alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

_____________ No. 98-1182WM

_____________ United States of America, * * Appellee, * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the Western v. * District of Missouri. * Michael E. Genetten, * [UNPUBLISHED] * Appellant. *

_____________ Submitted: July 16, 1998

Filed: July 17, 1998

_____________ Before FAGG, BEAM, and LOKEN, Circuit Judges.

_____________ PER CURIAM. In 1992, Michael E. Genetten pleaded guilty to conspiring to distribute cocaine, and on the government's motion for a substantial assistance sentencing reduction , Genette n was sentenced to five years probation. In 1996, the government moved t o revoke Genetten's probation because he had been convicted of and sentenced for the second-degree murder of an infant in his care. After a hearing, the district court revoked Genetten's probation and sentenced him to 57 months impri sonment. Genetten contends the district court improperly relied on the circumstances and seriousness of the probation violation in choosing Genetten's sentence without giving ful l consideration to the sentencing factors in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). We disagree.-2-

When a district court finds a defendant has violated a condition of probation, the co urt may revoke probation and "impose any other sentence that initially could hav e been imposed." See 18 U .S.C. § 3565(a)(2); U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual Ch. 7, Pt.A, intro. 2(a), § 7B1.3(a)(1), p .s. (1997); United States v. Iverson , 90 F.3d 1340, 1345 (8th Cir. 1996). In determining an appropriate revocation sentence, a distric t court should consider the factors listed in section 3553(a), see 18 U.S.C. § 3565(a), but it need not make specific findings relating to every factor it considers , see United States v. Graves , 914 F.2d 159, 160 (8th Cir. 1990) (per curiam). We thus conclud e Genetten's argument is meritless and affirm his sentence. A true copy.
Attest: CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
§ 37.1020 What must I document in my award file? You should include in your award file an agreements analysis in which you: ( a ) Briefly describe the program and detail the specific military and commercial benefits that should result from the project supported by the TIA. If the recipient is a consortium that is not formally incorporated, you should attach a copy of the signed articles of collaboration.
( b ) Describe the process that led to the award of the TIA, including how you and program officials solicited and evaluated proposals and selected the one supported through the TIA.
( c ) Explain how you decided that a TIA was the most appropriate instrument, in accordance with the factors in Subpart B of this part. Your explanation must include your answers to the relevant questions in § 37.225(a) through (d).
( d ) Explain how you valued the recipient's cost sharing contributions, in accordance with §§ 37.530 through 37.555. For a fixed-support TIA, you must document the analysis you did (*see* § 37.560) to set the fixed level of Federal support; the documentation must explain how you determined the recipient's minimum cost share and show how you estimated the expenditures required to achieve the project outcomes.
( e ) Document the results of your negotiation, addressing all significant issues in the TIA's provisions. For example, this includes specific explanations if you: ( 1 ) Specify requirements for a participant's systems that vary from the standard requirements in §§ 37.615(a), 37.625(a), 37.630, or 37.705(a) in cases where those sections provide flexibility for you to do so.
( 2 ) Provide that any audits are to be performed by an IPA, rather than the DCAA, where permitted under § 37.650. Your documentation must include: ( i ) The names and addresses of business units for which IPAs will be the auditors;
( ii ) Estimated amounts of Federal funds expected under the award for those business units; and
( iii ) The basis (*e.g.,* a written statement from the recipient) for your judging that the business units do not currently perform under types of awards described in § 37.650(b)(1) and (2) and are not willing to grant the DCAA audit access.
( 3 ) Include an intellectual property provision that varies from Bayh-Dole requirements.
( 4 ) Determine that cost sharing is impracticable.
#### GRANT v. CITY OF ROCHESTER.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department.

January 27, 1903.)

Action by J. Herbert Grant against the city of Rochester.

No opinion. Motion for leave to appeal to the Oourt of Appeals granted.
C. A. No. 76-326.

#### State *v.*Ira Holland.

*Julius C. Michaelson,*Attorney General, *Judith Romney Wegner,*Special'Asst. Attorney General, for plaintiff.

