alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
AMENDMENT NO. 1
                                
                               TO
                                
                            AGREEMENT
                                
                                
      ZHAO DONG BLOCK, OFFSHORE PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA
                                
                                
     This  Amendment  made effective the 13th  day  of  December,
1996  among  APACHE  CHINA  CORPORATION  LDC,  a  Cayman  Islands
corporation,  having  its  principal  office  at  2000  Post  Oak
Boulevard,  Houston, Texas 77056 ("Apache"),  XCL-CHlNA  LTD.,  a
company  organized under the laws of the British Virgin  Islands,
having  its  principal office at 110 Rue Jean Lafitte, Lafayette,
Louisiana   70508   ("XCL-China")  and  XCL  LTD.,   a   Delaware
corporation, having its principal office at 110 Rue Jean Lafitte,
Lafayette, Louisiana 70~O$ ("XCL") as parent of XCL-China.
     
     Apache,  XCL-China and XCL are sometimes referred  to  below
as Party or Parties.
     
     
     
                           WITNESSETH
                                
                                
     WHEREAS,  the  Parties  entered  into  a  certain  Agreement
effective as of May 1, 1995 (the 'May Agreement") which  provided
among  other things for Apache to bear and pay XCL China's  share
of  the costs of drilling certain wells on the Block referred  to
above; and
     
     WHEREAS,  the  Parties have determined it is in  their  best
interests to modify the May Agreement;
     
     IN  CONSIDERATION of the mutual promises made,  the  Parties
agree  that  Section  3.1(a)(iii) of the May Agreement  shall  be
deleted and replaced by the following:

  "3.1(a)(iii) the next Appraisal well to be drilled
               following the C-3 Appraisal well, namely the D-2
               currently drilling on December 13, 1996."
     
     IN  WITNESS  whereof  each  Party  has  caused  its  duly
authorized representative to sign this Agreement on the dates set
out below but effective on the day and year first above written.
     
     
     
     
APACHE CHINA CORPORATION LUC

      /s/ Steven Farris
By: ______________________________________

         4/3/97
Date: ____________________________________




XCL-CHlNA LTD.


     /s/ Marsden W. Miller, Jr.
By:_______________________________________

          April 3, 1997
Date:_____________________________________





XCL LIMITED

     /s/ Marsden W. Miller, Jr.
By:______________________________________

        April 3, 1997
Date:___________________________________
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                              29
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      199
<ALLOWANCES>                                         1
<INVENTORY>                                         26
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                   315
<PP&E>                                           2,022
<DEPRECIATION>                                     299
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   2,457
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                              355
<BONDS>                                          1,217
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                               63
<PREFERRED>                                         58
<COMMON>                                           147
<OTHER-SE>                                        (56)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     2,457
<SALES>                                            718
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                   738
<CGS>                                              276
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                      494
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                    11
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 135
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                     98
<INCOME-TAX>                                        78
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                 20
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                    (5)
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                        15
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.00
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
```

[110th Congress Public Law 348]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office]

[DOCID: f:publ348.110]

[[Page 122 STAT. 3945]]

Public Law 110-348
110th Congress

                                 An Act

 
To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 
101 Tallapoosa Street in Bremen, Georgia, as the ``Sergeant Paul Saylor 
     Post Office Building''. <<NOTE: Oct. 7, 2008 -  [H.R. 6092]>> 

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SERGEANT PAUL SAYLOR POST OFFICE BUILDING.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 101 Tallapoosa Street in Bremen, Georgia, shall be known and 
designated as the ``Sergeant Paul Saylor Post Office Building''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Sergeant 
Paul Saylor Post Office Building''.

    Approved October 7, 2008.

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY--H.R. 6092:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 154 (2008):
            July 8, considered and passed House.
            Sept. 26, considered and passed Senate.

                                  <all>
```
REGINALD MAURICE DAWSON

, 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 IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D 14

- 4191

_____________________________/

Opinion filed December 2, 2014.

