alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 42 (Monday, March 5, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 9830]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-3785]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION


Emergence Capital Partners SBIC, L.P. License No. 09/79-0454; 
Notice Seeking Exemption Under Section 312 of the Small Business 
Investment Act, Conflicts of Interest

    Notice is hereby given that Emergence Capital Partners SBIC, L.P., 
160 Bovet Road, Suite 300, San Mateo, CA 94402, a Federal Licensee 
under the Small Business Investment Act of 1958, as amended (``the 
Act''), in connection with the financing of a small concern, has sought 
an exemption under Section 312 of the Act and Section 107.730, 
Financings Which Constitute Conflicts of Interest of the Small Business 
Administration (``SBA'') Rules and Regulations (13 CFR 107.730). 
Emergence Capital Partners SBIC, L.P. proposes to provide equity/debt 
security financing to Intacct Corporation (``Intacct''), 125 S. Market 
Street, Suite 600, San Jose, CA 95113. The financing is contemplated to 
bridge the company's operations until either the round of equity is 
raised or a sale occurs.
    The financing is brought within the purview of Sec.  107.730(a)(1) 
of the Regulations because Emergence Capital Partners, L.P. and 
Emergence Capital Associates, L.P., all Associates of Emergence Capital 
Partners SBIC, L.P., own more than ten percent of Intacct, and 
therefore Intacct is considered an Associate of Emergence Capital 
Partners SBIC, L.P. as detailed in Sec.  107.50 of the Regulations.
    Notice is hereby given that any interested person may submit 
written comments on the transaction to the Associate Administrator for 
Investment, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 Third Street, SW., 
Washington, DC 20416.

     Dated: January 11, 2007.
Jaime Guzm[aacute]n-Fournier,
Associate Administrator for Investment .
 [FR Doc. E7-3785 Filed 3-2-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8025-01-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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MARVELLOUS A. GREENE,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-2383 FCD DAD P

vs.

D. PONTAROLO, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

On January 24, 2006, this civil rights action was dismissed for failure to state a

federal claim upon which relief can be granted. On the same date, judgment was entered and the

case was closed. On February 2, 2006, within ten days after judgment was entered, plaintiff filed

a notice of appeal and a motion to vacate judgment.

In his motion, plaintiff seeks an order pursuant to Rule 59(e) of the Federal Rules

of Civil Procedure vacating the judgment entered on January 24, 2006. Plaintiff asserts that his

motion is based on the papers and files in this matter and on “the memorandum of law under

People v. Mason . . . and People v. Lewis,” which appear to be two state law decisions issued in

1958. Plaintiff also refers to California Penal Code § 1265 and petitions for writ of error coram

nobis. There is no memorandum of law attached to the motion filed February 2, 2006.

/////

Case 2:04-cv-02383-FCD-DAD Document 15 Filed 02/09/06 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

A party may file a motion to alter or amend a judgment if the motion is filed

within 10 days after entry of the judgment. Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e). If a timely motion is filed, the

time to file an appeal runs from the entry of the district court’s order disposing of the motion. 

See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(4)(A). In the present case, plaintiff’s notice of appeal is not effective to

appeal the January 24, 2006 judgment until this court enters an order resolving plaintiff’s timely

motion to vacate judgment. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(4)(B)(i). Because plaintiff’s notice of

appeal is not yet effective, this court has jurisdiction to rule on plaintiff’s motion. See Miller v.

Marriott Int’l, Inc., 300 F.3d 1061, 1064 (9th Cir. 2002).

The court conducted a de novo review of this case on January 23, 2006. All

papers and files in this action were considered at that time. Plaintiff’s motion advances no

arguments, and the citations to state law do not suggest any basis for vacating judgment.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s February 2, 2006 motion to vacate judgment is denied; and

2. The Clerk of the Court is directed to serve a copy of this order on the United

States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

DATED:February 9, 2006

/s/ Frank C. Damrell Jr. 

FRANK C. DAMRELL JR.

United States District Judge

Case 2:04-cv-02383-FCD-DAD Document 15 Filed 02/09/06 Page 2 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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DAMON ALLGIRE,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-1680 MCE GGH P

vs.

