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

[106th Congress Public Law 448]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office]

<DOC>
[DOCID: f:publ448.106]

[[Page 114 STAT. 1939]]

Public Law 106-448
106th Congress

                                 An Act

 
To amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to provide a waiver of the 
oath of renunciation and allegiance for naturalization of aliens having 
       certain disabilities. <<NOTE: Nov. 6, 2000 -  [S. 2812]>> 

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. WAIVER OF OATH OF RENUNCIATION AND ALLEGIANCE FOR 
                            NATURALIZATION OF ALIENS HAVING 
                            CERTAIN DISABILITIES.

    Section 337(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 
1448(a)) is amended by adding at the end the following: ``The Attorney 
General may waive the taking of the oath by a person if in the opinion 
of the Attorney General the person is unable to understand, or to 
communicate an understanding of, its meaning because of a physical or 
developmental disability or mental impairment. If the Attorney General 
waives the taking of the oath by a person under the preceding sentence, 
the person shall be considered to have met the requirements of section 
316(a)(3) with respect to attachment to the principles of the 
Constitution and well disposition to the good order and happiness of the 
United States.''.

SEC. 2. EFFECTIVE DATE. <<NOTE: Applicability. 8 USC 1448 note.>> 

    The amendment made by section 1 shall apply to persons applying for 
naturalization before, on, or after the date of the enactment of this 
Act.

    Approved November 6, 2000.

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY--S. 2812 (H.R. 4838):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 146 (2000):
            July 21, considered and passed Senate.
            Oct. 10, considered and passed House, amended, in lieu of 
                H.R. 4838.
            Oct. 19, Senate concurred in House amendment.

                                  <all>
```
#### In the Matter of Tamara B., Appellant, v Pete F., Respondent.

[632 NYS2d 563]

—Order, Family Court, New York County (Ruth Zuckerman, J.), entered on or about April 28, 1994, which denied petitioner’s motion for a new trial in this paternity proceeding, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

A prior effort by petitioner to have DNA tests performed on herself, respondent and the subject child was rejected by this Court in its remand of the case for the purpose of allowing respondent to introduce rebuttal expert testimony on the interpretation of HLA blood tests *(Tamara B. v Pete F.,*157 AD2d 636, *amdg Tamara B. v Pete F.,*146 AD2d 487). The issue of whether there should be DNA testing was decided at that time, and, as a matter of law, the case should not be reconsidered now *(see, Foley v Roche,*86 AD2d 887, *Iv denied*56 NY2d 507). Nor is a new trial warranted by petitioner’s claimed "newly-discovered evidence” (CPLR 5015 [a] [2]). The vague and conclusory statements of petitioner and the two newly proposed witnesses are insufficient to show why the latter were unavailable and when and how contact was reestablished *(cf., Cizler v Cizler,*19 AD2d 819). Petitioner admits that her "newly discovered” tape recording of conversations was in her possession at the time of the fact-finding hearing. It is also not clear how this evidence, which could only serve to undermine the credibility of adverse witnesses, would probably produce a different result *(see, Teichner v W & J Holsteins,*161 AD2d 454, *Iv dismissed*77 NY2d 873). Similarly, even if an HLA blood test of one of petitioner’s paramours conclusively excluded him as the father, as petitioner contends, that would hardly be clear and convincing evidence of respondent’s paternity, given that an HLA test indicated a relatively low probability of respondent’s paternity, and the numerous men who had sexual relations with petitioner during the possible conception period. Finally, petitioner’s claims of respondent’s "fraud, misrepresentation and misconduct” are raised for the first time on appeal, and therefore not properly before us *(Ku v Gu,*186 AD2d *31988). Concur—Rosenberger, J. P., Rubin, Ross, Nardelli and Mazzarelli, JJ.
January 26, 1953

No. 57059.

protests 189912-K, etc.

#### Christo Poulos & Co., Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

Plaintiffs’ application for rehearing granted.
```

[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 65 (Wednesday, April 4, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 20377]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-8090]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy

Biomass Research and Development Technical Advisory Committee

AGENCY: Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of 
Energy.

