alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 207 (Monday, October 27, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 55625-55626]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-28344]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
[Docket No. AC97-185-000]


Aluminum Company of America; Notice of Filing

October 21, 1997.
    Take notice that on September 25, 1997, Aluminum Company of America 
(Alcoa), filed a request on behalf of its wholly-owned subsidiaries 
Tapoco, Inc. (Tapoco) and Yadkin, Inc. (Yadkin), for approval of a 
change in the method of depreciating fixed assets. Specifically, Alcoa 
proposes to change from a composite depreciation method for fixed 
assets to a traditional straight-line depreciation method. The proposed 
change in depreciation method is for accounting purposes only, 
effective January 1, 1998.
    Alcoa states that it is attempting to standardize and streamline 
its financial systems, which will include automating the fixed asset 
records of Tapoco, Inc. and Yadkin, Inc.
    Any person desiring to be heard or to protest said application 
should file a motion to intervene or protest with the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, N.E., Washington, D.C. 20426, 
in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of 
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). All such motions 
or protests should be filed on or before November 20, 1997. Protests 
will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate 
action to be taken, but will not serve to make the protestants parties 
to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a 
motion to intervene. Copies

[[Page 55626]]

of this filing are on file with the Commission and are available for 
public inspection.
Linwood A. Watson, Jr.,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 97-28344 Filed 10-23-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
UNITED STATES, Appellee

v. Ocean T. ROSE, Lance Corporal U.S. Marine Corps, Appellant

No. 05-0521 Crim. App. No. 200101327 United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces Argued December 8, 2005 Decided September 27, 2006 PER CURIAM. CRAWFORD, J., filed a separate opinion concurring in the result.

Counsel For Appellant: Lieutenant Brian L. Mizer , JAGC, USNR (argued). For Appellee: Major Kevin C. Harris , USMC (argued); Commander Charles N. Purnell , JAGC, USN (on brief). Military Judge: Frank A. Delzompo

**This opinion is subject to revision before final publication .** United States v. Rose , No. 05-0521/MC

2 PER CURIAM: The petition for grant of review of the decision of the United States Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals was granted on the following issues: (1) WHETHER THE ORDER DIRECTING APPELLANT TO RECEIVE ANTHRAX VACCINE ADSORBED ON MARCH 29, 2000, WAS UNLAWFUL. (2) WHETHER APPELLANT’S DUE PROCESS RIGHT TO TIMELY REVIEW HAS BEEN DENIED. 1 In light of this Court’s opinion in United States v.

Kisala , __ M.J. __ (C.A.A.F. 2006), we hold that the order directing Appellant to receive the anthrax vaccine was a lawful order which he disobeyed in violation of Article 90, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). 2 Additionally, in light of our opinions in United States v. Moreno , 63 M.J. 129 (C.A.A.F. 2006), and United States v. Allison , 63 M.J. 365 (C.A.A.F. 2006), this Court holds that even if Appellant was denied his due process right to speedy review and appeal, that error is harmless beyond a reasonable doubt and no relief is warranted. Accordingly, the decision of the United States Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals is affirmed.

1 United States v. Rose , 61 M.J. 480 (C.A.A.F. 2005). 2 10 U.S.C. § 890 (2000).United States v. Rose , No. 05-0521

CRAWFORD, Judge (concurring in the result): I agree with the affirmance of the findings and sentence. I dissociate myself, however, from this Court’s analysis of appellate delay. This Court’s analysis and conclusion are based on a prospective rule set forth in United States v. Allison , 63 M.J. 365 (C.A.A.F. 2006) (citing United States v. Moreno , 63 M.J. 129 (C.A.A.F. 2006)), and its misapplication of the Barker v. Wingo , 407 U.S. 514 (1972), test. See Moreno , 63 M.J. at 144 (Crawford, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part).
Exhibit 8.1





|Name of Subsidiary             |  | Place of Incorporation           |  | Proportion of Ownership Interest                                      |  | Principal Activity 
|------------------------------ |  | -------------------------------- |  | --------------------------------------------------------------------- |  | -------------------
|Loncor Resources Congo SPRL    |  | Democratic Republic of the Congo |  | 100%                                                                  |  | Mineral exploration
|Nevada Bob's Franchising, Inc. |  | Delaware, USA                    |  | 100%                                                                  |  | Dormant            
|NB Trademarks, Inc.            |  | Delaware, USA                    |  | 100% (wholly owned subsidiary of Nevada
     Bob's Franchising, Inc.) |  | Dormant
mmex_ex104.htm

