alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 4.36

                               Fifth Amendment to
                              Amended and Restated
                      Certificate of Limited Partnership of
                 Geodyne Energy Income Limited Partnership II-C



     The undersigned,  desiring to amend its amended and restated  certificate
of limited  partnership  pursuant  to the  Oklahoma  Revised  Uniform  Limited
Partnership Act, as amended,  Okla.  Stat. tit. 54 (1993),  Section 301 et seq
(the "Act"), do hereby state:

1.  The  name of the  limited  partnership  is  Geodyne  Energy  Income  Limited
Partnership II-C.

2. The  dates of  filing  of the  Certificate  of  Limited  Partnership  and all
amendments thereto are as follows:

Name                                                               Date
Agreement and Certificate of Limited Partnership                   1/14/88
Amended and Restated Certificate of Limited
      Partnership                                                  3/10/89
First Amendment to Amended and Restated Certificate
      of Limited Partnership                                       2/25/93
Second Amendment to Amended and Restated Certificate
      of Limited Partnership                                       7/19/96
Third Amendment to Amended and Restated Certificate
      of Limited Partnership                                       11/21/01
Fourth Amendment to Amended and Restated Certificate
      of Limited Partnership                                       11/21/03

3.  The  Fourth  Amendment  to  Amended  and  Restated  Certificate  of  Limited
Partnership  dated November 21, 2001,  and filed with the Oklahoma  Secretary of
State on November 24,  2001,  stated that the latest date upon which the limited
partnership  is to dissolve is December  31,  2003.  Pursuant to its terms,  the
Agreement and  Certificate  of Limited  Partnership  dated January 13, 1988 (the
"Partnership  Agreement")  was  amended on October 27,  2005,  to state that the
latest date upon which the  Partnership  is to dissolve  is December  31,  2007,
provided that the General  Partner may extend the term of the Partnership for up
to two  additional  periods of two years each pursuant to the  provisions of the
Partnership Agreement.

      Therefore,  the Amended and Restated Certificate of Limited Partnership is
hereby  revised  to state that the latest  date on which the  Partnership  is to
dissolve  is  December  31,  2007,  subject  to  extension  as set  forth in the
Partnership's Partnership Agreement.

      DATED:  October 27, 2005.

                                    GEODYNE RESOURCES, INC.
                                    General Partner


                                    By:   //s// Dennis R. Neill
                                          ---------------------------
                                          Dennis R. Neill, President
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision **

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

GILBERT OSUNA,

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

 v.

MR. ERIVES, individual and LAPD Patrol

B/W Unit Officer, official capacity; et al.,

 Defendants - Appellees.

No. 13-55275

D.C. No. 2:12-cv-02475-PA-VBK

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Central District of California

Percy Anderson, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted August 14, 2013** 

Before: SCHROEDER, GRABER, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges. 

Gilbert Osuna appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing

his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging excessive force and deliberate indifference. 

We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of

FILED

AUG 21 2013

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 13-55275

discretion a dismissal for failure to prosecute, Al-Torki v. Kaempen, 78 F.3d 1381,

1384 (9th Cir. 1996), and for failure to comply with a court order, Ferdik v.

Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260 (9th Cir. 1992). We vacate and remand.

The district court abused its discretion in dismissing Osuna’s action with

prejudice for failure to notify the court that Osuna had provided documents to the

U.S. Marshals Service because it failed to consider less drastic alternatives. 

Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 642-43 (9th Cir. 2002) (listing factors to

consider before dismissing for failure to prosecute or failure to comply with court

orders and explaining that warning of dismissal prior to disobedience of a court

order did not constitute consideration of less drastic alternatives); Ferdik, 963 F.2d

at 1260 (“[D]ismissal is a harsh penalty and, therefore, it should only be imposed

in extreme circumstances.”). While the district court had previously ordered

Osuna on October 11, 2012 to provide the necessary documents to the U.S.

Marshals Service, the record demonstrates that the district court sent the order to

the incorrect address.

Osuna’s request for counsel, set forth in his opening brief, is denied without

prejudice to renewal before the district court.

VACATED and REMANDED.
# vea airlines

Mr
. A l phonso Pendergrass Director El Salvador, March 24th of2015.