An appeal from the Circuit Court for Duval County

. Adrian G. Soud , Judge

. Reginal d Maurice Dawson

, Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee , for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

LEWIS , C.J.

, VAN NORTWICK

, and SWANSON

, J J

. , CONCUR.
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 International Development Corp.,
a  Nevada  corporation  (the  "Company"),  on  Form  10-QSB for the period ended
November  30,  2004, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the
date  hereof  (the  "Report"), I, D. Brian Robertson, Chief Financial Officer of
the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section  906  of  the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act  of  2002,  that:


     (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.

Dated: January 14, 2005.

                                        /s/D. Brian Robertson
                                        ----------------------------------------
                                        D. Brian Robertson,
                                        Chief Financial Officer of
                                        International Development Corp.


<PAGE>
OMB Control No. 2060-0347

Ms. Rebecca Hindin

National Program Manager

ENERGY STAR 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

1310 L Street, NW (Room 913L)

Washington, DC 20005

Dear Ms. Hindin:

As the corporate energy director for [name of company], I am writing to nominate the following plant for 

award of the (Date) ENERGY STAR:

[Plant name]

[Plant street address]

[Plant city, state, zip code]

As documented by the attached Statement of Energy Performance, I affirm that the aforementioned plant

meets the conditions necessary to qualify for the ENERGY STAR, including:

 Energy performance in the top 25 percent of similar existing plants, indicated by a minimum rating of 

75 out of 100 as determined through the most current version of the ENERGY STAR plant energy 

performance indicator tool for this type of plant; and,

 Safe lighting levels that meet the Illuminating Engineering Society of North America (IESNA) 

recommended best practices for industrial facilities as described in IESNA Lighting Handbook; 9

th

Edition, Chapter 19.

An objective assessment of the facility’s environmental record has been conducted as described in U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Instructions for Applying for the ENERGY STAR.

I have personally examined and am familiar with the information contained in this Application. The 

information is based on reasonable inquiry and is, to the best of my knowledge, true, accurate, and complete. I 

have no reason to believe the plant would not meet all EPA program requirements for receiving the ENERGY 

STAR.

I am submitting this application within 4 months of the Period Ending Date on the enclosed Statement of 

Energy Performance. I understand EPA reserves the right to request and review any records which support the 

data used to produce the energy performance rating for this plant. I also certify that I am maintaining a file on 

this plant in accordance with EPA’s file maintenance guidelines. Furthermore, I agree to associate the 

ENERGY STAR name and logo only with the aforementioned plant and to adhere to ENERGY STAR’s Identity 

Guidelines.

Sincerely,

Signature__________________________

Signatory Name (Corporate Energy Manager for [Company name]):_________________

Facility Owner:_________________________

Attachments: Statement of Energy Performance, EPI Printout, Award Specification Sheet, Compliance Check 

Worksheet

The public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to range up to 10 minutes per response. Send comments on the 

Agency's need for this information, the accuracy of the provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods for minimizing respondent 

burden, including through the use of automated collection techniques to the Director, Collection Strategies Division, U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency (2822T), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Washington, D.C. 20460. Include the OMB control number in any 

correspondence. Do not send the completed form to this address.

EPA Form 5900-264
# C_2014395EN.01003901.xml

| 10.11.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 395/39 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.11.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 395/39

---

Judgment of the General Court of 26 September 2014 — Koscher + Würtz v OHIM — Kirchner & Wilhelm (KW SURGICAL INSTRUMENTS)

(Case T-445/12) (1)

((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - International registration designating the European Community - Figurative mark KW SURGICAL INSTRUMENTS - Earlier national word mark Ka We - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Appeal procedure - Scope of the examination to be carried out by the Board of Appeal - Proof of genuine use of the earlier trade mark - Application submitted to the Opposition Division - Refusal to register the trade mark applied for without prior examination of the condition of genuine use of the earlier trade mark - Error of law - Power to alter decisions))

