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






Exhibit 10.4




Amendment #1 to the Flextronics Logistics Services Agreement


This Amendment # 1 (“Amendment #1) to the Flextronics Logistics Services Agreement with an effective date of May 1st, 2009 (“Agreement”) is entered into as of this 28th day of July, 2016 (the “Effective Date”), by and between Enphase Energy, Inc. (“Enphase”), with an address at 201 1st Street, Petaluma, CA 94952, and Flextronics America LLC (“Flextronics”) with an address of 260 South Milpitas Blvd., Milpitas, CA 95035 (together the “Parties”). 


For valuable consideration, the sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, the Parties agree:


		
	1.
	That from time to time, Enphase will request Flex to arrange for the shipment of certain Goods including but not limited to raw materials, finished goods inventory, defective product returned, demonstration or evaluation units and equipment to Australia (“Australia Goods”). 


		
	2.
	In connection with these Australia Goods, Enphase intends to use the services of a logistics services provider called  YUSEN LOGISTICS (AUST) PTY LTD (“Yusen”) located at 3 Davis Rd, Wetherill Park, NSW 2164, Australia. For a separately agreed service fee, Flextronics shall manage the relationship with Yusen.


		
	3.
	Notwithstanding any terms to the contrary in the Agreement, Flextronics shall have no liability of any kind in connection with Australia Goods delivered to Yusen by Enphase or by Flextronics on behalf of Enphase.  


		
	4.
	Flextronics shall have no liability for loss or damage to Goods while such Australia Goods are in the care, control or custody of Yusen or in transit to Yusen or from Yusen.


		
	5.
	Enphase shall be solely responsible for insuring the Australia Goods against all risks while they are under Yusen’s or under Flextronics’s care, control and custody, and Flextronics will not provide or obtain on behalf of Enphase any form or type of insurance on the Australia Goods.  


		
	6.
	Flextronics will make commercially reasonable efforts to assist Enphase to obtain relevant documentation to assist Enphase if a claim is made involving loss or damage to Australia Goods while in transit to or from Yusen, or while Australia Goods are in the control, care or custody of Yusen.


		
	7.
	Capitalized terms not otherwise defined herein shall have the meanings assigned to them in the Agreement. Except as set forth herein, all other terms and conditions of the Agreement remain in full force and effect. 


		
	8.
	In the event of a conflict between the provisions of the Agreement and this Amendment #1, the provisions of this Amendment #1 shall supersede and prevail.


 
Accepted and Agreed to by:
	
					
	Enphase Energy, Inc.
	 
	Flextronics America LLC:

	 
	 
	 
	 
	 

	Signature:
	/s/ Jeffery Rosen
	 
	Signature:
	/s/ Timothy Stewart

	Name:
	Jeffery Rosen
	 
	Name:
	Timothy Stewart

	Date:
	September 8, 2016
	 
	Date:
	September 12, 2016
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-7953

CLARENCE J. PERRY, JR.,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

J. P. FULTON, Judge: Norfolk Circuit Court; S. CATHERINE DODSON, Commonwealth Attorney Norfolk Circuit Court; WALTER B. DALTON, Court-Appointed Attorney Norfolk Circuit Court,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Mark S. Davis, District Judge. (2:08-cv-00368-MSD-TEM)

Submitted: February 26, 2009 Decided: March 6, 2009

Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Clarence J. Perry, Jr., Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM:

Clarence J. Perry, Jr., appeals the district court’s

order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. §§ 1985, 1986 (2000) complaint

under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b) (2006). We have reviewed the record

and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the

reasons stated by the district court. See Perry v. Fulton

,

No. 2:08-cv-00368-MSD-TEM (E.D. Va. Aug. 14, 2008). 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
No. 49187.

#### Protest 867942-G of Kralen Hat Body Corp. (New York).

*254Opinion by

Tilson, J.

The record showed that certain of the racello hats in question are similar to those involved in Abstract 47291 and that others consist of racello hats similar to those involved in Abstract 49048. In accordance therewith the protest was sustained to this extent.
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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RICARDO LOPEZ,

Petitioner, No. CIV S-04-1598 GEB GGH P

vs.

SCOTT KERNAN, et al., 

Respondents. ORDER

 /

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has

filed an application for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 2254. The matter was referred to a United States

Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local

General Order No. 262.

On March 11, 2005, the magistrate judge filed findings

and recommendations herein which were served on petitioner and

which contained notice to petitioner that any objections to the

findings and recommendations were to be filed within twenty days. 

Case 2:04-cv-01598-GEB-GGH Document 9 Filed 05/05/05 Page 1 of 2
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

2

Both parties have filed objections to the findings and

recommendations.

