alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>   1
Page 1                                                               EXHIBIT 99




FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
APRIL 27, 1998

TOREADOR ROYALTY EVALUATES STRATEGIC OPTIONS

DALLAS, APRIL 27 --  TOREADOR ROYALTY CORPORATION (NASDAQ-NMS: TRGL)
announced that it is actively seeking acquisition and merger partners through
its financial advisor, Dain Rauscher Wessels.

According to Mark McLaughlin, president of Toreador, "The last two years of
exploration have been among the most successful in Toreador's long history.
Since January 1, 1997, 18 wells have been drilled on the company's mineral
acreage, of which eight were successfully completed. The operators of all these
wells, including Louis Dreyfus Natural Gas Corp., Apache Corp. and Corlena Oil
Company, utilized 3-D seismic technology in siting the wells. This record of
success reflects Toreador's continuing intensive efforts to encourage 3-D
seismic exploration on the company's extensive mineral acreage.

"We believe that with our current momentum of exploratory success, now is the
optimum time to take aggressive action to create maximum value for all
shareholders in the company. Therefore, we are actively seeking proposals for
merger, acquisition, or other transactions that will generate shareholder value
and encourage further exploration of the company's properties."

Mr. McLaughlin added, "The company's board will be deliberate in its review of
strategic alternatives. If no satisfactory proposal emerges, Toreador will
continue its ongoing business of generating exploration activity on its mineral
acreage."

Except for historical information contained herein, the matters set forth in
this release are "forward looking statements" within the meaning of Section 27A
of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and Section 21E of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, that are dependent on certain risks and
uncertainties inherent in petroleum exploration, development and production,
including, but not limited to, the risk that no commercially productive oil and
gas reservoirs will be encountered using any exploration technology, including
3-D seismic; the risk that drilling operations may be delayed or canceled; the
uncertainty of oil and gas prices; the uncertainty that results from intense
competition in the oil and gas industry; operational risks (e.g., fires,
explosions, blowouts, cratering and loss of production); insurance coverage
limitations and requirements; and potential liability imposed by intense
governmental regulation of oil and gas production; all of which are beyond the
control of the company. Further, there can be no assurance that a sale of merger
of the company or other business combination involving the company will be
consummated, and if so consummated, on terms that are favorable to the company
and its stockholders.

Contact:   John Mark McLaughlin, chairman and president
           214-369-0080
EXHIBIT 35.1














SERVICER COMPLIANCE STATEMENT OF TOYOTA MOTOR CREDIT CORPORATION (“THE SERVICER”)








I, Chris Ballinger, certify that:





(a)   A review of the Servicer’s activities and of its performance under the applicable sale and servicing agreement during the period from September 29, 2010 to December 31, 2010 has been made under my supervision.





(b)   To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Servicer has fulfilled all of its obligations under the Sale and Servicing Agreement in all material respects throughout the aforementioned period.








March 29, 2011








/S/ CHRIS BALLINGER


Chris Ballinger


Group Vice President and


Chief Financial Officer of


Toyota Motor Credit Corporation, as Servicer of the Toyota Auto Receivables 2010-C Owner Trust


- 23 -
EXHIBIT 10.25.1

Amendment to Agreement (to Provide Materials and Services)

This Amendment to Agreement ("Agreement") will serve to amend the Agreement dated February 6, 2001 entered between Union Carbide Corporation ("UCC") and
Dow Hydrocarbons and Resources Inc. ("DHRI"). Under that Agreement ("the Agreement"), DHRI agreed to provide UCC with feedstocks, monomers, fuels and logistics services. UCC and DHRI now desire
to modify the Agreement as follows:













41

---



IN
WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Amendment effective January 1, 2002.

| | UNION CARBIDE CORPORATION                
| | -----------------------------------------
| | By:                                      
| | Title:                                   
| | DHRI: DOW HYDROCARBONS AND RESOURCES INC.
| | By:                                      
| | Title:                                   