FEDERALAVIATION ADMINISTRATION 800 IndependenceAvenue, SW Washington, DC20591. Subject: URGENTREQUEST Dear Mr. Pendergrass: Hope you are doing well. Asyou may be aware, we requested an exemption to your office regarding the requirement of the FAR 129.117 (e) (I). Nevertheless we appreciate your support regarding to solve this requirement , taking into consideration that VECA Airlines is a new Commercial Operator in El Salvador, actually we have only one aircraft in our fleet and we are in theprocess to add another aircraft in our operations specifications; therefore, we kindly request your timely attention byyour knowledge of this kind of situation andyour long experience in aviation industry. Thanking you in advance, Sincerely,



# ~- Armando DeLucas Chief Executive Officer VECA, S.A. DE C. V. KM
. g , , C arrot or.) P a n ilmoricana Sa nt,l Te c l a,

**;~** L i b orta d
Exhibit 32

                CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                       AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906
                        OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of APPLIED SPECTRUM TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
(the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended June 30, 2006, (the
"Report"), I, Kevin R. Keating, President of the Company, certify, pursuant to
18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that:

      1)    The Report fully complies with the requirement 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 Company's financial position and results of
            operations.


Date: August 14, 2006                      By: /s/ Kevin R. Keating
                                               ---------------------------------
                                               Kevin R. Keating, President
```

[Journal of the House of Representatives, 1995]
[Tuesday, November 7, 1995 (141), Para 141.34 Notice Requirement--Motion to Instruct Conferees--H.R. 2126]
[Page 1879]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]

para.141.34  notice requirement--motion to instruct conferees--h.r. 2126

  Mr. METCALF, pursuant to clause 1(c) of rule XXVIII, announced his 
intention to instruct the managers on the part of the House at the 
conference with the Senate on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses on 
the bill (H.R. 2126) making appropriations for the Departments of 
Veterans Affairs and Housing and Urban Development, and for sundry 
independent agencies, boards, commissions, corporations, and offices for 
the fiscal year ending September 30, 1996, and for other purposes, to 
insist on sections numbered 8102 and 8111 of said bill, as passed by the 
House restricting the deployment of United States Armed Forces in the 
former Yugoslavia.
```
PUBLIC SUBMISSION

As of: 7/18/15 6:27 PM

Received: July 17, 2015

Status: Pending_Post

Tracking No. 1jz-8k1e-ikaw

Comments Due: July 21, 2015

Submission Type: Web

Docket: EBSA-2010-0050

Definition of the Term ‘‘Fiduciary’’; Conflict of Interest Rule—Retirement Investment Advice; 

Notice of proposed rulemaking and withdrawal of previous proposed rule.

Comment On: EBSA-2010-0050-0204

Definition of the Term Fiduciary; Conflict of Interest Rule-Retirement Investment Advice

Document: EBSA-2010-0050-DRAFT-2523

Comment on FR Doc # 2015-08831

Submitter Information

Name: Robert DiStefano

General Comment

I do not want any new or modified regulations regarding this matter. I want the government to 

restrict its action to the enumerated powers in the U.S. Constitution and nothing more. As my 

Senator I expect you to vote my wishes and those of the majority of your constituents. I oppose 

this proposal and I expect you to oppose it as well. I will watch your action on this and related 

proposals closely and will either reward you with my vote or will express my displeasure with 

my future vote. Thank you for faithfully representing the people of the State of Florida. Robert 

DiStefano.
#### § 29.109 Who is responsible for drafting the compact or funding agreement?