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C.

§ 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 72-304, this court has conducted a

de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the

entire file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to

be supported by the record and by proper analysis.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The findings and recommendations filed March 11,

2005, are adopted in full; and

2. The petitioner’s application for a petition for

writ of habeas corpus is denied. 

Dated: May 5, 2005

/s/ Garland E. Burrell, Jr.

GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR.

United States District Judge

Case 2:04-cv-01598-GEB-GGH Document 9 Filed 05/05/05 Page 2 of 2
No. 64876.

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

protest 320019-K(B) (New York).

Opinion by

Ford, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of handbags similar in all material respects to those the subject of Abstract 21973, the claim of the plaintiff was sustained as to item No. 2750, manufactured by Konstantin Ostheimer.
## In the

Court of Appeals

Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth

___________________________

No. 02

- 21

- 00192

- CV

___________________________

Original Procee ding

415th District Court of Parker County, Texas

Trial Court No. CV

- 18

- 1452

Before Birdwell, Womack, and Wallach, JJ.

Per Curiam Memorandum Opinion 

### I N RE 

### R.W. , Relator2 MEMORANDUM OPINION

The court has considered relator’s petition for writ of mandamus and is of the

opinion tha t relief should be denied. Accordingly, relator’s petition for writ of

mandamus is denied.

Per Curiam

Delivered : Au gust 3 , 2021
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 Granting Petitioner’s Motion for An Extension of Time

to File Opposition to Respondents’ Motion to Dismiss

Collins v. California State Governor, 2:04-cv-02049 MCE PAN P 1

CATHERINE F. CAMPBELL, 65103

PO Box 4470

Fresno, CA 93744

Telephone (559) 498.8140

Facsimile (559) 221.0268

Attorney for Petitioner, Gerald Collins

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GERALD COLLINS,

Petitioner,

v.

CALIFORNIA STATE GOVERNOR

ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER,

et al.,

Respondents.

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

2:04-cv-02049 MCE PAN P

ORDER GRANTING

REQUEST FOR AN EXTENSION

OF TIME TO FILE OPPOSITION

TO MOTION TO DISMISS

GOOD CAUSE APPEARING THEREFORE, and with no opposition, petitioner’s

motion for an extension of time to file his opposition to respondents’ motion to dismiss is

hereby granted and the opposition is now due August 22, 2006.

DATED: July 31, 2006.

/coll2049.ext2

Case 2:04-cv-02049-MCE -EFB Document 19 Filed 08/02/06 Page 1 of 1
April 23, 1953

No. 57271.

Suit 4704.

#### Inter-Americas Shipping Co. *v.*United States.

C. D. 1355 affirmed December 17, 1952. C. A. D. 504.
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

DANIEL J. BRODERICK, Bar #89424

Acting Federal Defender

DAVID M. PORTER, Bar #127024

Assistant Federal Defender

801 "I" Street, 3rd Floor

Sacramento, California 95814

Telephone: (916) 498-5700

Attorneys for Petitioner

GERALD COLLINS

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GERALD COLLINS, )

) No. CIV S-04-2049 MCE PAN

Petitioner, )

)

v. )

) ORDER

CALIFORNIA STATE GOVERNOR, )

ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER, et al.,)

 )

Respondents. )

 )

Pursuant to this Motion for Substitution of Counsel and for the

reasons stated therein, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Catherine Campbell

shall be substituted in as counsel for Petitioner in place of the Office

of the Federal Defender for the Eastern District of California. 

Dated: May 25, 2006.

12

coll2049.sub

Case 2:04-cv-02049-MCE -EFB Document 13 Filed 05/26/06 Page 1 of 1
Before the Second Division,

November 1, 1951

No. 55966.

protests 130658-K, 134319-K, and 130673-K (New York).

#### William A. Force & Co., Ltd. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Lawrence, J.

It was stipulated that certain items of the merchandise consist of fount sets similar in all material respects to those the subject of *W. A. Force & Co., Ltd.*v. *United States*(24 Cust. Ct. 140, C. D. 1222). Upon-the agreed statement of facts- and the cited authority, it was held that certain items of the merchandise marked “A” are not entireties but are properly dutiable-at the rates applicable to the various components comprising each set, to wit: The 112 steel type pieces at 30 percent under paragraph 388 as new types; the holder at 45 percent under paragraph 397 as articles or wares not specially pro*343vided for, composed wholly or in chief value of metal; the metal wrench at 45 percent under the *eo nomine*provision therefor in paragraph 396; and the wooden box at *33}i*percent under paragraph 412 as manufactures of wood, not specially provided for. Other items of the merchandise marked “B,” stipulated to consist of steel type pieces similar to those contained in the fount sets the subject of C. D. 1222, *supra,*were held dutiable at 30 percent under paragraph 388 as new types.
# In the United States Court of Federal Claims