*William F. Reilly,*Public Defender, *Barbara*
      *948
      *Hurst, John A. MacFadyen III,*Asst. Public Defenders, for defendant.

*947The defendant’s motion that this case be remanded to Superior Court for hearing on motion for bail pending appeal is granted.

At the conclusion of said hearing this case will be returned to this court forthwith.
### §747. Equipment and training standards

#### (a) Equipment standards

#### (1) In general

The Administrator, in coordination with the heads of appropriate Federal agencies and the National Advisory Council, shall support the development, promulgation, and updating, as necessary, of national voluntary consensus standards for the performance, use, and validation of equipment used by Federal, State, local, and tribal governments and nongovernmental emergency response providers.

#### (2) Requirements

The national voluntary consensus standards shall—

(A) be designed to achieve equipment and other capabilities consistent with the national preparedness goal, including the safety and health of emergency response providers;

(B) to the maximum extent practicable, be consistent with existing national voluntary consensus standards;

(C) take into account, as appropriate, threats that may not have been contemplated when the existing standards were developed; and

(D) focus on maximizing operability, interoperability, interchangeability, durability, flexibility, efficiency, efficacy, portability, sustainability, and safety.

#### (b) Training standards

The Administrator shall—

(1) support the development, promulgation, and regular updating, as necessary, of national voluntary consensus standards for training; and

(2) ensure that the training provided under the national training program is consistent with the standards.

#### (c) Consultation with standards organizations

In carrying out this section, the Administrator shall consult with representatives of relevant public and private sector national voluntary consensus standards development organizations.

(Pub. L. 109–295, title VI, §647, Oct. 4, 2006, 120 Stat. 1426.)
### §136w–2. Failure by the State to assure enforcement of State pesticide use regulations

#### (a) Referral

Upon receipt of any complaint or other information alleging or indicating a significant violation of the pesticide use provisions of this subchapter, the Administrator shall refer the matter to the appropriate State officials for their investigation of the matter consistent with the requirements of this subchapter. If, within thirty days, the State has not commenced appropriate enforcement action, the Administrator may act upon the complaint or information to the extent authorized under this subchapter.

#### (b) Notice

Whenever the Administrator determines that a State having primary enforcement responsibility for pesticide use violations is not carrying out (or cannot carry out due to the lack of adequate legal authority) such responsibility, the Administrator shall notify the State. Such notice shall specify those aspects of the administration of the State program that are determined to be inadequate. The State shall have ninety days after receipt of the notice to correct any deficiencies. If after that time the Administrator determines that the State program remains inadequate, the Administrator may rescind, in whole or in part, the State's primary enforcement responsibility for pesticide use violations.

#### (c) Construction

Neither section 136w–1 of this title nor this section shall limit the authority of the Administrator to enforce this subchapter, where the Administrator determines that emergency conditions exist that require immediate action on the part of the Administrator and the State authority is unwilling or unable adequately to respond to the emergency.

(June 25, 1947, ch. 125, §27, as added Pub. L. 95–396, §24(2), Sept. 30, 1978, 92 Stat. 837; amended Pub. L. 100–532, title VIII, §801(p), Oct. 25, 1988, 102 Stat. 2683.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Prior Provisions

A prior section 27 of act June 25, 1947, ch. 125, was renumbered section 35 and is classified to section 136y of this title.

#### Amendments

1988—Pub. L. 100–532 inserted headings for subsecs. (a) to (c).

