alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 4.6





ADDENDUM No. 2


to


the Management Agreement dated 09/05/2011 and any addenda thereto


(the "Management Agreement")





Between


AMORITA DEVELOPMENT INC.


of Liberia


(as Owner)





And





ALLSEAS MARINE S.A.


of Liberia


(as Manager)





In respect of the management of the Vessel MAULE (the "Vessel")





Notwithstanding the relevant provisions of the Management Agreement, it is this, 18th day of September 2012, mutually agreed between the Owner and the Manager that a clause 8.05 shall be added to read as follows:





"Unless the agreement is terminated by the Owner in accordance with Clauses 12.03 (iii) and (iv) of this Agreement or by reason of default by gross negligence or misconduct of Manager, its Directors, officers and/or employees in the performance under this Agreement, upon termination of this Agreement in relation to the Vessel, the Management Fee will be continued at the above rate then in effect for 90 days from the date of termination. This is to cover operating and accounting cost of finalizing the Vessels' disbursements, demurrage, etc. In addition, the Owner shall continue to pay the following:





i)
Crew support costs for a further period of three calendar months


ii)
An equitable proportion of any management staff redundancy costs which may materialize.





Notwithstanding the above, in the event that the Management Agreement is terminated in accordance with Clause 12.05, then the provisions of the Compensation Agreement between the Manager and Box Ships Inc. dated 12/09/2012, copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit A, forming an integral part of this Agreement, or any renewal thereof shall be applied."





All other fees, terms, conditions and provisions of the Management Agreement remain unaltered and in full force and effect.





IN WITNESS WHEREOFthe parties have signed this Addendum this 18th day of September 2012.





FOR THE OWNER
FOR THE MANAGER/s/ Maria Stefanou
/s/  George SkrimizeasMARIA STEFANOU
GEORGE SKRIMIZEASAttorney-in-fact
Attorney-in-fact
# C_2007199EN.01004802.xml

| 25.8.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 199/48 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.8.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 199/48

---

Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 2 July 2007 — Sanchez Ferriz v Commission

(Case F-117/05) (1)

1

(Staff cases - Officials - Promotion - Failure to include on the list of officials promoted - 2004 promotion exercise - Priority Points - Merit - Seniority - Admissibility)

(2007/C 199/93)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Carlos Sanchez Ferriz (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: F. Frabetti, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: J. Currall and H. Kraemer, Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Annulment of the list of officials promoted under the 2004 exercise, inasmuch as the applicant's name did not appear in that list, and annulment of the decision allocating priority points to the applicant in that period.

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The action is dismissed in part as manifestly inadmissible and in part as manifestly unfounded. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The action is dismissed in part as manifestly inadmissible and in part as manifestly unfounded.

The action is dismissed in part as manifestly inadmissible and in part as manifestly unfounded

| 2. | The parties shall bear their own costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The parties shall bear their own costs.

The

shall bear their own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 36, 11.2.2006, p. 35.

1

---
No. 48668.

#### Protests 967092-G, etc., of Fritz Choyke (New York).

Opinion by

Keefe, J.

It was stipulated that the cheese in question is similar to that the subject of Abstract 48269. The protests were therefore sustained.
Exhibit 10.1


 


THIRD
AMENDMENT TO LEASE AGREEMENT


( BUD JONES CHIPS AREA )


 


THIS THIRD AMENDMENT ( THE “THIRD AMENDMENT” ) TO THE LEASE AGREEMENT (“THE
AGREEMENT”) DATED JANUARY 11, 2008 BETWEEN “COPROPIEDAD ARTE Y DISEÑO” (THE “LESSOR”)
REPRESENTED BY MR. FRANCISCO JAVIER MORENO SANCHEZ AND “PAUL-SON MEXICANA S.A.
DE C.V. (THE “LESSEE”) REPRESENTED BY MR. GERARD P. CHARLIER, IS NOW ENTERED BY
AND  BETWEEN THE LESSOR AND LESSEE
PURSUANT TO THE FOLLOWING RECITALS AND CLAUSES:


 


RECITALS


 


The
LESSOR and LESSEE represent:


 


(a)          Effective January 12,
2005, the LESSEE changed its name to GPI MEXICANA S.A. DE C.V.


