alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>

                                                                   Exhibit 10.30


                                                                  May 13th, 2002

                        Memorandum of Understanding (MOU)


This MOU is intended to set forth the understanding between Visteon Corporation
and SmarTire Systems, Inc., who mutually wish to explore the feasibility of
establishing a business relationship for the design, development, and
manufacture of tire pressure sensing systems. The parties mutually agree that
this MOU merely constitutes the parties' non-binding expression of interest and
does not constitute a binding commitment, offer, acceptance or agreement with
respect to any proposed relationship. The expressions set forth in this MOU are
merely general principles and may be overridden by terms, conditions and
refinements as set forth in future agreements, should any be established.

     The main characteristics of the Visteon/SmarTire business relationship
would be:

         I.    Visteon's pursuit of OEM tire pressure sensor business in North
               America, Europe, and Asia. Provided that OEM business is
               obtained, the main characteristics of the subsequent
               Visteon/SmarTire relationship would be:

               a.   SmarTire will provide intellectual property for the design
                    and manufacture of tire pressure sensors, and

               b.   Visteon will provide sensor manufacturing capability.

         II.   Investigation of future joint development of tire pressure
               sensing systems. The main characteristics of this potential joint
               development would be:

               a.   SmarTire would become the provider of tire pressure sensor
                    technologies to Visteon.

               b.   Visteon would provide technologies related to RF receiver
                    and message center products.

         III.  Investigation and joint pursuit of aftermarket tire pressure
               sensor business. Provided that aftermarket business is obtained,
               the main characteristics of the subsequent Visteon/SmarTire
               relationship would be:

               a:   SmarTire would design the receiver and message center
                    products.

               b:   Visteon would provide manufacturing capability for the
                    sensor, RF receiver and message center products.

         IV.   Joint marketing of current and future tire pressure sensing
               systems for the OEM and aftermarket Industries.


               Visteon Corporation                  SmarTire Systems Inc.


               By /s/ Mike Medvec                   By /s/ Robert Rudman
                  -------------------------            -------------------------
               Mike Medvec                          Robert Rudman
               Director of Body Electronics         President and CEO
#### Federal Laboratories, Inc. *v.*United States

No. 5987.

Invoice dated Windsor, Canada, February 3, 1942.

Entered at Pittsburgh, Pa., February 17, 1942.

Entry No. 334.

(Decided February 29, 1944)

*Jerome G. Clifford (George W. Israel*of counsel) for the plaintiff.

*Paul P. Bao,*Assistant Attorney General *(Daniel I. Auster,*special attorney), for the defendant.

Oliver, Presiding Judge:

This appeal for reappraisement has been submitted for decision upon the following stipulation of counsel for the parties hereto:

> It is hereby stipulated and agreed by and between the counsel for the respective parties hereto, subject to the approval of the court, that the market value or price at the time of the exportation of the merchandise described below, at which such or similar merchandise was freely offered for sale to all purchasers in the principal markets of the country from which exported, in the usual wholesale quantities, and in the ordinary course of trade for exportation to the United States, and all other costs, charges, and expenses incident to placing the merchandise in condition, packed, ready for shipment to the United States is the invoice unit price of the merchandise described as lachrymatory capsules, containing 120 capsules to a tin, namely $1.25, United States currency per tin, net, packed.

> It is further stipulated and agreed that there was no higher foreign value for , the merchandise herein at the time of exportation.

> It is further stipulated and agreed that this case may be submitted on the foregoing stipulation.

On the agreed facts I find the export value, as that value is defined in section 402 (d) of the Tariff Act of 1930, to be the proper basis for the determination of the value of the lachrymatory capsules, 120 capsules to a tin, and that-such value is $1.25 United States currency per tin, net, packed.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
Certification

                         Pursuant to Section 906 of the
             Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (Subsections (a) and (b) of
            Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code)

      Pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a)
and (b) of section 1350, a chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code), each of
the undersigned officers of Investors Title Company, a North Carolina
corporation (the "Company"), does hereby certify that:

      The Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2002 (the
"Form 10-K") of the Company fully complies with the requirements of section
13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and information contained
in the Form 10-K fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
condition and results of operations of the Company.