It is the mutual obligation of the Department and the Tribe to draft the compact, funding agreement, or amendment. Either the Department or the Tribe may prepare the initial draft for the other party's review.
§ 299.321 Defective rails. ( a ) The railroad's inspection, testing, and maintenance program shall include a description of defective rails consistent with the practice on the Tokaido Shinkansen system. The inspection, testing, and maintenance program shall include identification of rail defect types, definition of the inspection criteria, time required for verification and the corresponding remedial action.
( b ) When the railroad learns that a rail in that track contains any of the defects listed in the railroad's inspection, testing, and maintenance program, a person designated under § 299.353 or § 299.355 shall determine whether the track may continue in use. If the designated person determines that the track may continue in use, operation over the defective rail is not permitted until— ( 1 ) The rail is replaced or repaired; or
( 2 ) The remedial action prescribed in the inspection, testing, and maintenance program is initiated.
```

[109th Congress Public Law 83]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office]

[DOCID: f:publ083.109]

[[Page 119 STAT. 2053]]

Public Law 109-83
109th Congress

                                 An Act

 
   To amend the United States Grain Standards Act to reauthorize that 
               Act. <<NOTE: Sept. 30, 2005 -  [S. 1752]>> 

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. REAUTHORIZATION OF ACT.

    (a) In General.--Sections 7(j)(4), 7A(l)(3), 7D, 19, and 21(e) of 
the United States Grains Standards Act (7 U.S.C. 79(j)(4), 79a(l)(3), 
79d, 87h, 87j(e)) are amended by striking ``2005'' each place it appears 
and inserting ``2015''.
    (b) <<NOTE: 7 USC 79 note.>>  Effective Date.--The amendments made 
by subsection (a) take effect on September 30, 2005.

    Approved September 30, 2005.

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY--S. 1752:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 151 (2005):
            Sept. 22, considered and passed Senate.
            Sept. 28, considered and passed House.

                                  <all>
```
§ 299.417 Emergency lighting. ( a ) *General.* Emergency lighting shall be provided in each unit of a trainset. The emergency lighting system shall be designed to facilitate the ability of passengers and trainset crew members, and/or emergency responders to see and orient themselves, to identify obstacles, in order to assist them to safely move through and out of a passenger rail car. ( 1 ) Emergency lighting shall illuminate the following areas: ( i ) Passenger car aisles, passageways, and toilets;
( ii ) Door emergency exit controls/manual releases;
( iii ) Vestibule floor near the door emergency exits (to facilitate safe entrance/exit from the door);
( iv ) Within the car diaphragm and adjacent area; and
( v ) Specialty car locations such as crew offices.
( b ) *Minimum illumination levels.* ( 1 ) A minimum, average illumination level of 10.7 lux (1 foot-candle) measured at floor level adjacent to each exterior door and each interior door providing access to an exterior door (such as a door opening into a vestibule);
( 2 ) A minimum, average illumination level of 10.7 lux (1 foot-candle) measured 635 mm (25 inches) above floor level along the center of each aisle and passageway;
( 3 ) A minimum illumination level of 1.1 lux (0.1 foot-candle) measured 635 mm (25 inches) above floor level at any point along the center of each aisle and passageway;
( c ) *Lighting activation.* Each emergency lighting fixture shall activate automatically or be energized continuously whenever the car is in revenue service and normal lighting is not available.
( d ) *Independent power source.* Emergency lighting system shall have an independent power source(s) that is located in or within one half a car length of each light fixture it powers.
( e ) *Functional requirements.* Emergency lighting system components shall be designed to operate without failure and capable of remaining attached under the conditions typically found in passenger rail equipment including expected mechanical vibrations, and shock in accordance with § 299.405(a)(1), as well as comply with electromagnetic interference criteria in § 299.435(e). ( 1 ) All emergency lighting system components shall be capable to operate in all railcar orientations.
( 2 ) All emergency lighting system components shall be capable to operate when normal power is unavailable for 90 minutes without a loss of more than 40% of the minimum illumination levels specified in paragraph (b) of this section.
( f ) *Inspection.* ( 1 ) The railroad shall inspect the emergency lighting system as required by its inspection, testing, and maintenance program in accordance with § 299.445.
( 2 ) If batteries are used as independent power sources, they shall have automatic self-diagnostic modules designed to perform discharge tests.
#### § 31.42 Judicial review.

Section 3805 of title 31, United States Code, authorizes judicial review by an appropriate United States District Court of a final decision of the authority head imposing penalties or assessments under this part and specifies the procedures for such review.
Editorial Note on Part 192
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 192 appear at 71 FR 33406, June 9, 2006.

§ 192.14 Conversion to service subject to this part. ( a ) A steel pipeline previously used in service not subject to this part qualifies for use under this part if the operator prepares and follows a written procedure to carry out the following requirements: ( 1 ) The design, construction, operation, and maintenance history of the pipeline must be reviewed and, where sufficient historical records are not available, appropriate tests must be performed to determine if the pipeline is in a satisfactory condition for safe operation.
( 2 ) The pipeline right-of-way, all aboveground segments of the pipeline, and appropriately selected underground segments must be visually inspected for physical defects and operating conditions which reasonably could be expected to impair the strength or tightness of the pipeline.
( 3 ) All known unsafe defects and conditions must be corrected in accordance with this part.
( 4 ) The pipeline must be tested in accordance with subpart J of this part to substantiate the maximum allowable operating pressure permitted by subpart L of this part.
( b ) Each operator must keep for the life of the pipeline a record of the investigations, tests, repairs, replacements, and alterations made under the requirements of paragraph (a) of this section.
( c ) An operator converting a pipeline from service not previously covered by this part must notify PHMSA 60 days before the conversion occurs as required by § 191.22 of this chapter.
[Amdt. 192-30, 42 FR 60148, Nov. 25, 1977, as amended by Amdt. 192-123, 82 FR 7997, Jan. 23, 2017]
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

July 31, 2006 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

131062 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

FREDERICK T. STREETS, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman,

 Justices 

v SC: 131062 

 COA: 266741 

WCAC: 02-000522 

CWC TEXTRON, INC., and KEMPER

INSURANCE COMPANIES, 

Defendants-Appellants. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the March 23, 2006 order 

of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded 

that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court. 

t0724 

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. 