ACTION: Notice of Open Webinar.

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

SUMMARY: This notice announces an open webinar of the Biomass Research 
and Development Technical Advisory Committee under Section 9008(d) of 
the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008. The Federal Advisory 
Committee Act (Public Law No. 92-463, 86 Stat. 770) requires that 
agencies publish these notices in the Federal Register to allow for 
public participation.

DATES: April 24, 2012, 2 a.m.-4 p.m.
    Webinar Instructions: To Register for the Webinar go to: https://www1.gotomeeting.com/register/140123360.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Elliott Levine, Designated Federal 
Officer, Committee, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, 
U.S. Department of Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 
20585; (202) 586-1476; Email: Elliott.Levine@ee.doe.gov or Roy Tiley at 
(410) 997-7778 ext. 220; Email: hq.com">rtiley@bcs-hq.com.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 
    Purpose of Meeting: To provide advice and guidance that promotes 
research and development leading to the production of biobased fuels 
and biobased products.
    Tentative Agenda: Agenda will include the following:
     Presentation on The Analytical Basis for Setting Biofuels 
Technical Goals
    Public Participation: In keeping with procedures, members of the 
public are welcome to observe the business of the Biomass Research and 
Development Technical Advisory Committee. To attend the webinar and/or 
to make oral statements regarding any of the items on the agenda, you 
must contact Elliott Levine at 202-586-1476; Email: 
Elliott.Levine@ee.doe.gov or Roy Tiley at (410) 997-7778 ext. 220; 
Email: hq.com">rtiley@bcs-hq.com at least 5 business days prior to the meeting. 
Members of the public will be heard in the order in which they sign up 
at the beginning of the webinar. Reasonable provision will be made to 
include the scheduled oral statements on the agenda. The Co-chairs of 
the Committee will make every effort to hear the views of all 
interested parties. If you would like to file a written statement with 
the Committee, you may do so either before or after the meeting. The 
Co-chairs will conduct the webinar to facilitate the orderly conduct of 
business.
    Minutes: The minutes of the webinar will be available for public 
review and copying at http://biomassboard.gov/committee/meetings.html.