Dated:   March 26, 2003                        /s/ J. Allen Fine
                                               ------------------------
                                               J. Allen Fine
                                               Chief Executive Officer


Dated:   March 26, 2003                        /s/ James A. Fine, Jr.
                                               ------------------------
                                               James A. Fine, Jr.
                                               Chief Financial Officer
##### 



EXHIBIT 32.2 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 Sterling Drilling Fund 1983-2 (the Partnership) on Form
10-K for the period ending December 31, 2004, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
on the date hereof (the Report), I, Beverly A. Cummings, Chief Financial Officer of PrimeEnergy
Management Corporation, the Managing General Partner, certify, 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 result of operations of the Partnership.  /s/ Beverly A. CummingsChief Financial OfficerMarch 29, 2005
# C_2015107EN.01001001.xml

| 30.3.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 107/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.3.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 107/10

---

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 21 January 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof — Austria) — Georg Felber v Bundesministerin für Unterricht, Kunst und Kultur

(Case C-529/13) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Social policy - Directive 2000/78/EC - Article 2(1) and (2)(a) and Article 6(1) and (2) - Difference of treatment on grounds of age - Civil service - Pension scheme - National legislation precluding the taking into account of periods of school education completed before the age of 18))

(2015/C 107/12)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Verwaltungsgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Georg Felber

Defendant: Bundesministerin für Unterricht, Kunst und Kultur

Operative part of the judgment

Article 2(1) and (2)(a) and Article 6(1) of 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, which excludes the crediting of periods of school education completed by a civil servant before the age of 18 for the purpose of the grant of pension entitlement and the calculation of the amount of his retirement pension, in so far as that legislation is objectively and reasonably justified by a legitimate aim relating to employment policy and labour market policy and constitutes an appropriate and necessary means of achieving that aim.

---

(1)  OJ C 15, 18.1.2014.

---
No. 47135.

#### Protest 902885-G of Pratt & Farmer Co. (New York).

*508Opinion by

Dallinger, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel and on the authority of Abstract 43372 the tape measures in question were held dutiable as household utensils at 40 percent under paragraph 339 as claimed.
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 148 (Friday, August 1, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 41366]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-20285]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration


Determination Not To Revoke Countervailing Duty Order

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, 
Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of determination not to revoke countervailing duty 
order.

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

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (the Department) is notifying the 
public of its determination not to revoke the countervailing duty order 
listed below.

EFFECTIVE DATE: August 1, 1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Russell Morris or Maria MacKay, Office of CVD/AD Enforcement VI, Import 
Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of 
Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 
20230; telephone: (202) 482-2786.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On April 29, 1997, the Department published in the Federal Register 
(62 FR 23220) its intent to revoke the following countervailing duty 
order:

                                            Countervailing Duty Order                                           
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Brazil................................  Construction Castings (C-351-   05/09/86, 57 FR 2252                    
                                         504).                                                                  
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under 19 CFR 355.25(d)(4)(iii), the Secretary of Commerce will 
conclude that an order is no longer of interest to interested parties 
and will revoke the order if no domestic interested party (as defined 
in sections 355.2 (i)(3), (i)(4), (i)(5), and (i)(6) of the 
regulations) objects to revocation or no interested party requests an 
administrative review by the last day of the 5th anniversary month.
    Within the specified time frame, we received an objection from a 
domestic interested party to our intent to revoke the countervailing 
duty order. Therefore, because the requirements of 19 CFR 
355.25(d)(4)(iii) have not been met, we will not revoke the order.
    This determination is in accordance with 19 CFR 355.25(d)(4).

