alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
U.S. Position on Inter-American Development Bank Investment Corporation’s Investment 

in the Kuldipsingh Port Facility in Suriname

December 14, 2021 

• On the basis of the U.S. fossil fuel energy guidance, the United States wishes to be 

recorded as “abstaining” on this project. 

• This was a challenging transaction to review and raised critical questions about assessing 

private sector support to an economy increasingly focused on extraction of oil and gas. 

• As the discussions at COP26 made clear, further investments in fossil fuel extraction are 

incompatible with achieving the Paris Agreement goal of limiting global warming to 1.5 

degrees. 

• Achieving the goals of the Paris Agreement presents difficult decisions in an economy 

like Suriname, with significant oil reserves and pressing human and economic 

development needs. The United States believes it is important to support multi-purpose 

infrastructure in developing countries, where consistent with other policy objectives and 

legislative mandates. 

• IDB Invest’s participation provides significant financial and non-financial additionality 

for this transaction and the port expansion will not directly support extraction and 

handling of oil and gas reserves. 

• Nevertheless, the port expansion is partially driven by servicing the oil and gas industry, 

which runs counter to the spirit of our fossil fuel policy to oppose all oil-based energy 

projects. Under Treasury’s Fossil Fuel Guidance, Treasury opposes oil projects, generally 

by voting No. 

• The United States recognizes that IDB Invest financial support will allow the client to 

maintain the mixed-use nature of the port and continue to service general and 

containerized cargo, which is welcomed. 

• In that spirit, the United States strongly welcomes the commitment by the client to 

reserve 50% of the berth space to support general and containerized cargo, and that this 

will be tracked amongst the results of the project. 

• Despite the merits of the project, the Biden administration has prioritized measures to 

meaningfully tackle the climate crisis and has prioritized ending international financing 

of carbon-intensive fossil fuel-based energy. Given the mixed use of the expanded port 

facility and the commitment by the client to reserve 50% of berth space to support 

general and containerized cargo, Treasury chose to abstain rather than vote No on this 

project.

• The United States looks forward to working with IDB Invest and with Surinamese 

partners to achieve sustainable development while pursuing inclusive and equitable 

growth for all its citizens.
166

Exhibit 4.3(k)
                                    THE PRUDENTIAL INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA
                                           c/o Prudential Capital Group
                                           Two Ravinia Drive, Suite 1400
                                              Atlanta, Georgia 30346
November 12, 1999

Cone Mills Corporation
3101 North Elm Street
Greensboro, North Carolina 27408

Attn:  Mr. David Bray, Treasurer

Ladies and Gentlemen:

     Reference is made to the Note  Agreement  dated as of August 13,  1992,  as
heretofore  amended (the "Note  Agreement")  between Cone Mills Corporation (the
"Company")  and The  Prudential  Insurance  Company of  America  ("Prudential").
Capitalized  terms used and not  otherwise  defined in this letter have the same
meanings given those terms in the Note Agreement. At the request of the Company,
Prudential  hereby  waives any Default  which may exist under  Section  6A(2) or
6A(3) of the Note Agreement,  such waiver to be effective  solely for the period
commencing on the date hereof and ending on January 15, 2000.  This waiver shall
be limited  precisely as written,  and shall not extend to any Default under any
other  provision of the Note  Agreement or to any Default under Section 6A(2) or
6A(3) of the Note Agreement  which may exist after the expiration of this waiver
(including,  for avoidance of doubt, any Default which may exist at November 12,
1999  but  for  this  waiver).  Except  as  amended  herein,  all of the  terms,
conditions and  obligations of the Note Agreement shall remain in full force and
effect.  If you are in agreement  with the  foregoing,  please sign in the space
provided  below and this letter  shall  become a binding  agreement  between the
Company and Prudential.
Very truly yours,

THE PRUDENTIAL INSURANCE
COMPANY OF AMERICA

By:/s/ Robert R. Derrick
Title: Vice President

Agreed and accepted as of
the date first above written:

CONE MILLS CORPORATION

By:/s/ David E. Bray
Title: Treasurer
Third District Court of Appeal

State of Florida

Opinion filed March 8, 2017.

________________

No. 3D16-1021

Lower Tribunal No. 16-1432

________________

Nedra Gabriel,

Appellant,

vs.

Doris Salazar,

Appellee.

An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Antonio E.

Marin, Judge.

Jay Koretsky (Lauderdale Lakes), for appellant.

Eaton & Wolk, and Douglas F. Eaton, for appellee.