(2014/C 395/47)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Koscher + Würtz GmbH (Spaichingen, Germany) (represented by: P. Mes, C. Graf von der Groeben, G. Rother, J. Bühling, A. Verhauwen, J. Künzel, D. Jestaedt, M Bergermann, J. Vogtmeier and A. Kramer, lawyers)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: A. Schifko, acting as Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Kirchner & Wilhelm GmbH + Co. (Asperg, Germany) (represented by: J. Dönch, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 6 August 2012 (Case R 1675/2011-4) concerning opposition proceedings between Kirchner & Wilhelm GmbH + Co. and Koscher + Würtz GmbH.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 6 August 2012 (Case R 1675/2011-4) concerning opposition proceedings between Kirchner & Wilhelm GmbH + Co. and Koscher + Würtz GmbH; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 6 August 2012 (Case R 1675/2011-4) concerning opposition proceedings between Kirchner & Wilhelm GmbH + Co. and Koscher + Würtz GmbH;

| 2. | Dismisses the action as to the remainder; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

| 3. | Orders OHIM to bear its own costs and to pay half of the costs incurred by Koscher + Würtz in the proceedings before the Board of Appeal and the General Court; |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders OHIM to bear its own costs and to pay half of the costs incurred by Koscher + Würtz in the proceedings before the Board of Appeal and the General Court;

| 4. | Orders Koscher + Würtz to bear half of the costs it has incurred in the proceedings before the Board of Appeal and the General Court. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Orders Koscher + Würtz to bear half of the costs it has incurred in the proceedings before the Board of Appeal and the General Court.

---

(1)  OJ C 379, 8.12.2012.

---
De Smet

1

2

4

5

3

To Yankton To Vermillion

To Huron and Pierre

To Mitchell

6

Salem

Howard

Madison

Flandreau

Colman

Brookings

Watertown

14

14

Hayti

29

81

90

29 90

81

212

Lake

Poinsett

Lake

 Madison

Lake Herman

Lake

Albert

Lake

St John

Lake

Marsh

Lake

Whitewood

Lake

Thompson

Lake Preston Arlington

Castlewood

Clear

Lake

Minnesota

South Dakota

Volga

Lake Preston

Hartford

Humboldt

Montrose

Brandon

Dell Rapids

34 34

38

38

25

25

28 28

22

13

19

42

BigSioux River

11

13

Elkton

19

Estelline

15

15

Sioux

Falls

1

2

3

4

5

6

90

25

212

 Wetland Management 

 District Boundary

 Waterfowl Production 

Area (WPA)

Auto Tour Route

Auto Tour Interpretive Stop

City of Madison

Hiking/Biking Trail

Federal Interstate Highway

U.S. Highway

State Highway

Paved Road

State Boundary

County Boundary

District Headquarters

Restroom

 Table

Overlook Trail

Boat Launch

Special Places to Visit

 

Coteau Prairie WPA

Cox WPA 

Madison WPA Complex 

Paul Errington Memorial Marsh

Dry Lake WPA 

Silver Lake WPA

Madison

Wetland Management

District

 

Lake Madison

235 St. 

456 Ave.

Rest Stop,

Tables, and 

Overlook Trail

19

34

3 Detail: Madison WPA Complex

Not to Scale

To Madison

Yankton

Not to Scale

Huron

Watertown

Mitchell

Pierre

Missouri River

Iowa

South Dakota 

Nebraska

Minnesota 

South Dakota

212

14

81

29

90

29 83

12

14

183

18

Vermillion

Sioux

Falls

Brookings

FWS Madison WMD Brochure_11.75"wx8.5"h_021012_Pull-out_Spread.indd 1 2/10/12 2:02 PM
DISMISS and Opinion Filed May 20, 2014 