    Issued at Washington, DC, on March 29, 2012.
LaTanya R. Butler,
Acting Deputy Committee Management Officer.
[FR Doc. 2012-8090 Filed 4-3-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6405-01-P
```
Case 2:06-cr-00157-MJP Document 14 Filed 05/06/11 Page 1 of 1
Before the Second Division,

December 20, 1966

No. P66/379.

#### D. C. Andrews & Company, Inc. *v.*United States, protests 63/21090, etc. (Chicago).

Ford, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise covered by the foregoing protests consists of Carter variable speed gears similar in all material respects to those the subject of *D.C. Andrews &*Co., *Inc.*v. *United States*(55 Cust. Ct. 369, C.D. 2603), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
No. 57493.

#### Hartex Distributing Co. *v.*United States,

protest 176376-K (New York).

*252Opinion by

Mollison, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of sewing-machine cabinets the same in all material respects as those the subject of *Necchi Sewing Machine Sales Corp.*and *Barian Shipping Co., Inc.*v. *United States*(30 Cust. Ct. 1, C. D. 1489), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
No. 57067.

protest 191343-K (New York).

#### Magnus Mabee & Reynard, Inc. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Oliver, C. J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of chaulmoogra oil similar in all material respects to that the subject of *United States*v. *Magnus, Mabee & Reynard, Inc.*(39 C. C. P. A. 1, C. A. D. 455), the claim for free entry under paragraph 1669 was sustained.
No. 67623.

#### Daido Corp. *v.*United States,

protests 62/4857 and 62/5108 (New York).

*274Opinion by

Lawrence, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of bicycle horns and sirens similar in all material respects to those the subject of *G. Joannou Cycle Co., Inc.*v. *United States*(46 Cust. Ct. 172, C.D. 2253), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

ORDER ON MOTION

FOR A BILL OF PARTICULARS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff,

v.

DANIEL SILVA-CHAVEZ, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. CR06-198L

ORDER ON MOTION

FOR A BILL OF PARTICULARS

This matter comes before the Court on “Defendant Pedro Cuellar-Garcia’s Motion for a

Bill of Particulars” (Dkt. # 172). The Court finds that the superseding indictment sets forth with

sufficient specificity the nature of the charges against Cuellar-Garcia in order to allow him to

prepare for trial, avoid unfair surprise, and assert the existence of an acquittal or conviction in

another jurisdiction, if applicable. See United States v. Giese, 597 F.2d 1170, 1180 (9th Cir.

1979). For these reasons, the motion for a bill of particulars is DENIED.

DATED this 31st day of July, 2006.

A

Robert S. Lasnik

United States District Judge

Case 2:06-cr-00198-RSL Document 221 Filed 07/31/06 Page 1 of 1
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Small Business Administration

          - [Applicant ID No.: 99001222]

                    Notice is hereby given that Everside SBIC I, L.P., 1290 Avenue of the Americas, 34th Floor, New York, NY 10104, an applicant to become a Federal Licensee under the Small Business Investment Act of 1958, as amended (“Act”), in connection with the financing of a small concern, has sought an exemption under Section 312 of the Act and 13 CFR 107.730 of the Code of Federal Regulations,                     *Financings which Constitute Conflict of Interest.*                     Everside SBIC I, L.P. is proposing to provide financing to Athenix Holdings LLC (“Company”) to support its growth.                

The proposed transaction is brought within the purview of 13 CFR 107.730 because Resolute Capital Partners Fund V-A, L.P., Resolute Capital Partners Fund V-B, L.P. and Resolute Capital Partners Fund IV, L.P (collectively, “Resolute”), Associates of Everside SBIC I, L.P., as defined in 13 CFR 107.50, hold a 10% or greater equity interest in the Company. By virtue of Resolute's equity ownership of the Company, the Company is also considered an Associate of the Licensee.

Therefore, the proposed transaction requires a regulatory exemption pursuant to 13 CFR 107.730. Notice is hereby given that any interested person may submit written comments on the transaction within fifteen days of the date of this publication to the Associate Administrator, Office of Investment and Innovation, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 Third Street SW, Washington, DC 20416.

Bailey DeVries,

Associate Administrator, Office of Investment and Innovation, U.S. Small Business Administration.

