alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 96 (Friday, May 18, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 28091]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-9581]


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

SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION

[Disaster Declaration <greek-i> 10866 and <greek-i> 10867]


Kansas Disaster Number KS-00018

AGENCY: Small Business Administration.

ACTION: Amendment 1.

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

SUMMARY: This is an amendment of the Presidential declaration of a 
major disaster for the State of Kansas ( FEMA-1699-DR), dated 05/06/
2007.
    Incident: Severe Storms, Tornadoes, and Flooding.
    Incident Period: 05/04/2007 and continuing.

DATES: Effective Date: 05/11/2007.
    Physical Loan Application Deadline Date: 07/05/2007.
    EIDL Loan Application Deadline Date: 02/06/2008.

ADDRESSES: Submit completed loan applications to: U.S. Small Business 
Administration, Processing And Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport 
Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: A. Escobar, Office of Disaster 
Assistance, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street, SW, 
Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The notice of the Presidential disaster 
declaration for the State of Kansas, dated 05/06/2007 is hereby amended 
to include the following areas as adversely affected by the disaster:
    Primary Counties: Edwards, Pratt, Stafford.
    Contiguous Counties: Kansas: Barton, Hodgeman, Kingman, Pawnee, 
Reno, Rice.
    All other information in the original declaration remains 
unchanged.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers 59002 and 59008)

James E. Rivera,
Acting Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance.
 [FR Doc. E7-9581 Filed 5-17-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8025-01-P
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-6750

MOYA MOORE,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA, on relation of James

E. Long, Commissioner of Insurance of North

Carolina,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Fox, Chief District

Judge. (CA-95-457-5-HC-F)

Submitted: July 23, 1996 Decided: August 6, 1996

Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Moya Moore, Appellant Pro Se. Clarence DelForge, III, OFFICE OF

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NORTH CAROLINA, Raleigh, North Carolina,

for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant seeks to appeal the district court's order denying

relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (1988), as

amended by Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996,

Pub. L. No. 104-132, 110 Stat. 1217. We have reviewed the record

and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error.

Accordingly, although we grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis,

we deny a certificate of probable cause to appeal; to the extent

that a certificate of appealability is required, we deny such a

certificate. We dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district

court. Moore v. State of South Carolina, No. CA-95-457-5-HC-F

(E.D.N.C. Apr. 16, 1996). Furthermore, we deny Appellant's motion

to appoint counsel. 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
Memorandum - Informing, Waiving and Amending Loan Conditions and Covenants



 Exhibit 10.16.1 
 Memorandum regarding 
 Informing, Waiving, and Amending 
 Loan Conditions and Covenants 
 Between Fabrinet Co., Ltd. and Export-Import Bank of Thailand 
 24 September 2007 
 1. Matters to be informed 
 In order to comply with covenants in the
Loan Agreements regarding notice of any material change, Fabrinet would like to inform that we have the following events/circumstances/changes occurred or will occur in the near future: 
 1.1 Fabrinet has planned listing in the U.S. stock exchange market 
 1.2 Reissuing of new set of financial
statements due to planned listing 
 In conjunction with the planned listing and the preparation of the year end financial statements; the company will
provide you a set of financial statements for the year ended June 30, 2007, 2006 and 2005 that meet the PCAOB and SEC rules and regulations (not previously required as we were a privately held company). 
 1.3 Director resigned 
 Fabrinet (Cayman Islands)’s director,
Debora Shoquist, was resigned on 30 August 2007. 
 2. Waivers 
 There are some covenants or conditions which are affected from such event/circumstances or we breached or did not comply with them. In any case, we would ask for waiver, confirm that the bank will not accelerate the
payment of the outstanding balance for the following fiscal year ended June 30, 2008, and the company will continue to make the originally scheduled principal and interest payments. They are as follows: 
 2.1 Waiver of certain breach of covenant 
 2.1.1
Mortgage Property to TMB Bank 
 Clause 7.10 Borrower will not transfer, lend or pledge assets to other entities that will give
those the rights over the assets of the borrower, except for doing such action to the Lender or obtain consent letter in advance from the Lender or it is in normal course of business of the Borrower. 
 Since Fabrinet entered into the Loan Agreement dated 4 April 2007 with TMB Bank Public Company Limited for construction of Building 5 and mortgaged such building
and land as collateral, we would like to seek the written consent from EXIM Bank. 
  

			
	Request by Fabrinet Co., Ltd.
		
