alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 585.101 Relation of this part to other laws and regulations. This part is separate from, and independent of, the other parts of this chapter, with the exception of part 501 of this chapter, the recordkeeping and reporting requirements and license application and other procedures of which apply to this part. Actions taken pursuant to part 501 of this chapter with respect to the prohibitions contained in this part are considered actions taken pursuant to this part. Differing foreign policy and national security circumstances may result in differing interpretations of similar language among the parts of this chapter. No license or authorization contained in or issued pursuant to those other parts authorizes any transaction prohibited by this part. No license or authorization contained in or issued pursuant to any other provision of law or regulation authorizes any transaction prohibited by this part. No license or authorization contained in or issued pursuant to this part relieves the involved parties from complying with any other applicable laws or regulations. Note 1 to § 585.101 .
This part has been published in abbreviated form for the purpose of providing immediate guidance to the public. OFAC intends to supplement this part with a more comprehensive set of regulations, which may include additional interpretive and definitional guidance, general licenses, and statements of licensing policy.
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<META NAME="Generator" CONTENT="Microsoft Word 97">
<TITLE>ADMENDMENT AGREEMENT</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>

<FONT SIZE=5><P ALIGN="CENTER"></P>
<P ALIGN="CENTER"> </P>
<P ALIGN="CENTER"> </P>
<P ALIGN="CENTER"> </P>
<P ALIGN="CENTER"> </P>
<P ALIGN="CENTER"> </P>
<P ALIGN="CENTER"> </P>
<P ALIGN="CENTER"> </P>
<P ALIGN="CENTER"> </P>
<P ALIGN="CENTER"> </P>
<P ALIGN="CENTER"> </P>
<P ALIGN="CENTER"> </P>
</FONT><FONT SIZE=6><P ALIGN="CENTER">EXHIBIT 10.09</P>
</FONT><B><FONT SIZE=3><P ALIGN="CENTER"></P>
<P ALIGN="CENTER"> </P>
<U><P ALIGN="CENTER"> </P>
<P ALIGN="CENTER">AMENDMENT AGREEMENT</P>
</B></U>
<P> </P>
<P>This Amendment Agreement made and entered into as of the 30th day of December, 1999 by and between Fuji Photo Film U.S. A. ("Fuji") and Moto Photo, Inc. ("Moto Photo").</P>

<B><U><P ALIGN="CENTER">WITNESSETH</P>
</B></U>
<P>WHEREAS, Fuji and Moto Photo are parties to an Amended Supply Agreement dated as of January 11, 1995 (the "Agreement") under which Moto Photo agreed to purchase at least 80% of its Projected System Needs from Fuji; and</P>

<P>Whereas, Fuji and Moto Photo desire to amend the Agreement to change the terms of sale from 180 days to 120 days and to specify the limit of credit to be extended by Fuji to Moto Photo for the purchase of Products.</P>

<P>NOW, THEREFORE, the parties hereto agree as follows:</P>

<OL>

<OL>

<LI>Section 3.1 of the Agreement is hereby amended by replacing each use of "180" with "120".<BR>
</LI>
<LI>A new Section 3.7 shall be added as follows:<BR>
<BR>
"3.7 Credit Limit.  Fuji shall extend credit to Moto Photo to be used toward purchases of Products.  The credit limit shall have an average maximum amount of $4,000,000.  Fuji and Moto Photo shall agree on the method for determining the average credit
extended to Moto Photo by Fuji.  Should Moto Photo surpass its credit limit, fail to pay pursuant to the terms of sale provided herein, or otherwise default under this Agreement, Fuji reserves the right to change the credit terms upon advance notice to
Moto Ph
to cures such default."<BR>
</LI>
<LI>Except as otherwise provided herein, the Amendment Agreement will be effective as of the date above written.<BR>
</LI>
<LI>Capitalized terms used herein have the meanings given them in the Agreement.<BR>
</LI>
<LI>The Agreement is amended only as expressly provided herein and otherwise remains unchanged in all respects.<BR>
</LI></OL>
</OL>