42

---

QuickLinks
AAM
- 10
- 255
- E

May 5, 2010 Exemption No. 10060 Regulatory

Docket No. FAA
- 2010
- 0456
Mr. Grant E. Goetsch Vice President, Flight Operations Wisconsin Aviation, I nc. 3606 Corb en Court Madison, WI53704 Dear Mr. Goetsch : This letter is to inform y ou that we have granted y our request for exemption. I t transmits our decision, explains its basis, and gives y ou the conditions and limitations of the exemption, including the date it ends. **The Basis for Our Decision** By letter dated April 1 2 , 2010 , y ou petitioned the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) on behalf of Wisconsin Aviation, I nc. ( Wisconsin Aviation ) , for an exemption from part 120 of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulation s (14 CFR). That exemption, if granted, would allow Wisconsin Aviation , which is operating under separate parts of the regulations, to cover its safety
- sensitive employ ees under one testing program
. The FAA has determined that good cause exists for not publishing a summary of the petition in the Federal Register because the requested exemption would not set a precedent, and any delay in acting on this petition would be detrimental to Wisconsin Aviation. The FAA has issued a grant of exemption in circum stances similar in all material respects to those presented in y our petition. InGrant of Exemption No. 9703 (copy enclosed), the FAA found that Solid Edge’s § 91.147 air tour operations were closely connected to its part 135 operations. The FAA also found that combining the petitioner’s two testing programs into one would be in the public interest and would maintain an equivalent level of safety to that2

provided by

the current regulations. Thus, the FAA concluded it was unnecessary to burden the petitio ner by

requiring it to conduct two separate testing programs. Having reviewed y our reasons for requesting an exemption, I find that

—  they do no t differ materially

from those presented by

the petitioner in the enclosed grant of exemption;  the reasons state d by

the FAA for g ranting the enclosed exemption also apply to the situation y ou present; and  a grant of exemption is in the public interest. **Our Decision** Under the authority

contained in 49 U.S.C. 40113 and 44701, which the FAA Administrator has delegat ed to me, Ihereby grant Wisconsin Aviation, Inc., an exemption from part 120 to the extent necessary

to allow Wisconsin Aviation , which is operating under separate parts of the regulations, to cover its safety
- sensitive employ ees under one testing program , subject to the conditions and limit ation s described below. **Conditions and Limitations** 1. E mploy ees of Wisconsin Aviation are subject to the drug and alcohol regulations at all times while conducting operations under part 135 or part 91. 2. The dru g and alcohol testing program must be implemented under the auspices of the Wisconsin Aviation part 135 operation, not under part 91. This exempt ion terminates on April 30, 2012 , unless sooner superseded or rescinded. Sincerely , /s/ James R. Fraser Deputy Federal Air Surgeon

Enclosure
# C_2017374EN.01003001.xml

| 6.11.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 374/30 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.11.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 374/30

---

Judgment of the General Court of 22 September 2017 — Wanègue v Committee of the Regions

(Case T-682/15 P) (1)

1

((Appeal - Civil service - Officials - Working conditions - Overtime - Chauffeur in grade AST 6 - Withdrawal of entitlement to the fixed allowance for overtime - Equality of arms - Obligation to state reasons - Errors in law - Distortion of the facts))

(2017/C 374/44)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Appellant: Patrick Wanègue (Dilbeek, Belgium) (represented by: M.-A. Lucas, lawyer)

Appellant:

Other party to the proceedings: Committee of the Regions (represented by: J. C. Cañoto Argüelles and S. Bachotet, agents, and by B. Wägenbaur, lawyer)

Other party to the proceedings:

Re:

Re:

Appeal lodged against the order of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 15 September 2015, Wanègue v Committee of the Regions (F 21/15, EU:F:2015:102), seeking to have that order set aside.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | dismisses the appeal; |
| --- | --- |

1.

dismisses the appeal;

| 2. | orders Mr Patrick Wanègue to bear his own costs and those incurred by the Committee of the Regions in the present appeal. |
| --- | --- |

2.

orders Mr Patrick Wanègue to bear his own costs and those incurred by the Committee of the Regions in the present appeal.