[FR Doc. 2023-22432 Filed 10-6-23; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE P
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

ORDER RE: PLAINTIFFS’ EX PARTE MOTION FOR 

APPOINTMENT OF GUARDIAN AD LITEM - 1 

J. WILLIAM SAVAGE, P.C. 

620 S.W. FIFTH AVENUE, #1125 

PORTLAND, OR 97204 

TEL (503) 222-0200 FAX (503) 248-0200

J. William Savage, WSBA #32148 

Carol L. Hepburn, WSBA #8732 

J. William Savage, P.C. 

620 S.W. Fifth Avenue, Suite 1125 

Portland, OR 97204 

(503) 222-0200 

Fax: (503) 248-0200 

Attorneys for Plaintiffs 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 

WILLIAM L.E. DUSSAULT, Guardian ad 

litem for J.B., a minor; TIMOTHY and 

ESTHER BUCKMAN, wife and husband 

and parents of J.B., 

Plaintiffs, 

 v. 

PENINSULA WOMEN’S CLINIC, 

P.L.L.C.; a Washington Corporation; 

ROBERT H. PALMER, JR., M.D.; 

DEBORAH G. BOPP, R.N., C.N.M., 

A.R.N.P.; CLALLAM COUNTY PHD #2 

d/b/a OLYMPIC MEDICAL CENTER; 

CATHY L. REGISTER, R.N.; and Unknown 

John and Jane Does,

 Defendants. 

 

Case No. C06-5297RJB 

ORDER RE: 

PLAINTIFFS’ EX PARTE

MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF 

GUARDIAN AD LITEM

 Upon the motion of the plaintiffs herein for appointment of William L.E. Dussault to 

serve as guardian ad litem for the minor plaintiff J.B., the court having reviewed the records 

and files herein, and being fully advised in the premises, now, therefore, 

Case 3:06-cv-05297-RJB Document 8 Filed 06/12/2006 Page 1 of 2

J.B. et al v. Peninsula Women's Clinic PLLC et al Doc. 8

Dockets.Justia.com
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

ORDER RE: PLAINTIFFS’ EX PARTE MOTION FOR 

APPOINTMENT OF GUARDIAN AD LITEM - 2 

J. WILLIAM SAVAGE, P.C. 

620 S.W. FIFTH AVENUE, #1125 

PORTLAND, OR 97204 

TEL (503) 222-0200 FAX (503) 248-0200

 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that William L.E. Dussault is appointed as the guardian 

ad litem for the minor plaintiff J.B. 

 DATED this 12th day of June, 2006 

 A

ROBERT J. BRYAN 

 United States District Judge 

Presented by: 

s/_____________________________ 

J. William Savage, WSBA 32148 

Of attorneys for plaintiffs 

Case 3:06-cv-05297-RJB Document 8 Filed 06/12/2006 Page 2 of 2
Exhibit 10.52


 


SEVEN STARS CLOUD GROUP, INC.


 


AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO


CONVERTIBLE PROMISSORY
NOTE


 


This AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO
CONVERTIBLE PROMISSORY NOTE (the “Amendments”), effective as of December 31, 2017 (the “Effective
Date”), is by and among Seven Stars Cloud Group, Inc., a Nevada corporation (the “Company”) and BT
Capital Global Limited, a British Virgin Islands company (“Purchaser”):


 


WHEREAS, the Company and
Purchaser are parties to that certain Convertible Promissory Note of the Company, dated as of January 30, 2017, in principal amount
of Fifty Million Dollars ($50,000,000) (the “Note”); and


 


WHEREAS, the Company and Purchaser
desire to amend the Note as provided herein;


 


NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration
of the foregoing and for other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the
parties hereto agree as follows:


 


		1.	Effective as of the Effective Date, Section 1.1 of the Note shall be deleted in its
                                                          entirety and, in lieu thereof, the following new Section 1.1 is inserted:



 


“Maturity Date. The Principal and
any other amounts payable to Purchaser hereunder, shall be due and payable to Purchaser on December 31, 2018 (the “Maturity
Date”).”


 


		2.	Except as expressly amended by this Amendment, the terms and conditions of the Note are hereby
confirmed and shall remain in full force and effect without impairment or modification.



 


		3.	This Amendment shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of New
York without giving effect to any choice of law or conflict of law provision or rule (whether of the State of New York or any other
jurisdiction) that would cause the application of the laws of any jurisdiction other than the State of New York.



 


		4.	This Amendment may be executed electronically via email or facsimile and in two or more counterparts,
each of which shall be deemed an original, but all of which together shall constitute one and the same instrument.



 


[Remainder of Page Intentionally Left
Blank; Signature Page Follows]


 




     


     


    

 


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the
undersigned have executed this Amendment as of the date first set forth above.


 