#### **Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries**

#### Effective Date of 1988 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 100–532 effective on expiration of 60 days after Oct. 25, 1988, see section 901 of Pub. L. 100–532, set out as a note under section 136 of this title.
##### 



Exhibit 3(b)
 Amended Regulations of Eaton Corporation
as adopted by the Shareholders at the
Annual Meeting held on April 23, 2008
  SHAREHOLDERS




---



##### 



2




---



##### 



3




---



##### 



4




---



##### 



5




---



##### 



BOARD OF DIRECTORS
    6




---



##### 



7




---



##### 



8




---



##### 



9




---



##### 



10




---



##### 



OFFICERS
          11




---



##### 



12




---



##### 



SALARIES, COMPENSATION AND INDEMNIFICATION
      13




---



##### 



CERTIFICATES
          14




---



##### 



VOTING UPON STOCKS
    CORPORATE SEAL
    AMENDMENTS
   15




---



##### 



16
UNITED STATES

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Washington, D.C. 20549



FORM 6-K

REPORT OF FOREIGN PRIVATE ISSUER

PURSUANT TO RULE 13a-16 OR 15d-16

UNDER THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934



Dated August 2, 2006



Commission File Number: 001-14666



MITTAL STEEL COMPANY N.V.

(Translation of registrants name into English)



15th Floor, Hofplein 20

3032 AC Rotterdam

The Netherlands

(Address of principal executive offices)



Indicate by check mark whether the registrant files or will file annual reports under cover Form 20-F or Form 40-F.



Form 20-FxForm 40-Fo



Indicate by check mark if the registrant is submitting the Form 6-K in paper as permitted by Regulation S-T Rule 101(b)(1): _____



Indicate by check mark if the registrant is submitting the Form 6-K in paper as permitted by Regulation S-T Rule 101(b)(7): _____



Indicate by check mark whether the registrant by furnishing the information contained in this Form is also thereby furnishing the information to the Commission pursuant to Rule 12g3-2(b) under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.



YesoNox



If Yes marked, indicate below the file number assigned to the registrant in connection with Rule 12g3-2(b): 82-________



















| |  | 
| |  | 





---







On August 2, 2006, Mittal Steel Company N.V. issued the press release attached hereto as Exhibit 99.1.



Exhibit List



|Exhibit No.  | Description                                                                                                          | 
|------------ | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | 
|Exhibit 99.1 | Press release dated August 2, 2006, reporting Mittal Steel Company N.V.'s second quarter and half year results 2006.















| |  | 
| |  | 





---







SIGNATURES



Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the registrant has duly caused this report to be signed on its behalf by the undersigned, thereunto duly authorized.



Date: August 2, 2006



| | By: | /s/ Henk Scheffer
| | --- | -----------------
| |     | Name:            
| |     | Title:           



























| |  | 
| |  | 





---







Exhibit Index



|Exhibit No.  | Description                                                                                                          | 
|------------ | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | 
|Exhibit 99.1 | Press release dated August 2, 2006, reporting Mittal Steel Company N.V.'s second quarter and half year results 2006.

















| |  | 
| |  |
Exhibit 4.6

                              Cumorah Capital, Inc.
                          3225 McLeod Drive, Suite 100
                             Las Vegas, Nevada 89121

                                 March 31, 2006

Frederic Scheer, CEO
Cereplast, Inc.
3421-3433 West El Segundo Boulevard
Hawthorne, California 90250

      Re:   Cereplast, Inc. (the "Company")

Dear Mr. Scheer:

      Reference is hereby made to the Registration Rights Agreement entered by
and between the Company and Cumorah Capital, Inc. ("CCI") dated February 13,
2006 (the "Agreement"). We hereby agree to amend and restate section 10(e) of
the Agreement as follows:

            This Agreement and the Periodic Equity Investment Agreement
            constitute the entire agreement among the parties hereto with
            respect to the subject matter hereof and thereof. There are no
            restrictions, promises, warranties or undertakings, other than those
            set forth or referred to herein and therein. This Agreement and the
            Periodic Equity Investment Agreement, and the Placement Agent
            Agreement supersede all prior agreements and understandings among
            the parties hereto with respect to the subject matter hereof and
            thereof.

      Please acknowledge this agreement by signing below and returning the same
by fax to the undersigned.

                                    Sincerely,

                                    /s/ William E. Beifuss, Jr.
                                    ---------------------------
                                    William E. Beifuss, Jr.
                                    President

Acknowledged and Agreed:

Cereplast, Inc.


By: /s/ Frederic Scheer
   --------------------
Name: Frederic Scheer
Title: CEO
#### Mark Cohen, Appellant, v Abraham Finkelstein, Respondent.