---

(1)  OJ C 59, 15.2.2016.

1

---
Before the Third Division,

February 4, 1942

No. 46919.

#### Protests 789291-G, etc., of Continental Grain Co. et al. (Baltimore, etc.).

Opinion by

Cline, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court, dismissed the protests.
**Exhibit
        32.1**
 
 
 
 Certification
        of CEO 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 Quarterly Report of U.S. Energy Corp. (the "Company")
        on
        Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2007 as filed with the Securities
        and
        Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), Keith G. Larsen Chief
        Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
        Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
        of
        2002, to the best of his knowledge, 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 result of operations of the Company.
 
 
 
 /s/
                  Keith G. LarsenKeith
                  G. Larsen,Chief
                  Executive OfficerAugust
                  14, 2007
 
 
 This
        certification accompanies this Report pursuant to Section 906 of the
        Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not be deemed filed by the Company for
        purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
        amended.
 
 A
        signed
        original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided
        to
        U.S. Energy Corp. and will be retained by U.S. Energy Corp. and furnished
        to the
        Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
        request.
#### Lyon *versus*Sibley.

After evidence has been given by both parties, a nonsuit cannot rightfully be entered.

Exceptions from the District Court.

Assumpsit to recover the value of a mill log. The plaintiff called a witness, who testified to the plaintiff’s ownership of *577the log, and that it was used in 1849, as one of the boom-sticks of which the defendant’s boom was made, that the defendant had occupied and used the boom for the years, 1847, 8 and 9, and that he, the witness, had paid to the defendant boomage for logs secured in that Jboom within those years.

The defendant called a witness, who testified, *that*he and one French built the boom in the spring of 1849, where a boom had previously been; *that*they used the plaintiff’s log, as one of the boom sticks ; that, after a month or two, they sold the upper part of the boom, including the plaintiff’s log, to one Ward, who occupied the boom the rest of that season.

On cross-examination, he stated that Ward and the defendant were co-partners and worked together before the sale to Ward; that, after that sale, they worked together upon the part of the boom so sold to Ward, and that they each paid one half of the price.

The Judge ordered a nonsuit, and the plaintiff excepted.

*H. W.*Paine, for the plaintiff,

contended, that the testimony of the plaintiff’s witness made a sufficient case to go to the jury.

*Vose,*for the defendant.

The form of the action is misconceived; it should have been in trover or trespass. No promise to pay can possibly be implied. And the tort is of a character which cannot be waived. The nonsuit was therefore properly ordered. 5 Pick. 285.

Tenney, J.,

orally.—It is the right of a Judge to order a nonsuit after the plaintiff’s testimony shall have all been given, if he deem it incompetent to maintain the suit. Such a proceeding would, of course, be subject to the plaintiff’s right of excepting.

But can a nonsuit be entered after the defendant has been allowed to introduce evidence? So far as we know, this question is now, *for the first time,*presented to the full court *578for decision. We think, in that stage of the case, a nonsuit cannot be ordered, not even if the Judge should consider the plaintiff’s evidence insufficient. The plaintiff’s case might derive aid from the defendant’s testimony. The defendant might put interrogatories to a witness, which the plaintiff could not. After evidence on both sides, the defendant has a right to insist that a verdict be rendered. Of the effect of the evidence in this case, we form no opinion. Our decision is based solely upon that principle, which secures to the court and to the jury their respective provinces.

*Exceptions sustained.*
No. 43088.

#### Protest 928818-G of Milnor Inc. (Honolulu).

Opinion by

Keefe, J.

On the authority of *Kwong*v. *United States*(T. D. 49409) the wooden stands in question were held separately dutiable at *33V%*percent under paragraph 412 as claimed.
1

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 41073

STATE OF IDAHO,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

MELISSA ANNE HERNANDEZ, aka 

STEVENSON,

Defendant-Appellant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

2014 Unpublished Opinion No. 306

Filed: January 6, 2014

Stephen W. Kenyon, Clerk

THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED 

OPINION AND SHALL NOT 

BE CITED AS AUTHORITY

Appeal from the District Court of the Fourth Judicial District, State of Idaho, Ada

County. Hon. Deborah A. Bail, District Judge. 