<P>IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused the Amendment Agreement to be executed by their duly authorized representatives on the date above written.</P>

<P> </P>
<P>FUJI PHOTO FILM U.S.A., INC.			MOTO PHOTO, INC.</P>

<P> </P>
<P> </P>
<P>BY:<U>					</U>		By:<U>					</P>
</U><P>Name:	Yasuo Tanaka					Name:	Frank M. Montaño</P>
<P>Title:  	President					Title: 	President and Chief Operating Officer</P></FONT></BODY>
</HTML>
_________________________________________ 

 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court 

Lansing, Michigan 

June 26, 2006 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

130080 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver (63) Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman, PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Justices 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 130080 

 COA: 256302 
 Wayne CC: 04-002106-01 

CHRISTOPHER DARNELL MOORE, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the motion for reconsideration of this Court's order of 

April 28, 2006 is considered, and it is DENIED, because it does not appear that the order 

was entered erroneously. 

l0619 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

June 26, 2006 

Clerk
# Jordan

190 items

        -    Readout  		Secretary Blinken’s Call with Jordanian Foreign Minister Safadi	  April 12, 2024 
        -    Readout  		Secretary Blinken’s Call with Jordanian Foreign Minister Safadi	  March 6, 2024 
        -    Media Note  		Joint Statement on the Second U.S.-Jordan Cyber and Digital Dialogue	  March 5, 2024 
        -    Special Needs Profile  		Amman, Jordan: American Community School: 2024 Special Needs Profile	  February 29, 2024 
        -    Readout  		Secretary Blinken’s Call with Jordanian Foreign Minister Safadi	  February 26, 2024 
        -    Press Statement  		75 Years of Diplomatic Relations Between the United States and the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan	  Antony J. BlinkenFebruary 17, 2024 
        -    Media Note  		Under Secretary Elizabeth M. Allen’s Travel to Jordan, Sri Lanka, and India	  February 16, 2024 
        -    Readout  		Secretary Blinken’s Meeting with Jordanian King Abdullah II	  February 13, 2024 
        -    Department Press Briefing  		Department Press Briefing – February 8, 2024	  Vedant PatelFebruary 8, 2024Washington, D.C. 
        -    Special Briefing  		Digital Press Briefing with Barbara Leaf, Assistant Secretary for Near Eastern Affairs	  Barbara A. LeafFebruary 1, 2024 

123…19next page

Back to Top
# C_2005193EN.01001902.xml

| 6.8.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 193/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.8.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 193/19

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d'Etat (France) by decision of that court of 9 May 2005 in Nicolae Bot v Préfecture du Val-de-Marne

(Case C-241/05)

(2005/C 193/30)

Language of the case: French

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by decision of the Conseil d'Etat (Council of State) (France), of 9 May 2005, received at the Court Registry on 2 June 2005, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings between Nicolae Bot and Préfecture du Val-de-Marne.

The Conseil d'Etat asks the Court of Justice to give a ruling on the question of what is meant by ‘date of first entry’ in terms of Article 20(1) of the Convention implementing the Schengen Agreement and, in particular, whether any entry taking place at the end of a period of six months during which there has been no other entry into the territory, as well as, in the case of an alien who carries out multiple entries for stays of short duration, any entry immediately following the expiry of a period of six months from the date of the last known ‘first entry’, should be regarded as a ‘first entry’ into the territory of the States which are party to that convention.