# S

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05-14-00350-CV
LINQ PARTNERS, LLC, Appellant V. GCU TRUCKING, INC., ROSALIO ARCOS, SR., SERGIO ARCOS, RENE ARCOS, ROSALIO ARCOS, JR., LOS ARCOS LEASING, INC. AND VALLEY TIN MANAGEMENT, Appellees

On Appeal from the 192nd Judicial District Court Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DC-13-02262-K



### MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Chief Justice Wright and Justices Lang-Miers and Brown Opinion by Chief Justice Wright Before the Court is appellant’s motion to dism iss the appeal. Appellant has informed the
Court that it no longer wishes to pursue this appeal. Accordingly, we grant appellant’s motion
and dismiss the appeal. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 42.1(a)(1).

140350F.P05 /Carolyn Wright/ CAROLYN WRIGHT CHIEF JUSTICE–2– 

# S

Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
JUDGMENT

LINQ PARTNERS, LLC, Appellant

No. 05-14-00350-CV V.

GCU TRUCKING, INC., ROSALIO ARCOS, SR., SERGIO ARCOS, RENE ARCOS, ROSALIO ARCOS, JR., LOS ARCOS LEASING, INC., AND VALLEY TIN MANAGEMENT, Appellees On Appeal from the 192nd Judicial District Court, Dallas County, Texas. Trial Court Cause No. DC-13-02262-K. Opinion delivered by Chief Justice Wright. Justices Lang-Miers and Brown, participating.

In accordance with this Court’s opi nion of this date, the appeal is DISMISSED

.
It is ORDERED that appellees, GCU TRUCKING, INC., ROSALIO ARCOS, SR., SERGIO ARCOS, RENE ARCOS, ROSALIO ARCOS, JR., LOS ARCOS LEASING, INC., AND VALLEY TIN MANAGEMENT, rec over their costs of this appeal from appellant, LINQ PARTNERS, LLC.

Judgment entered May 20, 2014

/Carolyn Wright/ CAROLYN WRIGHT CHIEF JUSTICE
P.1 

OAR Box 1865 

Prepped by Charmelle Mathews 

Document Number: 

26) IV-E-14 

Docket Number: 

A-83-27 

Printed 12/3/2008 9:15:27 AM Sheet 26 of 105 
P.2 

A-83-27 

IV-E-14 

< 

CONTACT REPORT 

Originator 

CONTACT BY: TELEPHONE fof MEETING • Other, 

Mnu m 

NAME, TITLE & ORGANIZATION p£A^iC /Ce / b 

^AJL AM c MuS. 

ADDRESS & TELEPHONE NUMBER 

7 /V^^?^ 

P.O. 60* 3?S0 

8/WTQsMiJ, Tx 775^^ . 

PURPOSE OR SUBJECT (Give project number if appropriate) 

SUMMARY 

A "D-cSO^i^^^./ •> 1/vIQ U^'T* Fo(L. QAS-OicS . "7tf€ for*- o.c 7H ' s 

ACTION CO 

i 

Distribution:
#### Ruth B. YOUNG, Appellant, v. Barbara SHELTON, Appellee.

No. GG-131.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

March 8, 1978.

Rehearing Denied March 28, 1978.

Sidney E. Lewis of Goldman, Presser, Lewis & Nussbaum, Jacksonville, for appellant.

Delbridge L. Gibbs of Marks, Gray, Con-roy & Gibbs, Jacksonville, for appellee.

BOYER, Judge.

Appellant obtained a judgment against appellee in the State of California and then filed a complaint in the Circuit Court of Duval County, Florida seeking to enforce the California judgment. Appellee asserted invalidity of the California judgment because of lack of in personam jurisdiction. Both parties moved for summary judgment. The learned trial judge entered summary final judgment in favor of appellee, finding that she did not have sufficient minimal contact with the State of California to render her amenable to in personam jurisdiction in that state and that the exercise of such jurisdiction over appellee by the State of California was in contravention of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States.