    Dated: July 25, 1997.
Jeffrey P. Bialos,
Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 97-20285 Filed 7-31-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-M
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 147 (Thursday, July 31, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 41067-41068]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-20160]


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

NATIONAL INSTITUTES OF HEALTH

National Cancer Institute


Notice of Closed Meetings

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following 
National Cancer Institute Special Emphasis Panel (SEP) meetings:

    Name of SEP: Review of R25 (Education Grants) Applications.
    Date: August 14, 1997.
    Time: 2:00 to Adjournment.
    Place: Teleconference, National Cancer Institute, Executive 
Plaza North, Room 611A, 6130 Executive Boulevard, Bethesda, MD 
20892.
    Contact Person: Mary Bell, Ph.D., Scientific Review 
Administrator, National Cancer Institute, NIH, Executive Plaza 
North, Room 611A, 6130 Executive Boulevard, MSC 7410,

[[Page 41068]]

Bethesda, MD 20892-7410, Telephone: 301/496-7978.
    Purpose/Agenda: To evaluate and review responses to request for 
proposal.
    This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the 
meeting due to the urgent need to meet timing limitations imposed by 
the review and funding cycle.
    Name of SEP: Preclinical Evaluation of Intermediate Endpoints 
and their Modulation by Chemopreventive Agents.
    Date: September 11-12, 1997.
    Time: 9:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m.
    Place: Ramada Inn-Rockville, 1775 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD 
20852.
    Contact Person: Lalita Palekar, Ph.D., Scientific Review 
Administrator, National Cancer Institute, NIH, Executive Plaza 
North, Room 622, 6130 Executive Boulevard, MSC 7410, Bethesda, MD 
20892-7410, Telephone: 301/496-7575.
    Purpose/Agenda: To evaluate and review responses to request for 
proposal.
    The meetings will be closed in accordance with the provisions 
set forth in secs. 552b(c)(4) and 552(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C. 
Applications and the discussions could reveal confidential trade 
secrets or commercial property such as patentable material and 
personal information concerning individuals associated with the 
applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly 
unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Numbers: 93.393, 
Cancer Cause and Prevention Research; 93.394, Cancer Detection and 
Diagnosis Research; 93.395, Cancer Treatment Research; 93.396, 
Cancer Biology Research; 93.397, Cancer Centers Support; 93.398, 
Cancer Research Manpower; 93.399, Cancer Control)

    Dated: July 24, 1997.
LaVerne Y. Stringfield,
Committee Management Officer, NIH.
[FR Doc. 97-20160 Filed 7-30-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-M
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2208 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

112th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 2208

To amend the Export Apple Act to permit the export of apples to Canada 
  in bulk bins without certification by the Department of Agriculture.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             March 20, 2012

Mrs. Gillibrand introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
    referred to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend the Export Apple Act to permit the export of apples to Canada 
  in bulk bins without certification by the Department of Agriculture.

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

SECTION 1. BULK SHIPMENT OF APPLES TO CANADA.

    (a) Bulk Shipment of Apples to Canada.--The Export Apple Act is 
amended by inserting after section 4 (7 U.S.C. 584) the following:

``SEC. 4A. BULK SHIPMENT OF APPLES TO CANADA.

    ``Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, apples may be 
shipped to Canada in bulk bins without complying with this Act.''.
    (b) Definition of Bulk Bin.--Section 9 of the Export Apple Act (7 
U.S.C. 589) is amended--
            (1) by striking ``Sec. 9. That when used in this Act--'' 
        and inserting the following:

``SEC. 9. DEFINITIONS.