---
# Laos

76 items

        -    Report  		Laos	  August 15, 2017 
        -    Report  		Laos	  June 29, 2017 
        -    Report  		Laos	  June 27, 2017 
        -    Report  		Laos	  March 3, 2017 
        -    TIAS  		Laos (10-713) – Air Transport Agreement	  July 13, 2010 
        -    TIAS  		Laos (03-1224) – Agreement Regarding the Surrender of Persons to International Tribunals	  December 24, 2003 

previous page1…678

Back to Top
# Ireland

80 items

        -    Report  		Ireland	  June 28, 2018 
        -    Report  		Ireland	  May 29, 2018 
        -    Report  		Ireland	  April 20, 2018 
        -    Report  		Ireland	  August 15, 2017 
        -    Report  		Ireland	  June 29, 2017 
        -    Report  		Ireland	  June 27, 2017 
        -    Report  		Ireland	  March 3, 2017 
        -    TIAS  		Ireland (14-402) – Agreement to Improve International Tax Compliance and to Implement Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act	  April 2, 2014 
        -    TIAS  		Ireland (13-613.1) – Agreement on the Implementation of Article 83 bis of the Convention on International Civil Aviation	  June 13, 2013 
        -    TIAS  		Ireland (12-1019.1) – Agreement on Enhancing Cooperation in Preventing and Combating Serious Crime	  October 19, 2012 

previous page1…5678next page

Back to Top
# C_2005171EN.01003503.xml

| 9.7.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 171/35 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.7.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 171/35

---

Removal from the Register of Case T-244/04 (1)

1

(2005/C 171/59)

(Language of the case: Dutch)

(Language of the case: Dutch)

By order of 4 May 2005, the President of the Second Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities has ordered the removal from the Register of Case T-244/04, Elisabeth Saskia Smit v Europese Politiedienst (Europol).

---

(1)  OJ C 217 of 28.8.2004.

1

---
#### George A. Sipp, Respondent, *v.*The Siegel-Cooper Co., Appellant.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Term,

March, 1898.)

Evidence — An offer of compromise is not a proper basis of value. •

An offer to compromise a,claim for the use of trucks and wagons is not a proper element in reaching a conclusion as to the fair value of the use. ■, ■

Appeal from a judgment of the Thirteenth Judicial District Court, in favor of the plaintiff.

Rose *&*Putzel, for appellant.

J. C. Van Loon, for respondent.

Gildersleeve, J.

The issue herein presented by the pleadings and the testimony was as to the compensation which plaintiff was entitled to receive for the use of two trucks and three delivery wagons for, at the most, one full day. It was the claim of the. plaintiff that the defendant admitted that the use of the trucks and wagons was of the value of $35. It was for this amount that the learned trial justice rendered judgment in favor of the plaintiff. A careful examination of the record fails to disclose any evidence to support this judgment. The evidence shows that plaintiff made a claim against defendant for $75, and that the correctness of this claim was disputed by defendant; and it further appears that, subsequent tó the commencement of the action, defendant instructed its lawyers to pay $35 to the plaintiff, on obtaining from him a release. It is the contention of the defendant that this offer was made in order to .compromise the particular claim, for which this action Was brought, as well as other differences that existed between ’ the parties to the action. However that may be, no payment was made and no settlement had. The action was not brought to recover upon the express promise of the defendant to pay the sum of $35, but was brought, as we have seen, to recover payment for the use of the two trucks and three parcel wagons, as appears by the record of the oral pleadings. Plaintiff claims, correctly, that the question of value was one of fact to be found by the justice before whom the action was tried. It would seem that the justice considered the defendant’s letter, which was nothing more *142than a proposition to compromise, and the testimony as to what transpired between the parties, as evidence of the fair value of the _nse of the trucks and wagons; and consequently, he fixed, as we have said, the recovery at $35. This conclusion is clearly against the weight of evidence. There is no sufficient evidence to support such an award. The preponderance of evidence shows undisputably that the fair value of the úse of the trucks and wagons in question did not exceed the sum of $7.

Eor the reasons above stated, the judgment should be reversed, and a new trial ordered, with costs to abide: the event.

Beekman, P. J., and Gteoebioh, j., concur.- . .