	Signature:	 	 
	Name:	 	Soon Kaewchansilp, Director

 Export-Import Bank of Thailand agrees and consents to amend as requested. 
  

			
		
	Signature:	 	 
	Name:
Second
      Amendment

    To
      The

    Management
      Services Agreement

    


    This
      Amendment (the “Amendment”), entered into this 31st
      day of
      August 2007, is to the Management Services Agreement (the “Agreement”) entered
      into on February 6, 2006, with an effective date of February 1, 2006, by and
      between White Mountain Titanium Corporation and Mr. Charles E.
      Jenkins.

    


    IT
      IS
      HEREBY AGREED AS FOLLOWS:

    


    1. The
      increase to compensation by 20% to reflect the devaluation of the US dollar.
      Such adjustment increased monthly compensation to US$6,000.00.

     

    2. Except
      as
      amended hereby, the Agreement shall continue to be, and shall remain, in full
      force and effect. Except as provided herein, this Amendment shall not be deemed
      (i) to be a waiver of, or consent to, or a modification or amendment of, any
      other term or condition of the Agreement or (ii) to prejudice any right or
      rights which the parties may now have or may have in the future under or in
      connection with the Agreement or any of the instruments or agreements referred
      to therein, as the same may be amended, restated, supplemented or otherwise
      modified from time to time.

    


    3. The
      terms
      of the Agreement are incorporated herein by reference and shall form a part
      of
      this Amendment as if set forth herein in their entirety.

    


    IN
      WITNESS WHEREOF,
      each of
      the parties hereto has executed this Agreement the respective day and year
      set
      forth below.

    


    
      	 	
              White Mountain Titanium Corporation

            
	 	 	 
	
              Date:
                August 31, 2007

            	
              By
                

            	
              /s/
                Terese Gieselman

            
	 	 	
              Terese Gieselman, Corporate Secretary

            
	 	 	 
	 	Charles E. Jenkins
	 	 	 
	
              Date:
                August 31, 2007

            	
              By
                

            	
              /s/
                Charles E. Jenkins

            
	 	 	
              Charles E. Jenkins
# C_2012319EN.01001402.xml

| 20.10.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 319/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.10.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 319/14

---

Action brought on 20 August 2012 — REWE-Zentral v OHIM — Planet GDZ (PRO PLANET)

(Case T-373/12)

2012/C 319/27

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: REWE-Zentral AG (Cologne, Germany) (represented by: M. Kinkeldey and A. Bognár, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Planet GDZ AG (Tagelswangen, Switzerland)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 14 June 2012 in Case R 1350/2011-1; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 14 June 2012 in Case R 1350/2011-1;

| — | order the defendant to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: the applicant

Applicant for a Community trade mark:

Community trade mark concerned: the figurative mark including the word element ‘PRO PLANET’ for goods in Classes 6, 17 and 19

Community trade mark concerned:

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Planet GDZ AG

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings:

Mark or sign cited in opposition: the international registration of the word mark ‘PLANET’ for goods in Classes 6 and 19

Mark or sign cited in opposition:

Decision of the Opposition Division: the opposition was upheld

Decision of the Opposition Division:

Decision of the Board of Appeal: the appeal was dismissed

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009

Pleas in law:

---
#### Keith Albert SOANES, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 97-3084.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Oct. 21, 1998.

John H. Lipinski, Hollywood, for appellant.

Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General, for appellee.

Before SCHWARTZ, C.J., and COPE and LEVY, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Keith Albert Soanes appeals orders revoking his community control and sentencing him to prison. The trial court’s oral pronouncement indicates that the identical order of revocation was to be issued in circuit court ease numbers 94-38315 and 95-36588, but the written revocation order bears only case number 94-38315. We remand for entry of the identical revocation order in case number 95-36588, in conformity with the trial court’s oral pronouncement.

On the merits, the revocation findings are amply supported by the record and, accordingly, the orders of revocation in both cases are affirmed.