EXHIBIT 10.4

 

AMENDMENT #1 TO THE EQUITY PURCHASE AGREEMENT ENTERED INTO ON JUNE 12, 2017 

 

THIS AMENDMENT #1 (the “Amendment”) TO THE EQUITY PURCHASE AGREEMENT ENTERED INTO ON June 12, 2017, is made effective as of October 9, 2017, by and between MMEX Resources Corporation, Nevada corporation (the “Company”), and Crown Bridge Partners, LLC, a New York limited liability company (the “Holder”) (collectively the “Parties”).

 

BACKGROUND

 

A. The Company and Holder are the parties to that certain equity purchase agreement (the “EPA”) originally entered into by the Company and Holder on June 12, 2017; and

 

B. The Parties desire to amend the EPA as set forth expressly below.

 

NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the execution and delivery of the Amendment and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the Parties agree as follows:

 

1. Sections 7.1(a) and 7.1(b) of the EPA shall be removed in their entirety.

 

2. Section 7.2(p) of the EPA shall be replaced in its entirety with the following sentence:

 

(p) MINIMUM PRICING. The lowest traded price of the Company’s Common Stock for the twenty-five (25) trading days immediately prior to the date of the respective Put Notice shall be greater than $0.001.

 

3. The following Section 10.16 shall be added to the EPA:

 

Section 10.16 CONVERSION LIMITATION. The Investor shall be prohibited from delivering a notice of conversion with respect to the Commitment Note during the period beginning on the date that a Put Notice has been received by the Investor and ending on the first Trading Day immediately following the closing associated with such Put Notice, provided that if (i) such closing does not occur within twelve (12) Trading Days following the receipt of such Put Notice by the Company or (ii) the Company does not deliver the respective Put Shares within the applicable two (2) Trading Day timeframe as provided in this Agreement, then this provision shall be null and void and of no effect with respect to that specific Put Notice.

 

4. This Amendment shall be deemed part of, but shall take precedence over and supersede any provisions to the contrary contained in the EPA. Except as specifically modified hereby, all of the provisions of the EPA, which are not in conflict with the terms of this Amendment, shall remain in full force and effect.

 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties hereto have executed this Amendment as of the date first above written.

 

	
MMEX Resources Corporation
	
 
	
Crown Bridge Partners, LLC
	
						
 

	
By: 
	
/s/ Jack W. Hanks
	
 
	
By:
	
/s/ Seth Ahdoot
	
	
Name: 
	
Jack W. Hanks
	
 
	
Name: 
	
Seth Ahdoot
	
 

	
Title: 
	
Chief Executive Officer
	
 
	
Title: 
	
Member
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA WESTERN DISTRICT

**COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, Appellee** 

**v.**

**PAUL WILLIAM BEATTY, Appellant**  **: :**  **: :**  **: :**  **: :**  **: :**  **: 15 WAP 2015** 

**Jurisdictional Statement**

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW **, this 18 th**  **day of September, 2015, the Notice of Appeal is here by**  QUASHED

**.**
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 227 (Tuesday, November 25, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 62772]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-30899]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention


CDC Advisory Committee on HIV and STD Prevention: Meeting

    In accordance with section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory 
Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463), the Centers for Disease Control and 
Prevention (CDC) announces the following committee meeting.