Judgment reversed, and new trial ordered, with costs to abide event.
§ 525.404 Transactions ordinarily incident to a licensed transaction. Any transaction ordinarily incident to a licensed transaction and necessary to give effect thereto is also authorized, except: ( a ) An ordinarily incident transaction, not explicitly authorized within the terms of the license, by or with a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to § 525.201; or
( b ) An ordinarily incident transaction, not explicitly authorized within the terms of the license, involving a debit to a blocked account or a transfer of blocked property.
# C_2005156EN.01002201.xml

| 28.6.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 156/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.6.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 156/22

---

F-Grenoble: operation of scheduled air services

Cancellation

(‘Supplement to the Official Journal of the European Union’ S 119 of 22.6.2005, open procedure, 117015-2005)

Official Journal of the European Union

(2005/C 156/10)

Conseil général de l'Isère, direction des transports, service grands projets, BP 1096, F-38022 Grenoble Cedex. Tel. (33-4) 76 00 60 30, fax (33-4) 76 00 30 36.

This notice has been cancelled.

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0000725813
<NAME> LAURENCE E. RICHARD
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1995
<CASH>                                         3800000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                 15731000
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                   13773000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                              36478000
<PP&E>                                        38121000
<DEPRECIATION>                                18356000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                70123000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          9022000
<BONDS>                                              0
<COMMON>                                        530000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                    53412000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                  70123000
<SALES>                                       39351000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                              39351000
<CGS>                                         26510000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                 26510000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               7925000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              339000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                4577000
<INCOME-TAX>                                   1397000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            3180000
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   3180000
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .58
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .58
        

</TABLE>
HomeBiographies...Michael  Heath

# 				Michael  Heath			

															Deputy Assistant Secretary						Bureau of African Affairs												

				September 3, 2022 -									Present							

Tags

Bureau of African AffairsState Department Official

Back to Top
HomeBureau of Economic and Business Affairs...Bureau of Economic and Business Affairs  Releases

# Bureau of Economic and Business Affairs Releases

		Conflict Diamonds Archive (2009-2017)		

1977 items

        -    		2008 Final Communique Plenary Session New Delhi	  November 6, 2008 
        -    Air Transport Agreement  		U.S.-Kenya Air Transport Agreement, Signed June 18, 2008	  June 18, 2008 
        -    		2007 Final Communique Plenary Session Brussels	  November 8, 2007 
        -    		2006 Final Communique Plenary Session Gaborone	  November 6, 2006 
        -    		2005 Final Communique Plenary Session Moscow	  November 15, 2005 
        -    		2004 Final Communique Plenary Session Gatineau	  October 29, 2004 
        -    		2003 Final Communique Plenary Session Sun City	  October 29, 2003 

previous page1…196197198

Back to Top
# C_2005176EN.01002401.xml

| 16.7.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 176/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.7.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 176/24

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.3840 — CVC/Cortefiel)

(2005/C 176/07)

(Text with EEA relevance)

On 30 June 2005, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | from the Europa competition web site (http://europa.eu.int/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This web site provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

from the Europa competition web site (http://europa.eu.int/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This web site provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32005M3840. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law. (http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/lex) |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32005M3840. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law. (http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/lex)

---
#### In re Patricia Eileen Wade CARROLL v. STATE. Ex parte Patricia Eileen Carroll.

78-319.

Supreme Court of Alabama.

April 27, 1979.

Randolph P. Reaves, Montgomery, for petitioner.

No brief for the State, respondent.

PER CURIAM.

By denying this petition we do not wish to be understood as agreeing with the rationale advanced by the Court of Criminal Appeals in its opinion. See: McElroy, Law of Evidence in Alabama, Vol. 2, § 200.13(5) (2d Ed.1962).

WRIT DENIED.

TORBERT, C. J., and MADDOX, JONES, SHORES and BEATTY, JJ., concur.
June 24, 2014 Federal Aviation Administration 2601**r~**e acham 8 1 v d . , 663 Fort Worth, TX 76137
RE: Case No. 201 3SW050046 De a r**r~** r . L a n de r : 