*379Affirmed; remanded for entry of written revocation order.
# C_2014395EN.01003501.xml

| 10.11.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 395/35 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.11.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 395/35

---

Judgment of the General Court of 26 September 2014 — Flying Holding and Others v Commission

(Joined Cases T-91/12 and T-280/12) (1)

((Public service contracts - Tendering procedure - Provision of non-scheduled passenger transport services by air and chartered air-taxi service - Rejection of the application - Article 94(b) of the Financial Regulation - Rights of the defence - Article 134(5) of the Regulation implementing the Financial Regulation - Action for annulment - Letter in response to a question from the applicants - Act not amenable to review - Award decision - Lack of direct concern - Inadmissible - Non-contractual liability))

(2014/C 395/41)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicants: Flying Holding NV (Wilrijk, Belgium), Flying Group Lux SA (Luxembourg, Luxembourg), and Flying Service NV (Deurne, Belgium) (represented by: C. Doutrelepont and V. Chapoulaud, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: initially by S. Delaude and D. Calciu, acting as Agents, and subsequently by S. Delaude, assisted by V. Vanden Acker, lawyer)

Re:

Action for annulment of (i) the decisions contained in the letters from the Commission of 15 December 2011 and 17 January 2012 rejecting the application submitted by the applicants in the context of a restricted tendering procedure concerning the provision of non-scheduled passenger transport services by air and chartered air-taxi service (OJ 2011/S 192-312059) and (ii) the Commission’s decision of 28 February 2012 awarding the contract to another company, on the one hand, and a claim for damages on the other.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the actions; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the actions;

| 2. | Orders Flying Holding NV, Flying Group Lux SA and Flying Service NV to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Flying Holding NV, Flying Group Lux SA and Flying Service NV to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 126, 28.4.2012.

---
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 21
- 1836

In re: DEAFUEH MONBO , Petitioner.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus . ( 1:21

- cv - 00004

- CCB )

Submitted : September 14, 2021 Decided: September 17, 2021

Before THACKER and RICHARDSON , Circuit Judges , and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge

.
Petition denied by un published per curiam opinion

.
Deafueh Monbo , Petitioner Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Deafueh Monbo petitions for a writ of mandamus seeking an order directing the recusal of the district court judge presiding over her civil action. We conclude that Monbo
i s not entitled to mandamus relief. Mandamus relief is a drastic remedy and should be used only in extraordinary circumstances. Cheney v. U.S. Dist. Ct. , 542 U.S. 367, 380 (2004) ; In re Murphy

- Brown,
LLC , 907 F.3d 788, 795 (4th Cir. 2018) . Further, mandamus relief is available only when the petitioner has a c lear right to the relief sought and “has no other adequate means to attain the relief she desires.” Murphy

- Brown , 907 F.3d at 795 (internal quotation marks omitted). “A district judge’s refusal to disqualify h[er]self can be reviewed in this circuit by w ay of a petition for a writ of mandamus.” In re Beard , 811 F.2d 818, 827 (4th Cir. 1987). Monbo’s conclusory assertions of bias are based solely on the district judge’s adverse rulings, which is insufficient to warrant the recusal of the district judge

. See Belue v. Leventhal , 640 F.3d 567, 573 (4th Cir. 2011). Accordingly, we deny the petition for writ of mandamus. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and a rgument would not aid the decisional process.
PETITION DENIED
Exhibit 32.01  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 Quarterly Report of Friendly Energy Exploration (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2011 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Douglas Tallant, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 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/ Douglas Tallant By: Douglas Tallant Chief Executive Officer  Dated: August 11, 2011  A signed original of this written statement 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 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.
### NUMBER 13 - 1 9 - 000 85 - C R COURT OF APPEALS THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

IN RE JOSEPH BELL

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.


## MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Benavides, Longoria , and Hinojosa Memorandum Opinion by Justice Benavides 1
Relator Joseph Bell, proceeding pro se, filed a n application for writ of mandamus in the above cause on February 22, 2019

. To be entitled to mandamus relief, the relator must establish both that he has no adequate remedy at law to redress his alleged harm, and that what he seeks to compel is a ministerial act not involving a discretionary or judicial decision. State ex rel. Young v. Sixth Judicial Dist. Court of Appeals at Tex arkana , 236 S.W.3d 207, 210 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007). If the relator fails to meet both requirements, then the petition for writ of

1 See T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 52.8(d) ( “ When denying relief, the court may hand down an opinion but is not required to do so. ” ); T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 47.4 (distinguishing opinions and memorandum opinions).2

mandamus should be denied. See id . I t is the relator ’ s burden to properly request and show entitlement to mandamus relief. Walker v. Packer , 827 S.W.2d 833, 837 (Tex. 1992) (orig. proceeding) ; In re Davidson , 153 S.W.3d 490, 491 (Tex. App.

— Amarillo 2004, orig. proceeding); see Barnes v. State , 832 S.W.2d 424, 426 (Tex. App.