    ``In this Act:'';
            (2) by redesignating paragraphs (1), (2), (3), and (4) as 
        paragraphs (4), (5), (3), and (1), respectively; and
            (3) by inserting after paragraph (1) (as so redesignated) 
        the following:
            ``(5) Bulk bin.--The term `bulk bin' means a bin that 
        contains a quantity of apples weighing more than 100 pounds.''.
    (c) Regulations.--Not later than 60 days after the date of 
enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Agriculture shall issue 
regulations to carry out the amendments made by this Act.
                                 <all>
```
No. 00-703.

#### Kates *v.*Ohio.

Ct. App. Ohio, Mahoning County. Certiorari denied.
Exhibit 32.2

                            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 China Natural Gas, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ending June 30, 2006 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), each of
the undersigned, in the capacities and on the date indicated below, hereby
certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to his 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.


Dated: August 3, 2006                      By: /s/ Xiaogang Zhu
                                               ---------------------------------
                                               Xiaogang Zhu
                                               Chief Financial Officer
No. 43239.

#### Protests 729278-G, etc., of F. S. Allenby & Co. et al. (New York).

Opinion by

Kincheloe, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
REGINALD L. HENRY,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO 

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND 

DISPOSITION THEREOF IS FILED

CASE NO. 1D16-2415

_____________________________/

Opinion filed August 15, 2017.

An appeal from the Circuit Court for Leon County.

William Gary, Judge.

Andy Thomas, Public Defender, and Kathleen Stover, Assistant Public Defender, 

Tallahassee, for Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Jason W. Rodriguez and Jennifer Moore, 

Assistant Attorneys General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Appellant challenges the trial court’s denial of two pretrial motions to 

suppress regarding a recording the victim made on her cell phone of a conversation 

with Appellant in which he made threats in an apparent attempt to extort money from 
2

her. It is well-settled that “to raise an error on appeal, a contemporaneous objection 

must be made at the trial level when the alleged error occurred.” Carr v. State, 156 

So. 3d 1052, 1062 (Fla. 2015) (quoting J.B. v. State, 705 So. 2d 1376, 1378 (Fla. 

1998)). Although section 90.104(1), Florida Statutes (2012), provides that, “[i]f the 

court has made a definitive ruling on the record admitting . . . evidence, either at or 

before trial, a party need not renew an objection . . . to preserve a claim of error for 

appeal,” the statute does not apply to the circumstances in the instant case. Here, the 

trial court denied both of Appellant’s motions to suppress and ruled the recording 

was admissible. Subsequently, at trial, the State moved to introduce the recording, 

and Appellant’s counsel affirmatively stated, “no objection.” Pursuant to the Florida 

Supreme Court’s decision in Carr, counsel’s statement of “no objection” acted to 

abandon or waive the prior motions to suppress. See 156 So. 3d at 1062. 

Accordingly, this issue was not preserved for appeal, and we affirm without further 

discussion.

WOLF, RAY, and BILBREY, JJ., CONCUR.
<PAGE>
                                                                   Exhibit 3.115

                            CERTIFICATE OF FORMATION

                                       OF

                               COVER CONCEPTS LLC

      1. The name of the limited liability company is Cover Concepts LLC.

      2. The address of its registered office in the State of Delaware is
Corporation Trust Center, 1209 Orange Street, in the City of Wilmington, County
New Castle. The name of its registered agent at such address is The Corporation
Trust Company.

      3. This Certificate of Formation shall be effective on the date such
certificate is received by the State of Delaware.

      IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned have executed this Certificate of
Formation of Cover Concepts LLC this 22nd day of May, 1997.


                                                   /s/ Beverly C. Chell
                                             -----------------------------------
                                                     Beverly C. Chell
                                                         Secretary
<PAGE>

                            CERTIFICATE OF AMENDMENT

                                       OF

                               COVER CONCEPTS LLC

1. The name of the limited liability company is COVER CONCEPTS LLC.

2. The Certificate of Formation of the limited liability company is hereby
amended as follows:

RESOLVED, that the Certificate of Formation of Cover Concepts LLC be amended by
changing the First Article thereof, so that, as amended, said Article shall be
and read as follows:

      1. The name of the limited liability company is

                      COVER CONCEPTS MARKETING SERVICES LLC

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this Certificate of Amendment
of COVER CONCEPTS LLC this Tenth day of July, 1997.


                                                   /s/ Beverly C. Chell
                                                   ------------------------
                                                   Beverly C. Chell
                                                   Authorized Person