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

EXHIBIT 13.1

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

In connection with the Annual Report of Dorato Resources Inc.
(the Company) on Form 20-F for the year ended January 31, 2013, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I,
Rowland Perkins, Interim President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

| | (1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of
      Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;
  and                                   
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| |     |                                                                                                                                                                 
| | (2) | The information contained in the Report fairly presents,
      in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
      operations of the Company.

Dated: May 31, 2013

| | /s/
      Rowland Perkins                    
| | ---------------------------------------------
| | Rowland Perkins                              
| | Interim President and Chief Executive Officer

---
Printed on 100% recycled/recyclable paper with 100% post-consumer fiber and process chlorine free.

Customer Service Hotline: 1-800-438-2474

1/12/15

Mr. David K. Paylor

Virginia Department of Environmental Quality

629 East Main Street

Richmond, Virginia 23219

Dear Director Paylor:

On December 22, 2014, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) received a revision to 

the Virginia State Implementation Plan (SIP) from the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality 

(VADEQ) pertaining to the conflict of interest requirements of Clean Air Act section 128. EPA has 

determined that the submittals are administratively and technically complete, and is reviewing the 

submittals to prepare a Direct Final Rulemaking (DFR) action.

If members of your staff have any questions, they may direct them to Ms. Ellen Schmitt, Office 

of Air Program Planning, at (215) 814-5787, or schmitt.ellen@epa.gov. She is the principal contact for 

this rulemaking. 

Sincerely, 

/s/

David L. Arnold, Acting Director

Air Protection Division 

cc: Michael Dowd, Air Division Director

 Virginia Department of Environmental Quality
If this opinion indicates that it is “FOR PUBLICATION,” it is subject to 

revision until final publication in the Michigan Appeals Reports.

-1-

S T A T E O F M I C H I G A N

C O U R T O F A P P E A L S

ADAOBI ONYEJEKWULUM,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

UNPUBLISHED

March 16, 2023

v No. 361167

Oakland Circuit Court

EMEKA ONYEJEKWULUM, LC No. 2019-877692-DM

Defendant-Appellee.

Before: MURRAY, P.J., and RIORDAN and YATES, JJ.

MURRAY, P.J. (concurring in part and dissenting in part).

In the approximately three and a half pages of argument contained in plaintiff’s brief on 

appeal, she posits two arguments: (1) that the trial court lacked the authority to decide defendant’s 

motion to allocate child tax credits, and (2) the trial court abused its discretion in not conducting 

oral argument on the motion. I concur in the majority’s resolution of the second issue, as oral 

argument is not required to be held on motions, see MCR 2.119(E)(3) and City of Westland v 

Kodlowski, 298 Mich App 647, 662; 828 NW2d 67 (2012), vacated in part on other grounds 495 

Mich 871 (2013). With respect to the first issue, I concur that the trial court did not err in 

addressing defendant’s motion. However, I would go no further in the analysis. Plaintiff, who has

counsel on appeal, has not primed the appellate pump with any argument, case law or statute 

relative to the substance of the trial court’s decision, and we should not make the argument for 

him. Mitcham v Detroit, 355 Mich 182, 203; 94 NW2d 388 (1959). I would affirm.

/s/ Christopher M. Murray
Document

         Exhibit 10.5

AMENDMENT NO. 1
NEXTIER OILFIELD SOLUTIONS INC. 
EQUITY AND INCENTIVE AWARD PLAN


WHEREAS, NexTier Oilfield Solutions Inc., a Delaware corporation (the “Company”) previously adopted the NexTier Oilfield Solutions Inc. Equity and Incentive Award Plan (as amended to date, the “Plan”), to provide equity compensation awards to its key employees; and


WHEREAS, the Company desires to increase the total number of authorized shares by 7 million shares of the Company’s common stock;


NOW THEREFORE, the Company hereby amends Section 2.1(a) of the Plan as follows:


1.Amendment to Section 2.1(a):


“Subject to Section 11.3 and Section 2.1(b), the aggregate number of shares of Common Stock that may be issued or transferred pursuant to Awards under the Plan shall be equal to 18,934,601 shares (the “Authorized Shares”).”