In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, plaintiff *832appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated February 24, 1978, which, *inter alia,*denied plaintiff’s motion for a protective order and granted defendant’s cross motion for an examination before trial. Order affirmed, without costs or disbursements, on condition that the defendant pay the sum of $250 to the plaintiff within 20 days after service upon plaintiff of a copy of the order made hereon, together with notice of entry thereof; in the event such condition is not complied with, order reversed, with $50 costs and disbursements, and plaintiff's motion granted and defendant’s cross motion denied. The examination before trial shall proceed at such time and place as shall be fixed in a written notice of not less than 10 days to be given by the defendant, after the payment of the $250, or at such other time and place as the parties may agree. In the peculiar circumstances of this case (a substitution of defense counsel coupled with the plaintiff voluntarily submitting to three physical examinations subsequent to the filing of the statement of readiness), it was not an abuse of discretion for Special Term to have allowed the tardy application for an examination before trial. By imposing a sanction in this case we serve notice that the procedural rules of our court and the CPLR may not be disregarded with impunity. Hopkins, J. P., Damiani, Rabin and Shapiro, JJ., concur.
### §1635f. Mandatory packer reporting of boxed beef sales

#### (a) Daily reporting

The corporate officers or officially designated representatives of each packer processing plant shall report to the Secretary at least twice each reporting day (not less than once before, and once after, 12:00 noon Central Time) information on total boxed beef sales, including—

(1) the price for each lot of each negotiated boxed beef sale (determined by seller-buyer interaction and agreement), quoted in dollars per hundredweight (on a F.O.B. plant basis);

(2) the quantity for each lot of each sale, quoted by number of boxes sold; and

(3) information regarding the characteristics of each lot of each sale, including—

(A) the grade of beef (USDA Choice or better, USDA Select, or ungraded no-roll product);

(B) the cut of beef; and

(C) the trim specification.

#### (b) Publication

The Secretary shall make available to the public the information required to be reported under subsection (a) not less frequently than twice each reporting day.

(Aug. 14, 1946, ch. 966, title II, §223, as added Pub. L. 106–78, title IX, §911(2), Oct. 22, 1999, 113 Stat. 1193.)
§ 67.4 Policy. ( a ) It is DoD policy under 10 U.S.C. 12205 to require Reserve component officers to have at least a baccalaureate degree from a qualifying educational institution before appointment to a grade above First Lieutenant in the Army Reserve, Air Force Reserve or Marine Corps Reserve, or Lieutenant (Junior Grade) in the Naval Reserve, or for officers to be federally recognized in a grade above First Lieutenant as a member of the Army National Guard or Air National Guard.
( b ) Exempt from this policy is any officer who was: ( 1 ) Appointed to or recognized in a higher grade for service in a health profession for which a baccalaureate degree is not a condition of original appointment or assignment.
( 2 ) Appointed in the Naval Reserve or Marine Corps Reserve as a limited duty officer.
( 3 ) Appointed in the Naval Reserve for service under the Naval Aviation Cadet (NAVCAD) program or the Seaman to Admiral program.
( 4 ) Appointed to or recognized in a higher grade if appointed to, or federally recognized in, the grade of captain or, in the case of the Navy, lieutenant before October 1, 1995.
( 5 ) Recognized in the grade of captain or major in the Alaska Army National Guard, who resides permanently at a location in Alaska that is more than 50 miles from each of the cities of Anchorage, Fairbanks, and Juneau, Alaska, by paved road, and who is serving in a Scout unit or a Scout support unit.
( c ) The Department of Defense will designate an unaccredited educational institution as a qualifying educational institution for the purpose of meeting this educational requirement if that institution meets the criteria established in this part.
Revised 6/30/05

	MEMORANDUM OPINION1 AND JUDGMENT

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

	On [DATE] and [DATE], we notified appellant, in accordance with rule of appellate procedure 42.3(c), that we would dismiss this appeal unless the $125 filing fee was paid.  See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(c).  Appellant has not paid the $125 filing fee.  See Tex. R. App. P. 5, 12.1(b).