 


(b)         Effective April 1, 2008
LESSOR agrees to lease to LESSEE, who agrees to lease from LESSOR, an addition
14,000 square feet in the BUILDING as set forth in Paragraph 1.3 of the
AGREEMENT pursuant to the terms of paragraphs 1.4 and 1.5 thereof  concerning RENT and TERM. Blueprints of the
current portions of the BUILDING leased by LESSOR to LESSEE pursuant to this
THIRD AMENDEMENT are attached to this THIRD AMENDMENT as Exhibit “E”.


 


(c)          All other terms and
conditions of the AGREEMENT remain unchanged and in full force and effect.


 


IN
WITNESS WHEREOF, parties and witness execute this THIRD AMENDMENT in the city of  Las Vegas as of April 1, 2008.


 


	
  LESSOR

  	
   

  	
  LESSEE

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Copropiedad Arte y Diseño

  	
   

  	
  GPI Mexicana S.A. de C.V.

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
  Formerly
  Paul-Son Mexicana SA de CV

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Represented
  by:

  	
   

  	
  Represented
  by:

  
	
  Francisco
  Javier Moreno Sanchez

  	
   

  	
  Gerard
  P. Charlier

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  WITNESS

  	
   

  	
  WITNESS
# C_2008108EN.01000602.xml

| 29.4.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 108/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.4.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 108/6

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.5059 — Crédit Agricole/POvita)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2008/C 108/06)

On 14 March 2008, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in French and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | from the Europa competition web site (http://ec.europa.eu/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This web site provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

from the Europa competition web site (http://ec.europa.eu/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This web site provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32008M5059. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law (http://eur-lex.europa.eu). |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32008M5059. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law (http://eur-lex.europa.eu).

---
Exhibit 32.1



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 on Form 10-K of China Liaoning Dingxu Ecological Agriculture Development, Inc.
(the “Company”) for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Daniel Sobolewski, Interim President and Interim Chief Executive Officer of
the Company, do hereby certify, to the best of my knowledge and belief, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 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.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------





|By: | /s/ Daniel Sobolewski                                 | 
|--- | ----------------------------------------------------- | 
|    | Daniel Sobolewsk                                      | 
|    | Interim President and Interim Chief Executive Officer | 
|    | (Principal Executive Officer)                         | 
|    | January 10, 2019                                      | 





A signed original of this certification
required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears
in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to the Company
and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request. The foregoing
certification is being furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 and is not being filed as part of the Report or as a
separate disclosure document.
Order entered October 22 , 2014

In The



## Court of Appeals

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05

- 14

- 00635

- CR

ANTHONY BERNARD JOHN SON, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 282nd Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Tr ial Court Cause No. F13

- 70744

- S



### O RDER

The Court GRANTS appellant’s October 21, 2014 motion to extend time to file his brief.

We ORDER the appellant’s brief received on October 21, 2014 filed as of the date of this order.

/s/ ADA BROWN

JUSTICE
July 17, 2023

Safety Alert: Inaccessible Track 

According to the FAMES data base, 8 fatalities have involved inaccessible track protection. FRA 

and available Class 1 data further indicate roadway workers often use improper controls when 

utilizing inaccessible track protection. 

Key recommendations to prevent these types of incidents include:

Before starting any work, make sure to 

• Conduct a thorough on-track safety job briefing—re-brief when warranted. 

• If necessary to foul a track when establishing inaccessible track protection, ensure to 

establish on-track safety. 

• Never use a trailing point switch for protection.

• Install portable derails per manufacturer and railroad instructions.

• RWIC is responsible to ensure appliances are properly installed to prevent movement into 

working limits.

To read more about the FAMES Committee recommendations, check out the FAMES website at:

https://railroads.dot.gov/divisions/partnerships-programs/fatality-analysis-maintenance-wayemployees-and-signalmen-fames

Dedication: The FAMES Committee dedicates its efforts to all roadway workers who have lost their lives in 

the performance of duty and to the families, loved ones, and coworkers they have left behind.