WARDEN R.A. CASTRO, et al.,

Defendants. FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

On September 26, 2005, defendants filed a motion to dismiss pursuant to Fed. R.

Civ. P. 12(b)(6) and nonenumerated Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b), which defendants re-served on

October 11, 2005 upon plaintiff at his prior address. Pursuant to the court’s order, filed on

December 22, 2005, directing defendants to re-serve plaintiff, plaintiff having filed a notice of

change of address on November 9, 2005, defendants once again re-served plaintiff, on December

27, 2005, at his most recent address. Plaintiff has not opposed the motion. 

Local Rule 78-230(m) provides in part: “Failure of the responding party to file

written opposition or to file a statement of no opposition may be deemed a waiver of any

opposition to the granting of the motion . . . .” On July 21, 2005, plaintiff was advised of the

requirements for filing an opposition to a motion to dismiss and that failure to oppose such a

motion may be deemed a waiver of opposition to the motion. 

Case 2:04-cv-01680-MCE -GGH Document 25 Filed 03/29/06 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

Accordingly, plaintiff’s failure to oppose should be deemed a waiver of

opposition to the granting of the motion.

IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that:

1. Defendants’ September 26, 2005, motion to dismiss be granted; and

2. This action be dismissed.

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, any party may file written

objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned

“Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any reply to the objections

shall be served and filed within ten days after service of the objections. The parties are 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: 3/29/06

/s/ Gregory G. Hollows

 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

GGH:009/035

allg1680.46

Case 2:04-cv-01680-MCE -GGH Document 25 Filed 03/29/06 Page 2 of 2
Exhibit 13

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 annual report of Hong Kong Television Network Limited (the Company) on Form 20-F for the sixteen months
ended December 31, 2014, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), each of the undersigned officers of the Company certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to such officers knowledge:



| | (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 as of the dates and for the periods expressed in the Report.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: April 29, 2015



HONG KONG TELEVISION NETWORK LIMITEDBy:

/s/ To Wai BingName:

To Wai BingTitle:

Chief Executive OfficerBy:

/s/ Wong Nga Lai, AliceName:

Wong Nga Lai, AliceTitle:

Chief Financial Officer


The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350 and is not being
filed as part of the Report or as a separate disclosure document.
II 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 4908 

To designate the checkpoint of the United States Border Patrol located 

on United States Highway 90 West in Uvalde County, Texas, as the 

‘‘James R. Dominguez Border Patrol Checkpoint’’. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JULY 31, 2024 

Mr. CORNYN (for himself, Ms. SINEMA, Mr. CRUZ, and Mr. MANCHIN) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs 

A BILL 

To designate the checkpoint of the United States Border 

Patrol located on United States Highway 90 West in 

Uvalde County, Texas, as the ‘‘James R. Dominguez 

Border Patrol Checkpoint’’. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘James R. Dominguez 

5 Memorial Act of 2024’’. 

6 SEC. 2. FINDINGS. 

7 Congress finds the following: 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 4908 IS

1 (1) A native of San Antonio, Texas, Border Pa2 trol Agent James R. Dominguez— 

3 (A) proudly and honorably served his coun4 try as an agent of the U.S. Border Patrol for 

5 more than 12 years; 

6 (B) began his service with the U.S. Border 

7 Patrol in 2000; and 

8 (C) graduated as part of the 434th session 

9 of the Border Patrol Academy. 

10 (2) Agent Dominguez served at the Uvalde Sta11 tion in the Del Rio Sector. 

12 (3) On July 19, 2012, Agent Dominguez 

13 stopped to clear debris from the roadway that posed 

14 risks to road and community safety along Highway 

15 90 near Cline, Texas. While on scene, Agent 

16 Dominguez was struck and killed by a passing vehi17 cle. 

18 (4) Agent Dominguez is survived by his wife 

19 and 4 children. 