Judgment of conviction and unified sentence of fifteen years, with a minimum 

period of confinement of two and one-half years, for felony driving under the 

influence of alcohol with a persistent violator sentencing enhancement, affirmed.

Sara B. Thomas, State Appellate Public Defender; Kimberly E. Smith, Deputy 

Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant. 

Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Kenneth K. Jorgensen, Deputy 

Attorney General, Boise, for respondent. 

________________________________________________

Before GUTIERREZ, Chief Judge; LANSING, Judge;

and GRATTON, Judge

PER CURIAM

Melissa Anne Hernandez was convicted of felony driving under the influence of alcohol, 

Idaho Code §§ 18-8004, 18-8005(6), with a persistent violator sentencing enhancement, I.C. 

§ 19-2514. The district court sentenced Hernandez to a unified term of fifteen years with a 

minimum period of confinement of two and one-half years. She filed an Idaho Criminal Rule 35 

motion for reduction of sentence which was denied. Hernandez appeals, contending that her 

sentence is excessive.
2

Sentencing is a matter for the trial court’s discretion. Both our standard of review and the 

factors to be considered in evaluating the reasonableness of the sentence are well established and 

need not be repeated here. See State v. Hernandez, 121 Idaho 114, 117-18, 822 P.2d 1011, 1014-

15 (Ct. App. 1991); State v. Lopez, 106 Idaho 447, 449-51, 680 P.2d 869, 871-73 (Ct. App. 

1984); State v. Toohill, 103 Idaho 565, 568, 650 P.2d 707, 710 (Ct. App. 1982). When reviewing 

the length of a sentence, we consider the defendant’s entire sentence. State v. Oliver, 144 Idaho 

722, 726, 170 P.3d 387, 391 (2007). Applying these standards, and having reviewed the record 

in this case, we cannot say that the district court abused its discretion.

Therefore, Hernandez’s judgment of conviction and sentence are affirmed.
Jump to main content.

Science Policy

Recent Additions | Contact Us**Search:**All EPAThis Area

    - You are here:  EPA Home
    - Research & Development
    - Science Policy
    - Superfund and Technology Liaisons
    - Technical Support Times Newsletter

----

# Technical Support Times

    You will need Adobe Reader to view some of the files on this page.    See EPA's PDF page to learn more.  

The Technical Support Times is an online newsletter by the STLs    highlighting EPA's field activities, research, and new documents on    current topics.
| **2008** | Nanotechnology (Issue #6)(PDF, 8pp., 1.3MB)                                                                                                             |
|----------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| **2007** | Region 3 Optimization Study of Fund-Lead Pump-and-Treat Superfund Sites (Issue #5)(PDF, 4pp., 1.2MB)                                                    |
| **2006** | Mine Waste Characterization (Issue #4)(PDF, 6pp., 851KB)                                                                                                |
| **2005** | Contaminant Fingerprinting (Issue #3)(PDF, 6pp., 191KB)

Phytoremediation (Issue #2)(PDF, 6pp., 266KB)

The Oxygenate MTBE (Issue #1)(PDF, 6pp., 193KB) |

----

### Local Navigation

    - Home
    - Role of Science at EPA
    - Research Directions        - National Research Programs
      - Environmental Futures
      - ORD Strategic Plan 
    - Partners in Science        - Program Support
      - Regions
      - Superfund and Technology Liaisons
      - Federal Technology Transfer Act
      - Environmental Justice
      - Tribal Science 

----

    - EPA Home
    - Privacy and Security Notice
    - Contact Us

Jump to main content.
# C_2016222EN.01003502.xml

| 20.6.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 222/35 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.6.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 222/35

---

Order of the General Court of 20 April 2016 — DHL Express (France) v EUIPO — Chronopost (WEBSHIPPING)

(Case T-142/15) (1)

(2016/C 222/44)

Language of the case: French

The President of the Seventh Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 171, 26.5.2015.

