alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 4

                                    AGREEMENT

Agreement  by and  between  DCP  Limited  (a  NEVADA  Limited  Liability  Corp.)
(hereinafter  sometimes  referred  to as  "Seller")  and Make  Your  Move,  Inc.
(hereinafter sometimes referred to as "Buyer").

WHEREAS,  the  management  of Seller and Buyer deem it advisable  for the mutual
benefit of Seller  and Buyer and their  respective  shareholders  that the Asset
Purchase  Agreement  between the parties  dated and  effective  June 30, 2001 is
hereby rescinded and void.

It is mutually  agreed that no purchase  took place and all parties are returned
to their position before the agreement was entered into.

IN WITNESS  WHEREOF,  the parties  have  executed  this  Agreement by their duly
authorized officers as of the 30th day of June, 2001.

                                                    BUYER:  Make Your Move, Inc.

                                               By:/s/Henry L. Rolling
                                                  ------------------------------
                                                     Henry L. Rolling, President


                                                     SELLER:  DCP Limited

                                               By:/s/Henry Rolling
                                                  ------------------------------
Member                                               Henry L.Rolling,Majority
/s/ Rick Gillespie
-----------------------
 Rick Gillespie

/s/ Luther Mack                                               /s/ Leslie O'Neal
-----------------------                                   ----------------------
Luther Mack                                                   Leslie O'Neal

/s/ Henry L. Rolling                                        /s/ Kristin Rolling
-----------------------                                   ----------------------
Henry L. Rolling                                             Kristin Rolling

                                       1
<PAGE>
# C_2016251EN.01000501.xml

| 11.7.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 251/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.7.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 251/5

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per le Marche (Italy) lodged on 7 April 2016 — Comune di Corridonia v Provincia di Macerata, Provincia di Macerata Settore 10 –Ambiente

(Case C-196/16)

(2016/C 251/06)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Referring court

Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per le Marche

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Comune di Corridonia

Applicant:

Defendants: Provincia di Macerata, Provincia di Macerata Settore 10 –Ambiente

Defendants:

Question referred

Question referred

On a constructive interpretation of Article 191 TFEU and Article 2 of Directive 2011/92/EU, (1) is it compatible with EU law to proceed with the verification of whether an environmental impact assessment needs to be undertaken (and possibly thereafter to carry out an environmental impact assessment) after the construction of the plant where the consent has been annulled by the national court due to a failure to verify whether the environmental impact assessment was needed, because such a verification had been excluded on the basis of a national law which was contrary to EU law?

1

---

(1)  Directive 2011/92/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 December 2011 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment (OJ 2012 L 26, p. 1).

1

---
Exhibit 32
 Certification pursuant to
18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
  1.
    
    the report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) 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.
  Date: May 3, 2010
    
    /s/ John R. Koelmel

John R. Koelmel
President and Chief Executive OfficerDate: May 3, 2010
    
    /s/ Michael W. Harrington

Michael W. Harrington
Chief Financial Officer
Re: Toxics Rule Employment Writeup, forward to OMB RobertJ Wayland to: Ron Evans, Cortney_Higgins
02/25/2011 02:31 PM Cc: Al McGartland, Bill Maxwell, Denise Mulholland, Jeb Stenhouse, Julia Gamas, Kathy Kaufman, Larry Sorrels, Lydia Wegman, Mikhail Adamantiades, Peter Nagelhout, Peter Tsirigotis, Rob Brenner, Ron Shadbegian, Sam Napolitano, Tom Walton

Cortney -

Attached below are requested materials.

thanx!

bob

Robert J. Wayland, Ph.D. Leader, Energy Strategies Group U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Air Quality Planning & Standards Sector Policies and Programs Division
Mail Code D243-01 RTP, NC 27711

Phone: (919) 541-1045 Cell: (919) 306-2290 Fax: (919) 541-5450 e-mail: wayland.robertj@epa.gov

********************************************************* DRAFT/Deliberative Document -- FOIA Exempt

*********************************************************

From: Ron Evans/RTP/USEPA/US To: RobertJ Wayland/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Bill Maxwell/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA Cc: Al McGartland/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Rob Brenner/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Lydia Wegman/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Peter Tsirigotis/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Sam Napolitano/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, RobertJ Wayland/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Bill Maxwell/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Ron Shadbegian/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Peter Nagelhout/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Tom Walton/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Larry Sorrels/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Kathy Kaufman/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Denise Mulholland/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Mikhail Adamantiades/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Jeb Stenhouse/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Julia Gamas/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA
Date: 02/25/2011 02:22 PM Subject: Toxics Rule Employment Writeup, forward to OMB