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

No. 10

- 747 V

(Not to be published)

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

*

LAURIE ROY, parent of *

Jamie Roy, a minor

, *

*

Petitioner

, *

* Filed: May 23 , 2013

v. *

* Decision on Attorney’s

SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND * Fees and Costs

HUMAN SERVICES *

*

Respondent. *

*

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

DECISION 1 (ATTORNEY FEES AND COSTS)

In this case under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 2 I is sue d a

decision on January 11, 2013. On May 22 , 2013 , the parties filed a s tipulation concerning

attorney’s fees and costs in this matter. The parties’ stipulation re quests a total payment o f

$47,201.67 , representing all attorney’s fees and costs available under 42 U.S.C. § 300aa

- 15(e).

In accordance with General Order #9, the stipula tion includes a statement that petitioner incurred

no reim bursable costs in pursuit of his claim.

I find that this petition was brought in good faith and that there existed a reasonable basis

for the claim. Therefore, an award for fees and costs is appropriate, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §

300aa

- 15(b) and (e)(1). Further, the proposed amount seems reasonable and appropriate.

Accordingly, I h ereby aw ard the total $47,201.67 as a lump sum in the form of a check

payable jointly to petitioner and petiti o n er’s couns e l, Ronald C. Homer

.

1 The undersigned intends to post this decision on the United States Court of Federal Claims’ website, in accordance

with the E

- Government Act of 2002, Pub. L. No. 107

- 347, § 205, 116 Stat. 2899, 2913 (codified as amended at 44

U.S.C. § 3501 note (2006)). As provided by Vaccine Rule 18(b), each party has 14 days within which to request

redaction “of any information furnished by that party (1) that is trade secret or commercial or financial information

and is privileged or confidential, or (2) that are medic al files and similar files the disclosure of which would

constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of privacy.” Vaccine Rule 18(b). Otherwise, “the entire” decision will be

available to the public. Id.

2 The applicable statutory provisions defining the program are found at 42 U.S.C. § 300aa

- 10 et seq . (2006).In the absence of a timely

- filed motion for review filed pu rsuant to Appendix B of the

Rules of the U.S. Court of Federal Claims, the clerk of the court shall enter judgment in

accordance herewith.

IT IS SO ORDERED

/s/ George L. Hastings, Jr.

George L. Hastings, Jr.

Special Master
No. 61874.

#### D. H. May *v.*United States,

protests 220302-K, etc. (Seattle).

Opinion by

Mollison, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of yellow cedar the same in all material respects as that the subject of *Border Brokerage Co. et al.*v. *United States*(39 Cust. Ct. 179, C. D. 1923), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
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.                  

###### Department of the Treasury

###### Internal Revenue Service 

# AGENCY:

Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury. 

# ACTION:

Notice. 

# SUMMARY:

An open meeting of the Area 1 Taxpayer Advocacy Panel will be conducted (via teleconference). The Taxpayer Advocacy Panel is soliciting public comments, ideas and suggestions on improving customer service at the Internal Revenue Service. 

# DATES:

The meeting will be held Tuesday, February 20, 2007. 

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Audrey Y. Jenkins at 1-888-912-1227 (toll-free), or 718-488-2085 (non toll-free). 

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    An open meeting of the Area 1 Taxpayer Advocacy Panel will be held Tuesday, February 20, 2007 from 9 am ET to 10 am ET via a telephone conference call. Individual comments will be limited to 5 minutes. If you would like to have the TAP consider a written statement, please call 1-888-912-1227 or 718-488-2085, or write Audrey Y. Jenkins, TAP Office, 10 MetroTech Center, 625 Fulton Street, Brooklyn, NY 11201. Due to limited conference lines, notification of intent to participate in the telephone conference call meeting must be made with Audrey Y. Jenkins. Ms. Jenkins can be reached at 1-888-912-1227 or 718-                          ( print page 1804)                        488-2085, or post comments to the Web site:                     *http://www.improveirs.org*.                 

The agenda will include various IRS issues. 

Dated: January 8, 2007. 

John Fay, 

Acting Director, Taxpayer Advocacy Panel.