Mission Statement: The Mission of the Fatality Analysis of Maintenance‐of‐way Employees and Signalmen 

(FAMES) Committee is to analyze all fatalities and selected related incidents in order to make 

recommendations to reduce the risk of future occurrences and eliminate fatalities to roadway workers.
No. 49331.

#### Protests 100739-K, etc., of Q. W. Lung Co. et al. (Boston, etc.).

Opinion by

Cline, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
# C_2007297EN.01000601.xml

| 8.12.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 297/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.12.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 297/6

---

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 16 October 2007 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Social de Madrid — Spain) — Félix Palacios de la Villa v Cortefiel Servicios SA

(Case C-411/05) (1)

1

(Directive 2000/78/EC - Equal treatment in employment and occupation - Scope - Collective agreement providing for automatic termination of employment relationship where a worker has reached 65 years of age and is entitled to a retirement pension - Age discrimination - Justification)

(2007/C 297/09)

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Juzgado de lo Social de Madrid

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Félix Palacios de la Villa

Applicant:

Defendant: Cortefiel Servicios SA

Defendant:

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Juzgado de lo Social de Madrid — Interpretation of Art. 2(1) of Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation (OJ 2000 L 303, p. 16) — National rules transposing the directive which include a transitional provision whereby compulsory retirement clauses not justified by employment policy objectives but contained in collective agreements are deemed valid.

Operative part of the judgment

The prohibition on any discrimination on grounds of age, as implemented by Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation, must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation such as that at issue in the main proceedings, pursuant to which compulsory retirement clauses contained in collective agreements are lawful where such clauses provide as sole requirements that workers must have reached retirement age, set at 65 by national law, and must have fulfilled the conditions set out in the social security legislation for entitlement to a retirement pension under their contribution regime, where

| — | the measure, although based on age, is objectively and reasonably justified in the context of national law by a legitimate aim relating to employment policy and the labour market, and |
| --- | --- |

—

the measure, although based on age, is objectively and reasonably justified in the context of national law by a legitimate aim relating to employment policy and the labour market, and

| — | the means put in place to achieve that aim of public interest do not appear to be inappropriate and unnecessary for the purpose. |
| --- | --- |

—

the means put in place to achieve that aim of public interest do not appear to be inappropriate and unnecessary for the purpose.

---

(1)  OJ C 36, 11.2.2006.

1

---
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JONATHAN CARTER,

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

 v.

CLARK COUNTY; NEVADA

DEPARTMENT OF PAROLE &

PROBATION; STATE OF NEVADA

DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR

VEHICLES & PUBLIC SAFETY,

 Defendants,

 and

FAMILY AND CHILD TREATMENT

OF SOUTHERN NEVADA,

 Defendant - Appellee.

No. 10-16993

D.C. No. 2:04-cv-00409-KJD-RJJ

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Nevada

Kent J. Dawson, District Judge, Presiding

FILED

NOV 23 2011

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
page 2

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision **

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

The Honorable Robert W. Gettleman, Senior United States District ***

Judge for the Northern District of Illinois, sitting by designation.

Submitted November 17, 2011** 

Stanford, California

Before: KOZINSKI, Chief Judge, FARRIS, Circuit Judge, and 

GETTLEMAN, District Judge.*** 

1. Before the district court, Carter “oppose[d] the dismissal without

prejudice of his remaining state law claims” pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c), and

so “waived [his] objection to the district court’s discretionary exercise of

supplemental jurisdiction.” Kohler v. Inter-Tel Techs., 244 F.3d 1167, 1171 (9th

Cir. 2001).

2. Summary judgment is proper, “after adequate time for discovery and

upon motion, against a party who fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the

existence of an element essential to that party’s case . . . . In such a situation, there

can be no genuine issue as to any material fact.” Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S.

317, 322–23 (1986) (internal quotation marks omitted). In support of his claims,

Carter submitted only his vague, conclusory answers to Family and Child

Treatment’s interrogatories, and “this court has refused to find a genuine issue
page 3

where the only evidence presented is uncorroborated and self-serving testimony.” 