20 SEC. 3. DESIGNATION. 

21 The checkpoint of the United States Border Patrol 

22 located on United States Highway 90 West in Uvalde 

23 County, Texas, shall be known and designated as the 

24 ‘‘James R. Dominguez Border Patrol Checkpoint’’. 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
3 

•S 4908 IS

1 SEC. 4. REFERENCES. 

2 Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 

3 paper, or other record of the United States to the check4 point described in section 3 shall be deemed to be a ref5 erence to the ‘‘James R. Dominguez Border Patrol Check6 point’’. 

Æ 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
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

NORMAN WASHINGTON WILLIAMS,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-2291 FCD KJM P

vs.

RICHARD SANDHAM, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff is a prisoner who is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis. Plaintiff

seeks relief based on 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

On January 10, 2006, the court ordered the United States Marshal to serve

plaintiff’s complaint on defendant Sandham. Process directed to Sandham was returned because

the Marshal was unable to locate Sandham using the address provided by plaintiff. Plaintiff must

provide additional information to serve defendant Sandham. Plaintiff shall promptly seek such

information through discovery, the California Public Records Act, Calif. Gov’t Code § 6250, et

seq., or other means available to plaintiff. If access to the required information is denied or

unreasonably delayed, plaintiff may seek judicial intervention. Plaintiff’s failure to comply with

this order or failure to provide the court with defendant Sandham’s correct address will result in a

recommendation that Sandham be dismissed from this action.

Case 2:04-cv-02291-FCD-KJM Document 27 Filed 04/12/06 Page 1 of 3
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

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Clerk of the Court is directed to send to plaintiff one USM-285 form,

along with an instruction sheet and a copy of the complaint filed October 28, 2004;

2. Within sixty days from the date of this order, plaintiff shall complete and

submit the attached Notice of Submission of Documents to the court, with the following

documents:

a. One completed USM-285 form for defendant Sandham; and 

b. Two copies of the endorsed complaint filed October 28, 2004.

DATED: April 11, 2006.

______________________________________

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

1

will2291.8e(2)

Case 2:04-cv-02291-FCD-KJM Document 27 Filed 04/12/06 Page 2 of 3
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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

NORMAN WASHINGTON WILLIAMS,

Plaintiff, No. CIV-S-04-2291 FCD KJM P 

vs.

RICHARD W. SANDHAM, et al., NOTICE OF SUBMISSION

Defendants. OF DOCUMENTS

 /

Plaintiff hereby submits the following documents in compliance with the court's

order filed :

 1 completed USM-285 forms

 2 copies of the 10/28/04 

 Complaint

DATED: 

 

Plaintiff

Case 2:04-cv-02291-FCD-KJM Document 27 Filed 04/12/06 Page 3 of 3
No. 55285.

#### Wm. Adams, Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

protests 150961-K, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Cline, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
EXHIBIT 32





Section 1350 Certifications







I, Andrew K. Walker, certify that this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Allied Bancshares, Inc. for the quarter ended March 31, 2006 containing financial statements fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) and 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)) and that information contained in this quarterly report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Allied Bancshares, Inc.







|/s/Andrew K. Walker
President and Chief Executive Officer
|---------------------------------------------------------





|Date:   May 11, 2006
|--------------------



I, Richard E. Bell, certify that this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Allied Bancshares, Inc. for the quarter ended March 31, 2006 containing financial statements fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) and 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)) and that information contained in this quarterly report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Allied Bancshares, Inc.





|/s/Richard E. Bell
Chief Accounting Officer and Chief Financial Officer
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------



|Date:  May 11, 2006
|-------------------









15
Exhibit 10.47

 

February 25, 2015

 

CAMAC Petroleum Limited

c/o CAMAC ENERGY Inc., 

1330 Post Oak Blvd., Suite 2250

Houston, TX 77056 

 

Attention: Chief Financial Officer

 

Re: Extension of Maturity Date for the Second Amended and Restated Promissory Note executed as of August 7, 2014 (“Note”) among CAMAC Petroleum Limited (the “Borrower”), a company incorporated in the Federal Republic of Nigeria, CAMAC Energy Inc., a Delaware corporation and the sole shareholder of the Borrower (the “Parent”), and Allied Energy Plc, a Nigerian public limited company (the “Lender”). 