2.The remainder of Section 2.1 of the Plan shall remain unchanged.


3.This Amendment only amends and modifies the Plan to the extent specifically provided herein.  All terms, conditions, provisions and references of the Plan that are not specifically modified remain in full force and effect.
ACCEPTED 12-14-00150-CR TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS

TYLER, TEXAS 5/4/2015 3:26:56 PM CATHY LUSK CLERK
[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 216 (Thursday, November 9, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Page 77292]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-24767]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

[RTID 0648-XD511]


North Pacific Fishery Management Council; Public Meeting

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of web conference.

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

SUMMARY: The North Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) Pacific 
Northwest Crab Industry Advisory Committee (PNCIAC) will hold a 
meeting.

DATES: The meeting will be held on Tuesday, November 28, 2023, from 9 
a.m. to 11 a.m., Alaska time.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be a web conference. Join online through 
the link at https://meetings.npfmc.org/Meeting/Details/3021.
    Council address: North Pacific Fishery Management Council, 1007 W 
3rd Ave, Anchorage, AK 99501-2252; telephone: (907) 271-2809. 
Instructions for attending the meeting via video conference are given 
under SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION, below.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sarah Marrinan, Council staff; phone: 
(907) 271-2809; email: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#b7c4d6c5d6df99dad6c5c5ded9d6d9f7d9d8d6d699d0d8c1"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="295a485b48410744485b5b404748476947464848074e465f">[email protected]</span></a>. For technical support, 
please contact our admin Council staff, email: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#6d031d0b000e430c090004032d03020c0c430a021b"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="b2dcc2d4dfd19cd3d6dfdbdcf2dcddd3d39cd5ddc4">[email protected]</span></a>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Agenda

Tuesday, November 28, 2023

    The Committee will discuss several topics including: (a) NPFMC crab 
measures for December (facility use cap final action, C share final 
action; (b) Crab Rationalization Program Review; and (c) other 
business. The agenda is subject to change, and the latest version will 
be posted https://meetings.npfmc.org/Meeting/Details/3021 prior to the 
meeting, along with meeting materials.

Connection Information

    You can attend the meeting online using a computer, tablet, or 
smart phone, or by phone only. Connection information will be posted 
online at: https://meetings.npfmc.org/Meeting/Details/3021.

Public Comment

    Public comment letters will be accepted and should be submitted 
electronically to https://meetings.npfmc.org/Meeting/Details/3021.
    Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.

    Dated: November 3, 2023.
Rey Israel Marquez,
Acting Deputy Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National 
Marine Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. 2023-24767 Filed 11-8-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
No. 50311.

#### Protests 54344-K, etc., of Anglo French Drug Co., Inc., et al. (New York).

Opinion by

Ekwall, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel the court found that the facts herein agreed upon were such as to bring the case within the holding in *John Barr*v. *United States*(11 Cust. Ct. 88, C. D. 801), which record was incorporated herein. (See *John Barr*v. *United States,*324 U. S. 83, decided February 5, 1945.) In accordance therewith it was held that the currency of the invoices should be converted at the buying rate in the New York market at noon on the day of exportation (the “free” rate of exchange for pounds sterling), as certified by the Federal Reserve bank and set forth by the collector on each of the entries. The protests were sustained to this extent.
# C_2015302EN.01006601.xml

| 14.9.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 302/66 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.9.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 302/66

---

Action brought on 17 July 2015 — Aldi v OHIM — Società Cooperativa Agricola Cantina Sociale Tollo (ALDIANO)

(Case T-391/15)

(2015/C 302/82)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Aldi GmbH & Co. KG (Mülheim an der Ruhr, Germany) (represented by: N. Lützenrath, U. Rademacher, C. Fürsen and N. Bertram, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Società Cooperativa Agricola Cantina Sociale Tollo (Tollo, Italy)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal:

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Applicant: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Applicant:

Trade mark at issue: Community word mark ‘ALDIANO’ — Application No 10 942 274

Trade mark at issue:

Procedure before OHIM: Opposition proceedings

Procedure before OHIM

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 13 May 2015 in Case R 1612/2014-4

Contested decision

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | order OHIM to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order OHIM to pay the costs.