[FR Doc. E7-377 Filed 1-12-07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4830-01-P
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

October 31, 2006 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh
Elizabeth A. Weaver 131203 & (13)(14)(15) Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Justices Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 131203 COA: 269121 Jackson CC: 90-053331-FC LONZIE WAYNE MCQUIRTER, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appe al the April 21, 2006 order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because the defendant’s motion for relief from judgment is prohibited by MCR 6.502(G). The motion for appointment of counsel, motion to remand, and motion for miscellaneous relief are DENIED.

d1023 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

October 31, 2006

Clerk
# EUR-Lex - 52007AP0028 - EN

Important legal notice

*|*

# 52007AP0028

**European Parliament legislative resolution on the joint text approved by the Conciliation Committee for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing an Infrastructure for Spatial Information in the European Community (Inspire) (PE-CONS 3685/2006 - C6-0445/2006 - 2004/0175(COD)) **

*
Official Journal 287 E , 29/11/2007 P. 0134 - 0135 *

P6_TA(2007)0028

Infrastructure for Spatial Information in the European Community (Inspire) ***III

European Parliament legislative resolution on the joint text approved by the Conciliation Committee for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing an Infrastructure for Spatial Information in the European Community (Inspire) (PE-CONS 3685/2006 — C6-0445/2006 — 2004/0175(COD))

(Codecision procedure: third reading)

The European Parliament,

- having regard to the joint text approved by the Conciliation Committee (PE-CONS 3685/2006 — C6-0445/2006),

- having regard to its position at first reading [1] on the Commission proposal to Parliament and the Council (COM(2004)0516) [2],

- having regard to its position at second reading [3] on the Council common position [4],

- having regard to the Commission's opinion on Parliament's amendments to the common position (COM(2006)0484) [5],

- having regard to Article 251(5) of the EC Treaty,

- having regard to Rule 65 of its Rules of Procedure,

- having regard to the report of its delegation to the Conciliation Committee (A6-0021/2007),

1. Approves the joint text;

2. Instructs its President to sign the act with the President of the Council pursuant to Article 254(1) of the EC Treaty;

3. Instructs its Secretary-General to sign the act, once it has been verified that all the procedures have been duly completed, and, in agreement with the Secretary-General of the Council, to have it published in the Official Journal of the European Union;

4. Instructs its President to forward this legislative resolution to the Council and Commission.

[1] OJ C 124 E, 25.5.2006, p. 116.

[2] Not yet published in OJ.

[3] Texts Adopted of 13.6.2006, P6_TA(2006)0252.

[4] OJ C 126 E, 30.5.2006, p. 16.

[5] Not yet published in OJ.

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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JAMES DIGAETANO,

Petitioner, No. CIV S-04-1445 FCD CMK P

vs.

LORI DICARLO, et al., 

Respondents. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

An order of reassignment was served on petitioner’s address of record and

returned stating “paroled.” It appears that petitioner has failed to comply with Local Rule 83-

182(f), which requires that a party appearing in propria persona inform the court of any address

change.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed for

petitioner’s failure to keep the court apprised of his current address. See Local Rules 83-182(f)

and 11-110 (E.D. Cal. 1997).

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District

Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within twenty

days after being served with these findings and recommendations, petitioner may file written

objections with the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s

Case 2:04-cv-01445-FCD-CMK Document 4 Filed 05/27/05 Page 1 of 2
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

2

Findings and Recommendations.” Petitioner is advised that failure to file objections within the

specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951

F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

DATED: May 26, 2005.

______________________________________

CRAIG M. KELLISON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

/kf

diga1445.133a 

Case 2:04-cv-01445-FCD-CMK Document 4 Filed 05/27/05 Page 2 of 2
No. 49143.

#### Protests 22232-K/89049, etc., of Quong Yick Co. (Chicago).

Opinion by

Cole, J.

The merchandise was classified and claimed dutiable at the same rates and' under the same paragraphs as similar merchandise covered by the decision in *Quong Yuen Shing Co.*v. *United States*(31 C. C. P. A. 43, C. A. D. 247). In accordance with stipulation of counsel and on the authority of said cited case the merchandise at bar was found to contain salt and was therefore excluded from paragraph 5 (chemical compounds). The protests were sustained to this extent.
No. 66850.

#### Lewis & Pina et al. *v.*United States,

protests 61/2267, etc. (Laredo).

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of face brick similar in all material respects to that the subject of *Bunker Hill Brick & Supply, Inc., et al.*v. *United States*(46 Cust. Ct. 95, C.D. 2240), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
Before the First Division,

May 15, 1947

No. 51707.

#### Petition 6505-R of M. C. Wentz (Los Angeles).

Opinion by

Mollison, J.

The petition was dismissed.