Dear Sirs:

Pursuant to Section 14(b) of the Note, this letter serves as an amendment to the Note, whereby the Maturity Date, as defined in the Note shall be extended to July 30, 2016. Accordingly, the definition of “Maturity Date” shall be revised to read as follows:

“Maturity Date” means July 30, 2016

All other terms and conditions of the Note shall remain as provided in the Note. Further terms not otherwise defined in this letter shall have the meaning as defined in the Note. 

Please indicate your acceptance of the terms of this letter by signing below.

Sincerely, 

ALLIED Energy Plc, as Lender

 


	
/s/ Kamoru Lawal
	
 
	
 

	
Kamoru Lawal, Director
	
 
	
 




 

ACKNOWLEDGED AND AGREED TO BY:

 

CAMAC Petroleum Limited, as Borrower

 


	
/s/ Adama Traore     03/09/2015
	
 
	
 

	
Adama Traore, Director
	
 
	
 




 

CAMAC Energy Inc.

 


	
/s/ Earl W. McNiel     03/09/2015
	
 
	
 

	
Earl W. McNiel, Senior Vice President
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-08-00442-CV

In re Healthy Innovations, Inc. and Kevin C. Serafini

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING FROM TRAVIS COUNTY

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

The Motion of Relators Healthy Innovations, Inc. and Kevin C. Serafini to Dismiss

Petition for Writ of Mandamus is granted. This petition is dismissed.

 

G. Alan Waldrop, Justice

Before Justices Patterson, Pemberton and Waldrop

Filed: June 25, 2009
EXHIBIT 32.1

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Transition Report of MEDIANET GROUP TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
(the "Company") on Form 10-K for the transition period from January 1, 2009 to
September 30, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the
date hereof (the "Report"), I, Michael Hansen, Chief Executive Officer 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, to the best of my knowledge
and belief:

         (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 result of
                  operations of the Company.

/s/ Michael Hansen
Michael Hansen
Chief Executive Officer

January 12, 2010
EXHIBIT 32.1

                  CERTIFICATION OF THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
                       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 Annual Report of Transax International Ltd. (the
"Company") on Form 10-KSB for the period ended December 31, 2005, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Stephen Walters, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify
for the purpose of complying with Rule 13a-14(b) or Rule 15d-14(b) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") and Section 1350 of Chapter
63 of Title 18 of the United States Code, that:

   1. the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)
      of the Exchange Act; 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: March 31, 2006                By: /s/ Stephen Walters
                                         -------------------
                                         Stephen Walters, President and CEO
Before the Third Division,

September 19, 1945

No. 50504.

#### Protests 54392-K, etc., of E. Kasachkoff 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.
**Exhibit 23.1**

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

The Board of Directors 724 Solutions Inc.

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statements (No. 333-125011, 333-98837, 333-55760, 333-42142) on Form S-8 of 724 Solutions Inc. of our report dated March 30, 2006 relating to the consolidated balance sheets of 724 Solutions Inc. as of December 31, 2005 and 2004, and the related consolidated statements of operations, shareholders’ equity and comprehensive income (loss) and cash flows for each of the years in the three-year period ended December 31, 2005, which report appears in the December 31, 2005 annual report on Form 10-K of 724 Solutions Inc.  Our report refers to a change to the accounting for stock based compensation.  

/s/ KPMG LLP

Chartered Accountants Toronto, Ontario March 30, 2006.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-7840

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus ALLEN EDWARD STEWART, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. T. S. Ellis, III, District Judge. (CR-01-144-ALL; CA-03-1204-AM) Submitted: February 12, 2004 Decided: February 23, 2004 Before LUTTIG, WILLIAMS, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Allen Edward Stewart, Appellant Pro Se. Morris Rudolph Parker, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 2 - PER CURIAM: Allan Edward Stewart seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion. Stewart cannot appeal this order unless a circuit judge or justice issues a certificate of appealability, and a certificate of appealability will not issue absent a “substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A § 2255 movant meets this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that his constitutional claims are debatable and that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or wrong. See Miller-El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 326 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee , 252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir. 2001. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude Stewart has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. 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.

DISMISSED