	 	SEVEN STARS CLOUD GROUP, INC.
	 	 	 
	 	By:	/s/ Bruno Wu
	 	Name: Bruno Wu
	 	Title: Chief Executive Officer
	 	 
	 	BT CAPITAL GLOBAL LIMITED
	 	 	 
	 	By:	/s/ Yang Siyi
	 	Name: Yang Siyi
	 	Title: Director


 


[Signature Page – Amendment No. 1 to Convertible
Promissory Note]
----

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht (Germany) lodged on 3 July 2006 — Heinrich Stefan Schneider v Land Rheinland-Pfalz

(Case C-285/06)

(2006/C 237/05)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesverwaltungsgericht

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Heinrich Stefan Schneider

Defendant: Land Rheinland-Pfalz

Questions referred

----

(1)OJ 1999 L 179, p. 1

(2)OJ 2002 L 118, p. 1

----
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 ORDER - 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT TACOMA

WANG KOO CHUNG,

Petitioner,

v.

DOUG WADDINGTON,

Respondents.

Case No. C06-5249RBL

 ORDER ADOPTING REPORT

AND RECOMMENDATION

The Court having reviewed the Report and Recommendation of the Hon. J. Kelley Arnold

United States Magistrate Judge, objections to the Report and Recommendation, if any, and the

remaining record, does hereby find and Order:

(1) The Court adopts the Report and Recommendation;

(2) The petition is DISMISSED as time barred. 

(3) The clerk is directed to send copies of this Order to Petitioners’ counsel and counsel

for respondent, and to the Hon. J. Kelley Arnold.

DATED this 5th day of January, 2007.

ARONALD B. LEIGHTON

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:06-cv-05249-RBL Document 16 Filed 01/05/07 Page 1 of 1
| Name                         | Jurisdiction     |
|------------------------------|------------------|
|                         |             |
| Ania Aframax Corporation     | Marshall Islands |
| Ann Tanker Corporation       | Marshall Islands |
| Cathy Tanker Corporation     | Marshall Islands |
| Chris Tanker Corporation     | Marshall Islands |
| DHT Chartering, Inc.         | Marshall Islands |
| DHT Eagle, Inc.              | Marshall Islands |
| DHT Management AS            | Norway           |
| DHT Maritime, Inc.           | Marshall Islands |
| DHT Phoenix, Inc.            | Marshall Islands |
| London Tanker Corporation    | Marshall Islands |
| Newcastle Tanker Corporation | Marshall Islands |
| Rebecca Tanker Corporation   | Marshall Islands |
| Regal Unity Corporation      | Marshall Islands |
| Sophie Tanker Corporation    | Marshall Islands |

----
ACCEPTED

06-15-00052-CR

SIXTH COURT OF APPEALS

TEXARKANA, TEXAS

9/22/2015 3:53:10 PM

DEBBIE AUTREY

CLERK

 FILED IN 6th COURT OF APPEALS TEXARKANA, TEXAS 9/22/2015 3:53:10 PM DEBBIE AUTREY Clerk
#### Chandler Emile GRAHAM, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Gail LEWIS, Warden; et al., Respondents-Appellees.

No. 99-55128.

D.C. No. CV-98-00463-AHS.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

*527Submitted June 11, 2001.*

Decided June 21, 2001.

Before O’SCANNLAIN, SILVERMAN, and GOULD, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

California state prisoner Chandler Emile Graham appeals pro se the district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas corpus petition challenging his second-degree murder conviction. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253(a). We review de novo the district court’s denial of a section 2254 petition, *see McNab v. Kok,*170 F.3d 1246, 1247 (9th Cir.1999) (per curiam), and we affirm.

The California Court of Appeal concluded in Graham’s direct appeal that, as a matter of state law, the felony-murder “merger” rale set forth in *People v. Ireland,*70 Cal.2d 522, 540, 75 Cal.Rptr. 188, 450 P.2d 580 (1969), did not apply in Graham’s case, and we cannot substitute our interpretation of *Ireland*for that of the state court. *See Estelle v. McGuire,*502 U.S. 62, 68, 112 S.Ct. 475, 116 L.Ed.2d 385 (1991) (“[I]t is not the province of a federal habeas court to reexamine state-court determinations on state-law questions.”). Because Graham has not shown that the state court’s decision was either arbitrary or discriminatory, he has not alleged a federal constitutional violation supporting habeas corpus review. *See Kennick v. Superior Court,*736 F.2d 1277, 1280 (9th Cir.1984) (“Absent arbitrary or discriminatory action ... a mistake of state law does not constitute a due process violation .... ”). The district court, therefore, properly denied Graham’s habeas petition.

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as may be provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.