Bob, please forward this to Cortney. We are scheduled to talk to her on Tuesday @ 4. There is a contractor report which will follow on Monday (I hope) with additional calculation details. Please include the following

note.Cortney, here are the materials covering the employment estimates for the Toxics Rule. Consistent with the discussion on Friday evening, it contains both the Morgenstern estimate and estimates for the impacts in the pollution control industry. I believe we now have the time to discuss the presentation and support we have for developing the pollution control industry estimates. I expect that we will be able to find a way to present this segment of the employment results in a quantified fashion. Enclosed is a draft writeup for the RIA as well as a technical support document from 2002. A specific contractor report with more details on the methodology for the pollution control industry is expected to follow on Monday prior to the Tuesday meeting.

Note that this version uses the majority of the language agreed to for the Boilers MACT on Friday evening. Obviously, since it explicitly includes the pollution control industry there are differences. There may be some instances where the language used in Boilers is not quite right here, I am certainly open to considering the description of what we are presenting here.

Ron Evans Leader, Air Economics Group HEID/OAQPS/OAR/EPA Mail Drop C-439-02

919-541-5488
919-541-0839 fax

Chapter 9economicimpactstoxicsrul eRIA2-24versioncleanron.docx
No. 62967.

#### Design International Corp. *v.*United States,

protest 58/9098 (New York).

Opinion by

Moixison, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the items marked “A” consist of chairs similar in all material respects to those the subject of *Davies Turner & Co.*v. *United States*(45 C.C.P.A. 39, C.A.D. 669), the claim at 19 percent under the provision in paragraph 412, as modified, *supra,*for “Furniture, * * * Chairs,” was sustained. The items marked “B,” stipulated to consist of furniture the same as that in C.A.D. 669, *supra,*were held dutiable at 11% percent under the provision in said paragraph 412, as modified, *supra,*for other furniture.
# MTS Cover

# Table 1

# Table 2

# Figure 1

# Figure 2

# Figure 3

# Figure 4

# Figure 5

# Figure 6

# Figure  7

# Figure 8

# Table 3

# Table 4

# Table 5

# Table 6

# Table 6A

# Table 6B

# Table 6C

# Table 6D

# Table 6E

# Table 7

# Table 8

# Table 9

# image1.png

# image2.emf

# image3.png

# image4.png

# image5.png

# image6.png

# image7.png

# image8.png

# image9.png

# image10.png
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

MEMORANDUM ORDER

Appellate case name: In re Fort Bend Independent School District

Appellate case number: 01-18-01113-CV

Trial court case number: 18-DCV-251366

Trial court: 434th District Court of Fort Bend County

On August 7, 2019, relator, Fort Bend Independent School District (FBISD), filed its 

second supplemental petition for writ of mandamus seeking to compel the respondent district judge 

to vacate his August 6, 2019 order re-appointing Michael W. Elliott as a master in chancery in the 

underlying proceedings and seeking to compel the respondent to enter an order, pursuant to 

FBISD’s July 25, 2019 notice of nonsuit, dismissing the underlying proceedings.

With the supplemental petition, relator also filed an opposed “Motion for Expedited 

Consideration and Temporary Relief on Fort Bend Independent School District’s Second 

Supplemental Petition for Writ of Mandamus” seeking expedited consideration of this original 

proceeding and a temporary stay of all proceedings in the trial court, pending disposition of 

FBISD’s three related mandamus petitions. Relator’s motion contains the required certificate of 

compliance. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.10(a).

Accordingly, the Court grants the relator’s motion and ORDERS that all proceedings in 

the trial court in the above-captioned cause number are stayed. This stay is effective until the 

mandamus petitions in this Court are finally decided or this Court otherwise orders the stay lifted. 

See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.10(b). Any party may file a motion for reconsideration of the stay. See TEX.

R. APP. P. 52.10(c).

Finally, the Court requests a response to the second supplemental petition for writ of 

mandamus by the real party in interest, Michael W. Elliott. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(b)(1). The 

response, if any, shall be filed within 5 days from the date of this order. See TEX. R. APP. P. 2,

52.4.