# RECEIVED JUL**~**

# 320f4 HEARING DOCKET 

# OL\01-

I am in receipt of your letter dated June 6, 2014 (Final Notice of Proposed Civil Penalty). Due to incarceration at Seagoville FCI, I obviously toill not be able to attend a hearing tohich toould be scheduled 15 days from the date of the notice. I am to be released on October 15, 2014 and request a hearing after that date. Thank you for your assistance in this matter.
Sincerely, f(enneth Santodomingo Reg. No. 45762-177 P. D. Box 9000 Seagoville, TX 75159-9000

xc: Federal Aviation Administration Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 BOD Independence Ave., SW Washington, DC 20591
```

[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 8 (Monday, January 13, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 2241]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-00407]

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

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

[Public Notice 8584]

In the Matter of the Designation of Ansar al-Shari'a in Darnah; 
Also Known as Supporters of Islamic Law; Also Known as Ansar al-Sharia 
in Derna; Also Known as Ansar al-Sharia in Libya; Also Known as Ansar 
al-Sharia; Also Known as Ansar al-Sharia Brigade in Darnah; as a 
Foreign Terrorist Organization Pursuant to Section 219 of the 
Immigration and Nationality Act, as Amended

    Based upon a review of the Administrative Record assembled in this 
matter and in consultation with the Attorney General and the Secretary 
of the Treasury, I conclude that there is a sufficient factual basis to 
find that the relevant circumstances described in section 219 of the 
Immigration and Nationality Act, as amended (hereinafter ``INA'') (8 
U.S.C. 1189), exist with respect to Ansar al-Shari'a in Darnah, also 
known as Supporters of Islamic Law, also known as Ansar al-Sharia in 
Derna, also known as Ansar al-Sharia in Libya, also known as Ansar al-
Sharia, also known as Ansar al-Sharia Brigade in Darnah.
    Therefore, I hereby designate the aforementioned organization and 
its aliases as a Foreign Terrorist Organization pursuant to section 219 
of the INA.
    This determination shall be published in the Federal Register.

     Dated: December 31, 2013.
John F. Kerry,
Secretary of State.
[FR Doc. 2014-00407 Filed 1-10-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4710-05-P
```
#### Frederick Kalfur, an Infant, Plaintiff, *v.*The Broadway Ferry & Metropolitan Avenue R. Co., Defendant.

(Supreme Court, Kings Trial Term,

April, 1898.)

Negligence — Verdict for $15,000 in favor of an infant sustained.

A verdict for $15,000 rendered against a street railroad corporation in favor of a boy .eighteen months old who, by its negligence, lost his leg below the knee, will not be set aside as excessive.

Motion to set aside a verdict for the plaintiff as excessive.

C. J. Patterson, for plaintiff.

T. S. Moore, for defendant.

Gaynor J.:

The. plaintiff, a boy eighteen months old at the time of the injury, lost his leg below the knee. The verdict was for $15,000. If $2,500 be allowed his counsel, and the remaining $12,500 be invested, and the income thereof be invested and accumulated, until the plaintiff come of age, he would then have a *418sum, of about $20,000. This would insure him au income of $800 or $1,000 a year, (which is about as much as we may fairly presume he would earn if whole), and leave the said sum of $20,000 intact at his death. This leaves out of account his earnings; and whether they are to be less for the less of his foot, depends on the avocation he may select. If he become a lawyer, doctor, clergyman, clerk or merchant, for instance, his earning capacity will not he lessened by the use of an artificial foot. If he is to do certain kinds of manual work, it will he; hut the income from t-he said stun will be as much or more than he could earn in wages if whole. I had an opinion' growing out of my pwn view, and discretion, in respect of whether the verdict he excessive. But that is not what must control me. Counsel have furnished me with .a list of the cases in which such verdicts have and have not been reduced. Verdicts as large and larger for like injury have been upheld, as a rule, though it is true some have- been reduced. Exercising my discretion in the light of precedent, and constrained thereby, I must deny the motion to reduce. Trial judges were never so reluctant to exercise any discretion whatever as they are at present, for reasons that 'are growing obvious to the bar. They do not have things presented to them under the disguise of print, and with academic after thoughtsi and refinements, but in their every day reality, just as they are generally, seen and understood. Discretion exercised under these different conditions cannot in the” nature of things he the same.

Motion denied.