Villiarimo v. Aloha Island Air, Inc., 281 F.3d 1054, 1061 (9th Cir. 2002) (internal

quotation marks omitted); see also FTC v. Publ’g Clearing House, Inc., 104 F.3d

1168, 1171 (9th Cir. 1997) (“A conclusory, self-serving affidavit, lacking detailed

facts and any supporting evidence, is insufficient to create a genuine issue of

material fact.”).

AFFIRMED.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

ALLAN LESLIE SINANAN JR.,

Petitioner :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 203 MAL 2023

Petition for Allowance of Appeal

from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 12th day of September, 2023

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal

is DENIED

.
# FRA SCC What to include where

# FRA Main Worksheet

# Inflation Worksheet

# Previous Infl. Worksheet
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

DEAN ALLEN STEEVES,

Plaintiff

- Appellant,

v.

UNITED STATES INTERNAL REVENUE

SERVICE,

Defendant

- Appellee. No. 22

- 56219

D.C. No. 3:22

- cv

- 00931

- WQH

- DDL

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of California

William Q. Hayes, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted March 26, 2024 * *

Before: TASHIMA, SILVERMAN, and KOH , Circuit Judges.

Dean Allen Steeves appeals pro se from the district court’s order dismissing

for lack of subject matter jurisdiction his action seeking to void notices of intent to

levy issued by the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”). We have jurisdiction under

28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Dexter v. Colvin , 731 F.3d 977, 980 (9th

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 

# FILED

MAR 29 2024

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2 22

- 56219

Cir. 2013). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Steeves’s action as barred by the Anti

Injunction Act (“the Act”) because it is an attempt to restrain the IRS’s tax

assessment and collection activities, and no exception applies. See 26 U.S.C.

§ 7421(a) (listing statutory exceptions); Elias v. Connett , 908 F.2d 521, 523, 525

(9th Cir. 1990) (explaining that the district court “must dismiss for lack of subject

matter jurisdiction any suit that does not fall within one of the exceptions to the

Act” and setting forth l imited judicial exception).

We do not consider arguments and allegations raised for the first time on

appeal. See Padgett v. Wright , 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

Steeves’s motion to correct a typo in the reply brief (Docket Entry No. 25) is

granted. All other pending motions and requests are denied.

AFFIRMED.
No. 44122.

#### Protest 914669-G of Wm. Shaland (New York).

Opinion by

Evans, J.

Four witnesses were called by the importer and two by the defendant. The kazoo part consists of a thin metal tube upon which is surmounted a perforated disk beneath which appears to be a piece of thin paper, and in use the operator is supposed to hum or sing a tune through this tube which, in turn, causes the paper to vibrate and it adds a quality to the tone because of the extra vibration that would not be present if the tune were hummed or the words sjooken away from the tube. This tube has been inserted in a round, cylindrical, decorated bowl which may or may not perform some function which affects the tone that comes from the kazoo. It was stipulated by counsel that Exhibit 1 (the article in question) is made entirely of metal. On the record presented the protest was sustained as to the metal kazoos only.
```

[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 70 (Thursday, April 12, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 18467]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-6925]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RP07-391-000]

Central Kentucky Transmission Company; Notice of Proposed Changes 
in FERC Gas Tariff

April 6, 2007.
    Take notice that on April 2, 2007, Central Kentucky Transmission 
Company (Central Kentucky) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas 
Tariff, Original Volume No. 1, Third Revised Sheet No. 6, with a 
proposed effective date of May 1, 2007.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must 
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of 
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Protests will be 
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to 
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the 
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of 
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, 
motions, or protests must be filed in accordance with the provisions of 
Section 154.210 of the Commission's regulations (18 CFR 154.210). 
Anyone filing an intervention or protest must serve a copy of that 
document on the Applicant. Anyone filing an intervention or protest on 
or before the intervention or protest date need not serve motions to 
intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and 
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an 
original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal 
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the 
``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's 
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription'' 
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail 
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For 
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail 
[email protected], or call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For 
TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

Philis J. Posey,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. E7-6925 Filed 4-11-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
```