The real issue here, and the only material issue, is whether there were such minimal contacts by appellee with the State of California as to meet federal constitution standards. Unquestionably we, in the State of Florida, must lend full faith and credit to a valid judgment rendered in a sister state: However, validity requires not only compliance with the law of the rendering state but also with the requirements of the Constitution of the United States. A party may not require a state (in this instance, Florida) to pay heed to the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the United States Constitution while denying the right and duty of that state to require heed to another clause in the same constitution. There were not sufficient contacts between appellee and the State of California to allow that state to assert in personam jurisdiction over her.

AFFIRMED.

McCORD, C. J., and MELVIN, J., concur.
## COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02

- 15

- 00384

- CR

Alicia Elizabeth Ford

v.

The State of Texas §

§

§

§

§ From Criminal District Court No. 3

of Tarrant County (1405276)

February 25 , 2016

Per Curiam

(nfp)



### JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that

the appeal should be dismissed. It is ordered that the appeal is dismissed.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

PER CURIAM
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Randall WEBB.

No. 60644.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Sept. 27, 1977.

In re: State of Louisiana applying for supervisory writ.

Writ denied.
**EXHIBIT 21**

SUBSIDIARIES OFREGISTRANT

 
| **NAME**                                          | ** ** | **STATE/PROVINCE OF  INCORPORATION** |
|---------------------------------------------------|------------|--------------------------------------|
| Cintas Corporation No. 3                          |       | Nevada                               |
| Cintas Corporation No. 2                          |       | Nevada                               |
| Cintas Canada Limited                             |       | Ontario, Canada                      |
| Cintas Corp. No. 8, Inc.                          |       | Nevada                               |
| Cintas Corp. No. 15, Inc.                         |       | Nevada                               |
| Respond Industries, Incorporated                  |       | Colorado                             |
| Cintas – R.U.S., LP                          |       | Texas Partnership                    |
| American First Aid Company                        |       | Maryland                             |
| Cintas First Aid Holdings Corporation             |       | Nevada                               |
| XPECT First Aid Corporation                       |       | Kansas                               |
| Affirmed Medical, Inc.                            |       | California                           |
| Cintas De Honduras, S.A.                          |       | Honduras                             |
| Grupo Cintas de Mexico S.A. de C.V.               |       | Mexico                               |
| Empresa Cintas de Mexico, S.A. de C.V.            |       | Mexico                               |
| LLT, Inc.                                         |       | Virginia                             |
| 3065521 Nova Scotia Company                       |       | Nova Scotia, Canada                  |
| 3065520 Nova Scotia Company                       |       | Nova Scotia, Canada                  |
| Cintas Canada Investment Limited Partnership      |       | Alberta, Canada                      |
| Ensambles de Coahuila, S.A. de C.V.               |       | Mexico                               |
| Cintas Cleanroom Resources de Mexico S.A. de C.V. |       | Mexico                               |
| Cintas Document Management LLC                    |       | Ohio                                 |
| 1202327 Ontario, Inc.                             |       | Ontario, Canada                      |
| Cintas Investment Corp.                           |       | Ontario, Canada                      |
| The Millennium Mat Company, LLC                   |       | Ohio                                 |
| Cintas Service Transportation, LLC                |       | Ohio                                 |
| CDS Equipment Holdings, LLC                       |       | Ohio                                 |

 

1

----
Back to Contents

**Exhibit 23.1**

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

We have issued our reports dated March 27, 2006, accompanying the restated consolidated financial statements and Schedule II and management’s assessment of the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting included in the Annual Report of SavientPharmaceuticals, Inc. and Subsidiaries on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2005. We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference of said reports in the Registration Statements Nos. 33-04468, 33-51202, 33-83904, 33-69870, 33-41591, 33-41592, 33-41593,333-36121, 333-33073, 333-33075, 333-64541, 333-87344, and 333-127068 on Form S-8 of Savient Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and Subsidiaries.

/s/ Grant Thornton LLP          GRANT THORNTON LLPNew York, New YorkMarch 28, 2006

----