Plea in law

Plea in law

| — | Infringement of Article 42(2) of Regulation No 207/2009. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 42(2) of Regulation No 207/2009.

---
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA :

: CRIMINAL NO. 03-788

v. :

: CIVIL NO. 07-2398

GARY McGAHEE :

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

The motion filed by petitioner in this case is not in conformity with Local Rule

9.3. This makes it more difficult for the respondent to reply. Rather than having the petitioner

refile, I will give respondent, in the following order, ample time to file its answer to the motion.

AND NOW, this 26 day of June, 2007, upon consideration of plaintiff’s habeas th

corpus motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, the respondent is directed to file its answer on or before

September 24, 2007.

BY THE COURT:

 s/ Ronald L. Buckwalter, S. J. 

 RONALD L. BUCKWALTER, S.J.

Case 2:03-cr-00788-RB Document 64 Filed 06/27/07 Page 1 of 1
EXHIBIT 10.15
​
FIRST AMENDMENT
TO
THE RELIANCE STEEL & ALUMINUM CO. 
DEFERRED COMPENSATION PLAN
 (Amended and Restated Effective January 1, 2013)
THIS FIRST AMENDMENT (the “Amendment”) to the Reliance Steel & Aluminum Co. Deferred Compensation Plan, as amended from time to time (the “Plan”) is made as of December 22, 2020.
WHEREAS, Reliance Steel & Aluminum Co. (the “Company”) maintains the Plan to provide a select group of management or highly compensated employees the opportunity to defer receipt of compensation;
WHEREAS, for purposes of this Amendment, capitalized terms used herein that are not defined shall have the meanings given to them in the Plan;
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 11.2 of the Plan, the Committee or the Company is authorized to amend or modify the Plan from time to time; and
WHEREAS, the Committee desires to amend the Plan as set forth herein;
NOW, THEREFORE, the Plan is hereby amended as follows:

		1.	Section 16.16 (Deduction Limitation on Benefit Payments) is hereby deleted in its entirety and replaced with “[Reserved]”.

​
		2.	Except as otherwise amended herein, the Plan shall remain in full force and effect.

 
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company has caused this Amendment to be executed by its duly authorized officer as of the date first set forth above.
​
Reliance Steel & Aluminum Co. 
​
​
By:        /s/ Karla R. Lewis
Name:Karla R. Lewis
Title:Senior Executive Vice President & Chief Financial 
Officer
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

REGIONAL EMPLOYERS’ ASSURANCE : CIVIL ACTION

LEAGUES VOLUNTARY EMPLOYEES’ :

BENEFICIARY ASSOCIATION TRUST :

:

v. :

:

GRETCHEN HUTTO CASTELLANO : NO. 03-6903

O R D E R

AND NOW, this 10th day of February, 2016, upon consideration of Counterclaim 

Plaintiff’s motion for an award of attorneys’ fees and costs (Doc. 353), the billing records 

attached (Docs. 353-3 through 7), the response from the Department of Labor (Doc. 363), 

the reply, and for the reasons stated in the accompanying Memorandum, IT IS HEREBY 

ORDERED that the Motion is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. Counsel is 

awarded $567,400.26 which will be paid from the funds in the SEWBPT and REAL VEBA 

Trusts, to be restored by the Koresko Defendants. Because the fees amassed in this case 

were directly caused by the Koresko Entities’ breaches of their fiduciary duty to pay Mrs. 

Castellano the benefit to which she was entitled, I direct Wilmington Trust to pay counsel 

these funds from the Trusts. By separate order, I will direct Mr. Koresko and the related 

entities to restore this amount to the Trusts. 