    Name: CDC Advisory Committee on HIV and STD Prevention.
    Times and Dates: 8:30 a.m.-5 p.m., December 16, 1997. 8:30 a.m.-
3 p.m., December 17, 1997.
    Place: Corporate Square Office Park, Corporate Square Boulevard, 
Building 11, Room 1413, Atlanta, Georgia 30329.
    Status: Open to the public, limited only by the space available. 
The meeting room will accommodate approximately 100 people.
    Purpose: This committee is charged with advising the Director, 
CDC, regarding objectives, strategies, and priorities for HIV and 
STD prevention efforts including maintaining surveillance of HIV 
infection, AIDS, and STDs, the epidemiologic and laboratory study of 
HIV/AIDS and STDs, information/education and risk reduction 
activities designed to prevent the spread of HIV and STDs, and other 
preventive measures that become available.
    Matters to be Discussed: Agenda items will include issues 
regarding building HIV prevention capacity in racial/ethnic minority 
communities; issues pertaining to integration of HIV/STD prevention 
efforts; and discussions on HIV surveillance.
    Agenda items are subject to change as priorities dictate.
    Contact Person for More Information: Beth Wolfe, Program 
Analyst, National Center for HIV, STD, and TB Prevention, 1600 
Clifton Road, N.E., m/s E-07, Atlanta, Georgia 30333, telephone 404/
639-8008.

    Dated: November 19, 1997.
Carolyn J. Russell,
Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, Centers for Disease 
Control and Prevention (CDC).
[FR Doc. 97-30899 Filed 11-24-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4163-18-P
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 13**  **- 6783** 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,
v. STACEY LANE FISHER , Defendant

- Appellant
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia , at Harrisonburg
. Glen E. Conrad , Chief District Judge. ( 5:10

- cr - 00037

- GEC

- 1 ; 5:12

- cv - 80545

- GEC

- RSB )

Submitted : September 26 , 2013 Decided: September 30, 2013

Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and WYNN , Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion
. Stacey Lane Fisher, Appellant Pro Se. Grayson A. Hoffman, Assistant United States Attorney, Harrisonburg, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Stacey Lane Fisher seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. A. § 2255 ( West Supp. 2013 ) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (B) (200 6 ). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (200 6 ). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating t hat reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller

- El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336

- 38 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack , 529 U.S. at 484

- 85. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Fisher has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal3 contentions are adequately presented in the materials before th is court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 01-10278

Summary Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

JOSE GONZALO CASTILLO-RODRIGUEZ, also known as Oscar

Tovar-Ramirez,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 6:00-CR-47-1-C

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

November 26, 2001

Before DAVIS, BENAVIDES, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Jose Castillo-Rodriguez has filed a motion requesting that

his case be remanded to the district court and that he be

resentenced in accordance with United States v. Chapa-Garza, 243

F.3d 921, 927 (5th Cir. 2001), which this court decided after

Castillo-Rodriguez was sentenced. Castillo-Rodriguez’ offense

level was based upon a determination that his prior Texas felony

driving while intoxicated conviction was an aggravated felony

under U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A). His motion is GRANTED; his

sentence is VACATED; and his case is REMANDED FOR RESENTENCING in

accordance with our decision in Chapa-Garza, 243 F.3d at 927.
No. 01-10278

-2-

VACATED AND REMANDED.
TREATIES AND OTHER INTERNATIONAL ACTS SERIES 08-905 

________________________________________________________________________ 

DEFENSE 

Communications 

 Agreement Between 

the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

and CANADA 

Signed at Washington April 23, 2008 
 NOTE BY THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE 

 Pursuant to Public Law 89—497, approved July 8, 1966 

(80 Stat. 271; 1 U.S.C. 113)—

“. . .the Treaties and Other International Acts Series issued 

under the authority of the Secretary of State shall be competent 

 evidence . . . of the treaties, international agreements other than 

treaties, and proclamations by the President of such treaties and 

international agreements other than treaties, as the case may be, 

therein contained, in all the courts of law and equity and of maritime 

jurisdiction, and in all the tribunals and public offices of the 

United States, and of the several States, without any further proof 

or authentication thereof.” 
CANADA 

Defense: Communications 

 Agreement signed at Washington April 23, 2008; 