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: /s/ Evelyn V. Keyes

x Acting individually  Acting for the Court

Date: August 8, 2019
Turn on more accessible mode                

                    Turn off more accessible mode                

It looks like your browser does not have JavaScript enabled. Please turn on JavaScript and try again. It looks like your browser does not have JavaScript enabled. Please turn on JavaScript and try again.
# Materials Not Included in **Airworthiness Directive (AD) Docket**

Docket Number: FAA- 2012 - 0272 Directorate Identifier: 2011NM042AD
ALS 2.1, I11 --- 2/09

Name/Description of Item(s) Not Included in FDMS Docket and Maintained in the Supplemental AD Docket **MA Y BE VIEWED AT:**  Federal Aviation Administration

Transport Airplane Directorate Rules Docket 1601 Lind Ave. SW., Renton, WA 98057 425.227.1221 **DURING THE HOURS OF:** 9 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. Form Date: 03/05/2008
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-06-00228-CR

Mario Salomon, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF MILAM COUNTY, 20TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT

NO. 21099, HONORABLE EDWARD P. MAGRE, JUDGE PRESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

In March 2005, appellant Mario Salomon was placed on deferred adjudication

supervision after he pleaded guilty to aggravated assault with a deadly weapon. See Tex. Penal Code

Ann. § 22.02 (West Supp. 2006). One year later, after appellant pleaded true to the violations

alleged in the State’s motion to adjudicate, the court adjudged him guilty and sentenced him to ten

years’ imprisonment. This appeal followed.

Appellant’s court-appointed attorney filed a brief concluding that the appeal is

frivolous and without merit. The brief meets the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738

(1967), by presenting a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why there are no

arguable grounds to be advanced. See also Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988); High v. State,

573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978); Currie v. State, 516 S.W.2d 684 (Tex. Crim. App. 1974);

Jackson v. State, 485 S.W.2d 553 (Tex. Crim. App. 1972); Gainous v. State, 436 S.W.2d 137
2

(Tex. Crim. App. 1969). Appellant received a copy of counsel’s brief and the appellate record and

filed a pro se brief.

We have reviewed the record, counsel’s brief, and the pro se brief. We find nothing

in the record that might arguably support the appeal. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826-27

(Tex. Crim. App. 2005). Counsel’s motion to withdraw is granted.

The judgment of conviction is affirmed.

__________________________________________

W. Kenneth Law, Chief Justice

Before Chief Justice Law, Justices Puryear and Henson

Affirmed

Filed: January 22, 2007

Do Not Publish
Federal Depository Library ProgramPersistent URL Home Page      

# Target for /GPO/LPS4558 lost

The target resource for this PURL can no longer be traced. The following is a list of the targets this PURL was previously assigned to.

Powered by the Federal Depository Library Program.                A service of the U.S. Government Publishing Office.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER>                                     1,000
<CIK>                                       0001052971
<NAME>                                           IHLLC

<S>                                         <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                    9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                          47,423
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  101,768
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    234,773
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               394,512
<PP&E>                                          88,459
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 899,562
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          448,165
<BONDS>                                        200,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                      20,544
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   899,562
<SALES>                                        911,786
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               911,786
<CGS>                                          755,611
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  882,970
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 (927)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              29,298
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,515
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,250
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                265
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       265
<EPS-BASIC>                                          0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

 

DIANE STARR,

 Plaintiff,

 v.

BAYER CORPORATION, et al.,

 Defendants.

 

CIVIL ACTION NO. 02-4305

 

O R D E R

AND NOW, this 2nd day of July, 2002, the court having been previously advised

that the above action cannot proceed to trial and disposition because of the following reason:

[ ] - Order staying these proceedings pending disposition of a related action.

[ ] - Order staying these proceedings pending determination of arbitration

proceedings.

[ ] - Interlocutory appeal filed 

[X] - Other: Cases are placed into suspense pending receipt of the Case Transfer

Order from the Judicial Panel on Multi District Litigation transferring

cases to District of Minnesota. 

it is

ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall mark this action closed for statistical purposes

and place the matter in the Civil Suspense File, and it is 

FURTHER ORDERED that the Court shall retain jurisdiction; and that the case be

restored to the trial docket when the action is in a status so that it may proceed to final 

Case 2:02-cv-04305-MK Document 2 Filed 07/02/2002 Page 1 of 2
disposition; this order shall not prejudice the rights of the parties to this litigation.