BY THE COURT:

/s/ELIZABETH T. HEY

___________________________________

ELIZABETH T. HEY, U.S.M.J.

Case 2:03-cv-06903-WB Document 368 Filed 02/10/16 Page 1 of 1
# C_2015389EN.01006301.xml

| 23.11.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 389/63 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.11.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 389/63

---

Action brought on 24 September 2015 — Universidad Internacional de la Rioja v OHIM — Universidad de la Rioja (UNIVERSIDAD INTERNACIONAL DE LA RIOJA UNiR)

(Case T-561/15)

(2015/C 389/71)

Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Universidad Internacional de la Rioja, SA (Logroño, Spain) (represented by: C. Lema Devesa and A. Porras Fernandez-Toledano, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal:

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Applicant: Applicant

Applicant:

Trade mark at issue: Community figurative mark containing the word elements ‘UNIVERSIDAD INTERNACIONAL DE LA RIOJA UNiR’ — Application for registration No 11 738 093

Trade mark at issue:

Procedure before OHIM: Opposition proceedings

Procedure before OHIM

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 22 June 2015 in Case R 1914/2014-5

Contested decision

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision insofar as OHIM rejected Community trade mark application No 11 738 093 and, accordingly, allow the registration to proceed; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision insofar as OHIM rejected Community trade mark application No 11 738 093 and, accordingly, allow the registration to proceed;

| — | order OHIM to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order OHIM to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

Pleas in law

The applicant claims that:

| — | the contested decision fails to correctly identify the average consumers of the actual goods or services; |
| --- | --- |

—

the contested decision fails to correctly identify the average consumers of the actual goods or services;

| — | the contested decision fails to carry out an adequate analysis of the likelihood of confusion. |
| --- | --- |

—

the contested decision fails to carry out an adequate analysis of the likelihood of confusion.

---
THE GOVERNMENTWIDE ACCOUNTING SYSTEM - TDO 

PAYMENTS REPORTING MODULE 

WHAT IS THE TDO PAYMENTS MODULE? 

The TDO Payments Module is a reporting component of the Governmentwide 

Accounting (GWA) System. This application provides Federal Program Agencies 

(FPAs) access to check issue information from Regional Finance Centers using a 

standard web browser and access via the Internet. The GWA TDO Payments 

Reporting Module replaced the RFC Agency Link reporting component available via 

the GOALS II / IAS system. 

WHAT DOES IT DO? 

TDO Payments Support Listing is designed to automate the paid disbursement data 

output process and eliminate manually posting and handling tapes. It gives Federal 

Program Agencies access to detailed disbursement information and shows the 

payment request activity received by the Regional Financial Center (RFC). An 

agency can view the validated data for the schedule number, check symbol, 

confirmed date, check/bond range, and the net dollar amount for any selected RFC 

or all the RFCs on the system. 

This application is refreshed with new payment data twice daily as information is 

received from the Regional Finance Centers to provide the most up-to-date 

information to FPAs. In addition, fifteen months of historical data is available on-line 

and can be downloaded in a variety of formats.
Before the First Division,

November 21, 1956

No. 60360.

protests 210919-K and 212794-K (New York).

#### Columbia Tropical Aquarium and W. J. Byrnes & Co. of N. Y., Inc. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Mollison, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of aquafern similar in all material respects to that the subject of *Westchester Aquarium Supply Co.*v. *United States*(36 Cust. Ct. 146, C. D. 1767), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
No. 55826.

protests 156923-K, etc. (New York).

#### Louis Dejonge & Company et al. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA 

____________________________________________ 

 : Case No. 2:03-CV-5336 

In Re DVI, Inc. Securities Litigation : 

____________________________________________: Hon. Legrome D. Davis 

LEAD PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR ORDER 

APPROVING FIFTH SETTLEMENT, PLAN OF ALLOCATION, 

AND ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND EXPENSES 

Lead Plaintiffs respectfully move this Court pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 23(e) 

for an order, in the form attached hereto as Exhibit 1, approving the Settlement 

Agreement that Lead Plaintiffs have entered into with Defendant Gerald Cohn (the 

“Settlement”). 