 Entered into force September 5, 2008.
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 223 (Wednesday, November 19, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 61834]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-30365]



[[Page 61834]]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION


Special Emphasis Panel in Chemistry; Notice of Meeting

    In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-
463, as amended), the National Science Foundation announces the 
following meeting:

    Name and Committee Code: Special Emphasis Panel in Chemistry 
(#1191).
    Date and Time: December 11-12, 1997.
    Place: Rooms, 360, and 370, NSF, 4201 Wilson Boulevard, 
Arlington, VA 22230.
    Type of Meeting: Closed.
    Contact Person: Dr. George Rubottom, Program Director, Organic 
and Macromolecular Chemistry, Chemistry Division, Room 1055, 
National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, VA 
22230, Telephone: (703) 306-1851.
    Purpose of Meeting: To provide advice and recommendations 
concerning proposals submitted to NSF for financial support.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate proposals for Sites for Research 
Experiences for Undergraduates in Chemistry as part of the selection 
process for awards.
    Reason for Closing: The proposals being reviewed include 
information of a proprietary or confidential nature, including 
technical information, financial data such as salaries, and personal 
information concerning individuals associated with the proposals. 
These matters are exempt under 5 U.S.C. 552b(c) (4) and (6) of the 
Government in the Sunshine Act.

    Dated: November 14, 1997.
M. Rebecca Winkler,
Committee Management Officer.
[FR Doc. 97-30365 Filed 11-18-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7555-01-M
#### Laurence J. McQUILLEN v. STATE of Florida.

No. 39210.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Jan. 1970.

Certiorari denied without opinion. 227 So.2d 509.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     The prior year amounts were restated for discontinued operations.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1000
       
<S>                             <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-02-1998             JAN-03-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               OCT-03-1997             SEP-27-1996
<CASH>                                          33,717                  22,669
<SECURITIES>                                         0                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   52,951                  36,019
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,845                   2,144
<INVENTORY>                                     39,388                  28,181
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               128,329                  93,989
<PP&E>                                          63,951                  54,492
<DEPRECIATION>                                  29,335                  26,098
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 209,421                 147,120
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           53,764                  37,152
<BONDS>                                         48,268                  27,786
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0                       0
<PREFERRED>                                          0                       0
<COMMON>                                        51,390                  44,003
<OTHER-SE>                                      51,093                  32,133
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   209,421                 147,120
<SALES>                                        188,235                 149,368
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               188,235                 149,368
<CGS>                                          121,438                  95,900
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  121,438                  95,900
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                42,834                  34,159
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               2,055                   2,036
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 22,981                  18,040
<INCOME-TAX>                                     6,205                   4,691
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             16,776                  13,349
<DISCONTINUED>                                 (2,062)                      75
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0                       0
<CHANGES>                                            0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                    14,714                  13,424
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.59                    0.55
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.58                    0.54
           


</TABLE>
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-7421

LAMONT M. JOHNSON,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Richmond. Henry E. Hudson, District 

Judge. (3:09-cv-00465-HEH)

Submitted: December 16, 2010 Decided: December 29, 2010

Before GREGORY, DUNCAN, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Lamont M. Johnson, Appellant Pro Se. Leah A. Darron, OFFICE OF 

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Lamont Marquise Johnson seeks to appeal the district 

court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006)

petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice 

or judge issues a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2253(c)(1) (2006). A certificate of appealability will not 

issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a 

constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006). When the 

district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies 

this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would 

find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional 

claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 

484 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 

(2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural 

grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive 

procedural ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a 

debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 

529 U.S. at 484-85. We have independently reviewed the record 

and conclude that Johnson has not made the requisite showing. 

Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss 

the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts 

and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials 
3

before the court and argument would not aid the decisional 

process. 

DISMISSED