BY THE COURT:

______________________________

MARVIN KATZ, S.J.

Case 2:02-cv-04305-MK Document 2 Filed 07/02/2002 Page 2 of 2
Document

Exhibit 10.24

CONFIDENTIAL 
December 21, 2020 
Lion Oil Company 
7102 Commerce Way 
Brentwood, Tennessee 37027 


Lion Oil Trading & Transportation, LLC
7102 Commerce Way 
Brentwood, Tennessee 37027 
Re: LC Threshold Cap 
Ladies and Gentlemen:
Reference is made to the Third Amended and Restated Master Supply and Offtake Agreement, dated as of April 7, 2020, by and among J. Aron & Company LLC f/k/a J. Aron & Company (“Aron”), Lion Oil Company (“Lion”) and Lion Oil Trading & Transportation, LLC (“LOTT”) (as amended, restated or modified from time to time, the “S&O Agreement”). Capitalized terms used but not defined herein shall have the meaning given to such terms in the S&O Agreement.
Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in the S&O Agreement, the parties hereby agree as follows:
1.    For the period beginning on December 23, 2020 and ending on January 15, 2021, the LC Threshold Cap shall be $195,000,000, which represents an increase of $125,000,000 from the amount specified in the S&O Agreement (such increase in the LC Threshold Cap, the “LC Increase”). After such period, the LC Threshold Cap shall be the amount specified in the S&O Agreement.
2.    For the purposes of the Monthly True-up Amount associated with the calendar month of January 2021, the calculation of the Excess LC Fee shall not include any Excess LC Amount associated with the LC Increase, and for the purposes of the Monthly True-up Amount associated with the calendar month of December 2020, the Excess LC Fee associated with the LC Increase shall be $185,000 and such Excess LC Fee shall be included in the Monthly True-up Amount associated with December 2020.
Subject to the foregoing, the S&O Agreement is and remains in full force and effect.
This letter agreement may be executed in any number of counterparts, each of which when executed will be an original, and all of which, when taken together, will constitute one agreement. Delivery of an executed counterpart of a signature page of this letter agreement by facsimile transmission will be effective as delivery of a manually executed counterpart hereof.





Exhibit 10.24

This letter agreement shall be governed by, and construed in accordance with, the law of the State of New York without regard to principles of conflicts of law.
Please indicate your agreement and acceptance of the foregoing by signing this letter agreement and returning a copy to the undersigned. Upon your signature, this letter agreement shall become a binding agreement of Lion, LOTT and Aron as of the date first written above.
Very truly yours,


J. ARON & COMPANY LLC


By: /s/ Harsha Rajamani    
Name: Harsha Rajamani    
Title: Attorney in Fact    




AGREED AND ACCEPTED:


LION OIL COMPANY


By: /s/ Reuven Spiegel    
Name: Reuven Spiegel    
Title: CFO    


By: /s/ Greg Intemann    
Name: Greg Intemann    
Title: VP & Treasurer    




LION OIL TRADING & TRANSPORTATION, LLC




By: /s/ Reuven Spiegel    
Name: Reuven Spiegel    
Title: CFO    


By: /s/ Greg Intemann    
Name: Greg Intemann    
Title: VP & Treasurer
DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

WASHINGTON,
D.c.

SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY

A Message from the Secretary

I am pleased to present the 2017 Financial Report of the United States Government. This Report
is a thorough overview of the federal governments current financial position and future fiscal
projections.

The country enjoyed a pick-up in growth in 2017. Unemployment is at its lowest level since
February 2001, consumer and business confidence are at two-decade highs, and inflation is low
and stable. President Trump and this administration are committed to building on these dynamic
trends and delivering robust, sustained growth to the U.S. economy. The historic Tax Cuts and
Jobs Act passed last year is already spurring greater investment in this country and making our
businesses more competitive. Our ongoing efforts to provide relief from burdensome
overregulation will help improve our economic climate.

The Report discusses current trends in revenues, costs, deficit, and debt. It also highlights the
Government’s long-term fiscal challenge of funding the Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid
programs.

When making policy decisions, it is essential that we have transparency with respect to our

federal government's finances. This Report is a part of that transparency and one that should help
facilitate open and productive dialogue to ensure a prosperous future for the American people.

Sfcem TP Malu cb —

Steven T. Mnuchin
February 15, 2018