	Because appellant has failed to comply with a requirement of the rules of appellate procedure and the Texas Supreme Court’s order of July 21, 1998,2 we dismiss the appeal.  See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(c), 43.2(f).

	Appellant shall pay all costs of this appeal, for which let execution issue.  See Tex. R. App. P. 43.4.

								PER CURIAM

PANEL D:

DELIVERED:

	COURT OF APPEALS

	SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

	FORT WORTH

	NO. 2-05-241-CV

	InN tThHeE InNtTeErReEsStT oOfF F.D.H., A ChHiIlLdD 

APPELLANT

	V.

	APPELLEE

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

	FROM THE 158TH158THE  DISCTRICET COURT OF   DENTON COUNTY

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

	MEMORANDUM OPINION1 AND JUDGMENT

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

	On jULYJuly 5, 2005  ___________ and July 28, 2005, __________, we notified appellant, in accordance with rule of appellate procedure 42.3(c), that we would dismiss this appeal unless the $125 filing fee was paid.  See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(c).  Appellant has not paid the $125 filing fee.  See Tex. R. App. P. 5, 12.1(b).

	Because appellant has failed to comply with a requirement of the rules of appellate procedure and the Texas Supreme Court's order of July 21, 1998,2 we dismiss the appeal.  See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(c), 43.2(f).

	Appellant shall pay all costs of this appeal, for which let execution issue.  See Tex. R. App. P. 42.1(d)3.4.

								PER CURIAM

PANEL D:  LIVINGSTON, DAUPHINOT, and HOLMAN, JJ.

DELIVERED:  aUGUSTAugust 18, 2005August 11, 2005
EXHIBIT 10.20.16




            Second Amendment to Letter Agreement (European Facility)
                             dated January 31, 1995
                  among the Registrant's Foreign Subsidiaries
                                  and NBD Bank

































<PAGE>
                                    NBD BANK
                              611 Woodward Avenue
                            Detroit, Michigan 48226




                                        Dated as of January 31, 1995





Hurco Europe Limited
Hurco GmbH Werkzeugmaschinen
  CIM-Bausteine Vertrieb und Service

                           Re:   Second Amendment to European Facility

Ladies and Gentlemen:

         This letter amends the letter  agreement  with you dated June 17, 1993,
as previously  amended by the letter agreement dated March 24, 1994 (as amended,
the  "European  Facility"),  and is being entered into in  conjunction  with the
First  Amendment  to Credit  Agreement of even date  herewith  with your parent,
Hurco Companies, Inc.

         The definition of "Expiration Date" in the European Facility is amended
to read as follows:


                  "Expiration  Date" means the earlier to occur of (a)  February
                  1,  1996,  and  (b) the  date  on  which  NBD  declares  under
                  paragraph 13 all principal and interest on indebtedness to NBD
                  provided  under  this  agreement  to be  immediately  due  and
                  payable.

       Should the foregoing be agreeable to you, as it is to us, please indicate
your  agreement  and  acceptance by executing and returning the enclosed copy of
this  letter,  whereupon  the  European  Facility  shall be  amended  as  herein
provided,  and  references  to the  European  Facility  shall be to the European
Facility as so amended.  Except as amended hereby,  the European  Facility shall
remain in full force and effect.

                                                   Very truly yours,

                                                   NBD Bank (formerly known as 
                                                     NBD Bank, N.A.)


                                                   By: /S/ ANDREW P. ARTON
                                                       ---------------------
                                                       Andrew P. Arton
                                                   Its: Second Vice President





<PAGE>

Agreed and accepted:


HURCO EUROPE LIMITED


By: /S/ ROGER J. WOLF
   ---------------------
Its:  Director

Dated as of January 31, 1995


HURCO GmbH WERKZEUGMASCHINEN
CIM-BAUSTEINE VERTRIEB UND
SERVICE


By: /S/ GERHARD KOHLBACHER
    ----------------------
Its:  General Manager

Dated as of January 31, 1995