For the reasons set forth in Lead Plaintiffs’ accompanying Memorandum of Law 

in Support of Motion for Entry of Order Approving Settlement, Lead Plaintiffs 

respectfully request that this Court (a) approve the Settlement; (b) approve the parties’ 

plan of allocation; and (c) award Plaintiffs’ Counsel’s requested attorneys’ fees and 

expense reimbursement. 

Dated: May 9, 2011 

 Respectfully submitted, 

 KRISLOV & ASSOCIATES, LTD. 

 By: /s/ Michael R. Karnuth

 Clinton A. Krislov, Esq. 

 Michael R. Karnuth, Esq. 

 Robert P. DeWitte, Esq. 

 Eve-Lynn J. Rapp, Esq. 

 20 North Wacker Drive 

 Chicago, Illinois 60606 

 Phone: 312-606-0500 

 Fax: 312-606-0207 

 Plaintiffs’ Lead Counsel

Case 2:03-cv-05336-LDD Document 823 Filed 05/09/11 Page 1 of 2
2

 Steven A. Schwartz, Esq. 

 Attorney I.D. No. 50579 

 Kimberly Donaldson Smith, Esq. 

 CHIMICLES & TIKELLIS, LLP 

 361 W. Lancaster Avenue 

 One Haverford Centre 

 Haverford, PA 19041 

 Phone: 610-642-8500 

 Fax: 610-649-3633 

 Plaintiffs’ Liaison Counsel 

Case 2:03-cv-05336-LDD Document 823 Filed 05/09/11 Page 2 of 2
# C_2015236EN.01004301.xml

| 20.7.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 236/43 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.7.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 236/43

---

Action brought on 27 April 2015 — Redpur v OHIM — Redwell Manufaktur (Redpur)

(Case T-227/15)

(2015/C 236/58)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Redpur GmbH (Hayingen, Germany) (represented by: S. Schiller, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Redwell Manufaktur GmbH (Hartberg, Austria)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal:

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Applicant: Applicant

Applicant:

Trade mark at issue: Community word mark ‘Redpur’ — Application No 10 934 305

Trade mark at issue:

Procedure before OHIM: Opposition proceedings

Procedure before OHIM

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 11 February 2015 in Case R 678/2014-1

Contested decision

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision and reject the opposition; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision and reject the opposition;

| — | allow Community trade mark application No 10 934 305 to proceed to registration in its entirety or, in the alternative, remit the case to the Board of Appeal; |
| --- | --- |

—

allow Community trade mark application No 10 934 305 to proceed to registration in its entirety or, in the alternative, remit the case to the Board of Appeal;

| — | order OHIM to pay the costs incurred by the applicant in the present proceedings; |
| --- | --- |

—

order OHIM to pay the costs incurred by the applicant in the present proceedings;

| — | order Redwell Manufaktur GmbH to pay the costs incurred by the applicant in the proceedings before the Opposition Division and the Board of Appeal. |
| --- | --- |

—

order Redwell Manufaktur GmbH to pay the costs incurred by the applicant in the proceedings before the Opposition Division and the Board of Appeal.

Plea in law

Plea in law

| — | Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009

---
Before the Third Division,

November 14, 1958

No. 62450.

#### “21” Brands, Inc. *v.*United States,

protests 317381-K, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

It was stipulated that the facts and issues herein are similar in all material respects to those involved in *United States*v. *Browne Vintners Co., Inc.*(34 C. C. P. A. 112, C. A. D. 351) and that the quantities reported by the inspector as manifested, not found, were not in fact received by the importer. In accordance with stipulation of counsel and following the decision cited, it was held that duty and internal revenue tax are not assessable upon such portions of the merchandise as were reported by the inspector as manifested, not found. The protests were sustained to this extent.