July 31, 2006 

 Clerk
10150 Meanley Drive, 1st Floor • San Diego • CA 92131 • (858) 530-4400 • Fax: (858) 530-1929

VIA ELECTRONIC SUBMISSION

May 20, 2015

Mr. Thomas E. Perez, Secretary

U.S. Department of Labor

200 Constitution Avenue, NW

Washington, DC 20210

Re: Regulation Identifier Number: RIN 1210-AB32 (Fiduciary Rule)

Dear Secretary Perez:

I am contacting you on behalf of Sorrento Pacific Financial, LLC (“SPF”). SPF is a securities 

broker/dealer that is registered with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission (the 

“SEC”), the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (“FINRA”), the Municipal Securities 

Rulemaking Board, all fifty (50) states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico. SPF is also a 

Registered Investment Adviser with the SEC. 

I am respectfully requesting that that the comment period regarding the above referenced 

proposal be extended to 120 days.

SPF would like sufficient time to analyze how the rule will impact our clients, our advisors, and 

our business practices, especially within the IRA sphere. Additionally, we want to ensure that 

SPF is able to provide the DOL with thoughtful, constructive commentary that will be helpful in 

your review of the proposal. Due to the length and complexity of the proposal, we believe that 

neither of the above objectives can be adequately accomplished within the 75-day comment 

period that DOL has attached to the proposal.

Thank you for your consideration

Sincerely,

/s/ 

Maria J. Seedner

Corporate Counsel
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-6244 LEMMIE STUART, a/k/a David Russell Berry, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus COUNTY OF SPARTANBURG; LARRY POWERS, Director of Spartanburg County Detention Facility; OFFICER VALASCO, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. Patrick Michael Duffy, District Judge. (CA-99-169-2-23) Submitted: May 19, 2000 Decided: June 16, 2000 Before MICHAEL, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Lemmie Stuart, Appellant Pro Se. Ginger Dee Goforth, HOLCOMBE, BOMAR, GUNN & BRADFORD, P.A., Spartanburg, South Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Lemmie Dale Stuart appeals the district court’s orders: (1) dismissing his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 1999) motion for failure to prosecute; and (2) denying his motion to alter or amend judgment. Finding no reversible error, we affirm. A district court may, under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b), dismiss a complaint based upon a plaintiff’s failure to comply with a court order. See Simpson v. Welch, 900 F.2d 33, 35-36 (4th Cir. 1990). Such dismissals are reviewed for abuse of discretion. See Ballard v. Carlson , 882 F.2d 93, 95-96 (4th Cir. 1989). Because Stuart failed to comply with the magistrate judge’s unambiguous order andbecause the magistrate judge expressly warned Stuart of the consequences of failing to comply with his order, we find that the district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing Stuart’s action for failure to prosecute. See id.Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s orders. 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
#### § 220.23 Publication of radio information.

Each railroad shall designate where radio base stations are installed, where wayside stations may be contacted, and the appropriate radio channels used by these stations in connection with railroad operations by publishing them in a timetable or special instruction. The publication shall indicate the periods during which base and wayside radio stations are operational.
EXHIBIT 10.7


    Exhibit
      10.7

    AGREEMENT

    TO
      JOINTLY FILE SCHEDULE 13D

    


    


    The
      undersigned hereby agree to jointly prepare and file with regulatory authorities
      a Schedule 13D and any future amendments thereto reporting each of the
      undersigned’s ownership of securities of Equitex, Inc. and hereby affirm that
      such Schedule 13D is being filed on behalf of each of the
      undersigned.

    


    


    
      
        	
                Dated:
                  March 24, 2006

              	
                GLOBAL
                  HYDROFUEL TECHNOLOGIES INC.

              
	 	 
	 	 
	 	
                by:
                  /s/
                  James G. Matkin

              
	 	
                    James
                  G. Matkin

              
	 	
                    Executive
                  Chairman

              
	 	 
	 	 
	 	 
	 	
                /s/
                  Jagdish Gujral

              
	 	
                Jagdish
                  Gujral

              
	 	 
	 	 
	 	
                /s/
                  Dil Gujral

              
	 	
                Dil
                  Gujral
§ 232.9 Responsibility for compliance. ( a ) A railroad subject to this part shall not use, haul, permit to be used or hauled on its line, offer in interchange, or accept in interchange any train, railroad car, or locomotive with one or more conditions not in compliance with this part; however, a railroad shall not be liable for a civil penalty for such action if such action is in accordance with § 232.15. For purposes of this part, a train, railroad car, or locomotive will be considered in use prior to departure but after it has received, or should have received, the inspection required for movement and is deemed ready for service.
( b ) Although many of the requirements of this part are stated in terms of the duties of a railroad, when any person performs any function required by this part, that person (whether or not a railroad) is required to perform that function in accordance with this part.
( c ) Any person performing any function or task required by this part shall be deemed to have consented to FRA inspection of the person's operation to the extent necessary to determine whether the function or task is being performed in accordance with the requirements of this part.