— Houston [1st Dist.] 1992, orig. proceeding) ( “ Even a pro se applicant for a writ of mandamus must show himself entitled to the extraordinary relief he seeks. ” ). In addition to other requirements, the relator must include a statement of facts supported by citations to “competent evidence included in the app endix or record,” and must also provide “a clear and concise argument for the contentions made, with appropriate citations to authorities and to the appendix or record

. ” See generally T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 52.3; see also Walker , 827 S.W.2d at 837; In re Blakene y , 254 S. W.3d 659, 661 (Tex. App.

— Texarkana 2008, orig. proceeding). The Court, having examined and fully considered the petition for writ of mandamus and the applicable law, is of the opinion that relator has not met his burden to obtain mandamus relief

. State ex rel. Young , 236 S.W.3d at 210

. The petition fails to comply with the foregoing rules and w e are unable to ascertain either the identity of the respondent in this original proceeding or the nature of the relief sought. Accordingly, the petitio n for writ of mandamus is DENIED. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 52.8(a).

GINA M. BENAVIDES , Justice Do not publish. T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 47.2(b).
D elivered and filed the 26th day of February , 201 9

.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

________________________________ )

DAVONTA MELVIN ROWLAND

, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) Civil Action No. 1 4

- 0031 (EGS)

)

UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT

, )

)

Defendant. )

________________________________ )

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Defendant removed this action from the Superior Court of the District of Columbia and

has move d to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Def.’s Mot.

to Dismiss Compl. [Dkt. # 2 ]

. Plaintiff has filed a motion to strike , which is liberally construed

as his response [Dk t. # 5] , and defendant has filed a reply [Dkt. # 6]

. Plaintiff sues the United

States Supreme Court for $18 billion

. The complaint is vague and disjointed but plaintiff seems

to complain about the Supreme Court ’ s treatment of one of his case s that was dismissed by this

c ourt

.

To the extent that the c omplaint is against the Justices of the Supreme Court

, the Supreme

Court ’ s Clerk

, or other Supreme Court employees

, which is the only plausible reading, defendant

correctly argue s that it is shielded from this suit by absolute judicial immunity. See Sindram v.

Suda , 986 F.2d 1459, 1460 (D.C. Cir. 1993) ( holding that “ clerks, like judges, are immune from

damage suits for performance of tasks that are an integral part of the judicial process ” ) (citations

omitted). Hence, d efendant ’ s motion to dismiss is granted

. A separate order accompanies this

Memorandum Opinion.

SIGNED: EMMET G. S ULLIVAN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

DATE: April 1 , 2014
---

Exhibit 99.6

PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP **Chartered Accountants** 
PricewaterhouseCoopers Place 
250 Howe Street, Suite 700 
Vancouver, British Columbia 
Canada V6C 3S7 
Telephone +1 604 806 7000 
Facsimile +1 604 806 7806 
www.pwc.com/ca
  Consent of Independent Accountants   We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in registration statement S-8 (File no. 333-100832) of Pacific Rim Mining Corp. of our report dated July 23, 2010 relating to the consolidated financial statements which appears in this Annual Report on Form 20-F.  /s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP Vancouver, B.C.
July 28, 2010 PricewaterhouseCoopers refers to PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, an Ontario limited liability partnership, or, as the context requires, the PricewaterhouseCoopers global network or other member firms of the network, each of which is a separate legal entity.


---
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 Justice

###### Antitrust Division 

                    Notice is hereby given that, on March 27, 2008, pursuant to Section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301*et seq.*                     (“the Act”), Green Building Certification Institute (“GBCI”) has filed written notifications simultaneously with the Attorney General and the Federal Trade Commission disclosing (1) the name and principal place of business of the standards development organization and (2) the nature and scope of its standards development activities. The notifications were filed for the purpose of invoking the Act's provisions limiting the recovery of antitrust plaintiffs to actual damages under specified circumstances.                 

                    Pursuant to Section 6(b) of the Act, the name and principal place of                           ( print page 26414)                        business of the standards development organization: Green Building Certification Institute, Washington, DC. The nature and scope of GBCI's standards development activities are: The development of consensus standards for competency in measuring and increasing the environmental efficiency of buildings and communities.                 

Patricia A. Brink, 

Deputy Director of Operations,  Antitrust Division.

 [FR Doc. E8-10147 Filed 5-8-08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4410-11-M