, it is our opinion that the Units will be, upon issuance, validly issued, fully paid and not liable to further assessments.

 We have reviewed Post Effective No. 35, and determined that it does not contain disclosures that would render it ineligible to become effective under Rule 485(b) promulgated under the Securities Act of 1933.

 We consent to the filing of this letter as an exhibit to Post Effective Amendment No. 35 to the Registration Statement.

 Sincerely,

TAFT STETTINIUS & HOLLISTER LLP*/s/Taft Stettinius & Hollister LLP*
**EXHIBIT 32.2**

**CERTIFICATION OF**

**PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER OF**

**VALENCE TECHNOLOGY, INC.**

This certification is provided pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and accompanies the quarterly report on Form 10-Q (the “Form 10-Q”) for the quarter ended June 30, 2007, of Valence Technology, Inc. (the “Issuer”).

I, Thomas F. Mezger, the Principal Financial Officer of the Issuer, certify that to the best of my knowledge:

|   | (i) | the Form 10-Q fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m(a) or 78o(d)); and |
|--------|-----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

|   | (ii) | the information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Issuer. |
|--------|------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

| Dated:  August 9, 2007 | /s/ Thomas F. Mezger |
|------------------------|----------------------|

|   | Thomas F. Mezger |
|--------|------------------|
Exhibit 32.2



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 Wisconsin Electric Power Company (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 25, 2011 (the "Report"), I, Allen L. Leverett, as Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of my knowledge, 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.



/s/ALLEN L. LEVERETT     Allen L. Leverett
Chief Financial Officer
February 25, 2011
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                       5,160,918
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                               0
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                             5,891,000
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                 14,424,098
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                      17,492,342
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                        19,145,000
<LOANS>                                    202,284,165
<ALLOWANCE>                                  2,907,906
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             251,267,264
<DEPOSITS>                                 188,512,926
<SHORT-TERM>                                32,258,167
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                          2,364,997
<LONG-TERM>                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                    10,336,295
<OTHER-SE>                                  17,794,879
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>             251,267,264
<INTEREST-LOAN>                              4,348,412
<INTEREST-INVEST>                              652,453
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                     0
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                             5,000,865
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                           2,125,753
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           2,632,386
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                        2,368,479
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                   82,500
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                              1,577,866
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                933,534
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                     933,534
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   680,720
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    12.41
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    12.41
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    3.95
<LOANS-NON>                                  4,912,693
<LOANS-PAST>                                         0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                             2,825,921
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                   11,357
<RECOVERIES>                                    10,842
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                            2,907,906
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                                 0
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                      2,907,906
        


</TABLE>
Exhibit 32.2





Certification Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350

(Adopted Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002)





In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Stratus Properties Inc. (the Company) for the quarter ending September 30, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), John E. Baker, as Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of his knowledge:



(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.



Dated:  November 5, 2004







/s/ John E. Baker



John E. Baker

Senior Vice President and

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.



This certification shall not be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of § 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
Exhibit 32.2

Certification of the Chief Financial Officer

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350

As Adopted Under Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

Pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, I, the undersigned Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc. (the
Company), hereby certify, based on my knowledge, that the Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the year ended June 25, 2008 (the Report), fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



|                       
|-----------------------
|                       
|/s/ Bennett L. Nussbaum
|Bennett L. Nussbaum    
|                       
|August 25, 2008
<PAGE>
 
                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.9a

                       AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT
                       ---------------------------------

     THAT EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT ("Agreement") made as of the twenty fourth day of
January, 1994, by and between THE WISER OIL COMPANY, a Delaware Corporation and
A. WAYNE RITTER is hereby amended so that Article I, Section 1.02, shall read as
follows:

     1.02 Term.  Subject to the terms and provisions of Article II hereof,
          -----                                                           
     Employee's employment hereunder shall be extended and shall continue
     through the close of business on March 1, 1998 unless extended by
     subsequent agreement of the parties hereto.

     IN WITNESS WHEROF, the parties hereto have executed this Amendment to
Agreement or caused it to be executed as of March 22, 1996.


 
                              /s/  A. Wayne Ritter
                              -----------------------------------


                              THE WISER OIL COMPANY

                              By: /s/ Andrew J. Shoup, Jr.
                                  --------------------------------------------
                                  Title: President and Chief Executive Officer
                                        --------------------------------------
<TABLE> <S> <C>

        <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUL-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUL-31-1997
<CASH>                                       2,119,556
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                               11,080,174
<ALLOWANCES>                                 (758,141)
<INVENTORY>                                  2,727,814
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                      20,073,398
<DEPRECIATION>                              (9,387,155)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              31,489,719
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                     12,638,056
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       283,976
<OTHER-SE>                                   6,247,793
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                31,489,719
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            34,308,519
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               21,335,447
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            10,162,816
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           1,606,575
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              1,263,686
<INCOME-TAX>                                (1,716,000)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          2,982,512
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                              3,189,000
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 6,171,512
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     2.33
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     2.04
        

        

</TABLE>
## In The Court of Appeals Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo

No. 07 - 11 - 00290 - CR RAYMOND NIETO, JR., APPELLANT

V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE On Appeal from the 222nd District Court Deaf Smith County, Texas Trial Court No. CR

- 101 - 108, Honorable Roland D. Saul, Presiding 

### August 8 , 2013 ORDER Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and HANCOCK, JJ. On July 3, 2013, this Court issued its opinion and judgment affirming appellant’s conviction for aggravated robbery and sentence of forty years of imprisonment. Appellant’s motion for rehearing was due on or before July 18, 2013. See Tex. R. App. P. 49.1 (providing a motion for rehearing may be filed within 15 day s after the court of appeals’ judgment or order is rendered). Appellant did not file a motio n for rehearing but, on August 5 , filed a request for extension of time in which to file his motion for2

rehearing. 1 We deny the motion as untimely. See Tex. R. App. P. 49.8 (providing a court of appeals may extend the time for filing a motion for rehearing if a party files a motion complying with Rule 10.5(b) no later than 15 days after the last date for filing the motion). Per Curiam Do not publish.

1 A ppellant also asks for an extension of time to file his petition for discretionary review. A petition for discretionary review must be filed with the clerk of the Court of Criminal Appeals. Tex. R. App. P. 68.3. The petition must be filed within 30 days after the day the court of appeals’ judgment was rendered. The Court of Criminal Appeals may extend the time to file a petition for discretionary review if a party files a motion complying with Rule 10.5(b) no later than 15 days after the last day for filing the petition. Tex. R. App. P. 68.2. Therefore, appellant’s motion for extension of time as to his petition for discretionary review must be addressed with the Court of Criminal Appeals.