---
**
**Exhibit 31.3**

**Certification Pursuant to Rule 13a-14(a) and Rule 15d-14(a)**

**of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934**

I, Thomas J. Quinlan, III, certify that: 

 
1.
I have reviewed this Amendment No. 1 to the Annual Report on Form10-K of LSC Communications, Inc.; and 

 
2.
Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state amaterial fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report. 

 
Date: April 12, 2019                     /s/    THOMAS J. QUINLAN,III                   **Thomas J. Quinlan, III**   **Chairman and Chief Executive Officer****
# C_2016059EN.01000902.xml

| 15.2.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 59/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.2.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 59/9

---

Appeal brought on 8 December 2015 by Viasat Broadcasting UK Ltd against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 24 September 2015 in Case T-125/12: Viasat Broadcasting UK Ltd v European Commission

(Case C-660/15 P)

(2016/C 059/09)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Appellant: Viasat Broadcasting UK Ltd (represented by: M. Honoré and S. Kalsmose-Hjelmborg, advokater)

Appellant:

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission, Kingdom of Denmark, TV2/Danmark A/S

Other parties to the proceedings:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

| — | set aside the judgment in Case T-125/12, Viasat Broadcasting UK Ltd v Commission, and |
| --- | --- |

—

set aside the judgment in Case T-125/12, Viasat Broadcasting UK Ltd v Commission, and

| — | annul Commission Decision 2011/839/EU (1) of 20 April 2011 on measures adopted by the Danish state in favour of TV2/Danmark (EUT 2011 L 340, s. 1), and |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Commission Decision 2011/839/EU (1) of 20 April 2011 on measures adopted by the Danish state in favour of TV2/Danmark (EUT 2011 L 340, s. 1), and

1

| — | order the defendant at first instance to pay the costs of Viasat both incurred in the first instance and before your Court
  alternatively, |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant at first instance to pay the costs of Viasat both incurred in the first instance and before your Court

alternatively,

| — | set aside the judgment under appeal, and |
| --- | --- |

—

set aside the judgment under appeal, and

| — | refer the case back to the General Court, and |
| --- | --- |

—

refer the case back to the General Court, and

| — | reserve the costs of the proceedings at first instance and on. |
| --- | --- |

—

reserve the costs of the proceedings at first instance and on.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the form of order sought, Viasat contends that the General Court erred in law when stating that in its assessment under Article 106(2) TFEU the Commission was not required to take account of the fact that aid to TV2 had been granted without observing fundamental principles of transparency and cost efficiency.

More in particular, Viasat contends that the General Court erred in law (1) by relying on the M6 judgment and the related case law to dismiss Viasat’s claims, (2) by holding that Viasat’s arguments lead to a ‘logical impasse’ (3) by rejecting the significance of the 2005 and 2011 SGEI Communications and the 2009 Broadcasting Communication (4) by holding that the 2001 Broadcasting Communication prevented the Commission from applying the methodology which, in Viasat’s view, flows from Article 106(2) TFEU.

---

(1)  Commission Decision of 20 April 2011 on the measures implemented by Denmark (C 2/03) for TV2/Danmark

1

OJ L 340, p. 1.

---
**EXHIBIT 32.2**

  

CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,

asadopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

 

In connection with the quarterly report on Form 10-Q of UnicoAmerican Corporation (the "Company") for the period ended September 30, 2018, as filed with the Securitiesand Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Michael Budnitsky, Chief FinancialOfficer of the Company, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-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, as amended; and

 

2.      the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in allmaterial respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

 

     /s/ MichaelBudnitsky

Name:  Michael Budnitsky

Title:    Treasurer,Chief Financial Officer and Secretary

Date:   November 15, 2018
No. 54870.

#### Marr Duplicator Co. et al. *v.*United States,

protests 820563-G, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Rao, J.

The protests were dismissed.