Before LAGOA, SALTER and FERNANDEZ, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Concession of Error

Based on the appellee’s commendable concession, we reverse the dismissal
with prejudice of the complaint. We remand with instructions to permit the

plaintiff to amend the complaint. 

Reversed and remanded. 

2
## Court of Appeals Sixth Appellate District of Texas

J U D G M E N T

Broderick Maximillian McHenry, Appellant

No. 06

- 19

- 00029

- CR v.
The State of Texas, Appellee Appeal from the 71st District Court of Harrison County, Texas (Tr. Ct. No. 16

- 0281X ). M emorandum Opinion delivered by Justice Burgess, Chief Justice Morriss and Justice Stevens participating.

As stated in the Court’s opinion of this date, we find no error in the judgment of the court

below

. We affirm the judgment of the trial court

. We note that the appellant, Broderick Maximillian McHenry, has adequately indicated his inability to pay costs of appeal. Therefore, we waive payment of costs.

RENDERED FEBRUARY 20, 2020 BY ORDER OF THE COURT JOSH R. MORRISS, III CHIEF JUSTICE

ATTEST: Debra K. Autrey, Clerk
Own this business? Edit Company Info 

# Dakota Gasification CO, Dakota Gasification Company, Dakota Gas 

### 420 County 26 Beulah, ND 58523-9473 map Website: View Details Phone: (701) 873-2100

Dakota Gasification CO in Beulah, ND is a private company categorized under Coal Gasification. Register for free to see additional information such as annual revenue and employment figures. 

### About Dakota Ga sification CO Is this your company? Claim This Profile



### Dakota Gasification CO Business Information Dakota Gasification CO also does business as Dakota Gas, Dakota Gasification Company

. Location Type Branch Annual Sales (Estimated) View Details
Employees (Estimated) 500 to 999 At this location 641 SIC Code View Details
NAICS Code 211111, Crude Petroleum & Natural Gas Extraction Products, Services and Brands Information not found State of Incorporation Information not found Years in Business Information not found 

### Business Categories Oil & Gas Producers in Beulah, ND Crude Petroleum/Natural Gas Production Mfg Industrial Inorganic Chemicals Mfg Industrial Gases Crude Petroleum & Natural Gas Extraction View newly formed U.S. businesses 

### Company Contacts Is this your company? Claim This Profile Ronald R Harper Chief Executive Officer Gary Loop Chief Operating Officer

Joan Dietz Corporate Communications Executive Deb Haga Human Resources Executive Kelly Cozby Officer Robert Fagerstrom*

* Search for more contacts 

# Page 1 of 1 Dakota Gasification CO (Dakot a Gasification Company) - Beu lah, North Dakota (ND) | C

...

4/29/2011 htt p ://www.manta.com/c/mml gj 74/dakot a - g asification-co
II 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 3795 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide that the 50 percent 

limitation on the deduction for meal expenses does not apply to meals 

provided on certain fishing boats or at certain fish processing facilities. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

FEBRUARY 9, 2024 

Ms. MURKOWSKI (for herself and Mr. SULLIVAN) introduced the following bill; 

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide 

that the 50 percent limitation on the deduction for meal 

expenses does not apply to meals provided on certain 

fishing boats or at certain fish processing facilities. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Remote Seafood Em5 ployee Meals Tax Parity Act’’. 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•S 3795 IS

1 SEC. 2. MEALS PROVIDED ON CERTAIN FISHING BOATS 

2 AND AT CERTAIN FISH PROCESSING FACILI3 TIES NOT SUBJECT TO 50 PERCENT LIMITA4 TION. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 274(n)(2)(C) of the Inter6 nal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by striking ‘‘or’’ 

7 at the end of clause (iii) and by adding at the end the 

8 following new clause: 

9 ‘‘(v) provided— 

10 ‘‘(I) on a fishing vessel, fish proc11 essing vessel, or fish tender vessel (as 

12 such terms are defined in section 

13 2101 of title 46, United States Code), 

14 or 

15 ‘‘(II) at a facility for the proc16 essing of fish for commercial use or 

17 consumption which— 

18 ‘‘(aa) is located in the 

19 United States north of 50 de20 grees north latitude, and 

21 ‘‘(bb) is not located in a 

22 metropolitan statistical area 

23 (within the meaning of section 

24 143(k)(2)(B)), or’’. 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
3 

•S 3795 IS

1 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

2 this section shall apply to taxable years beginning after 

3 December 31, 2019. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
### \

InThe Matter Of: 

### SERVED: MARCH 24, 2014 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION OFFICE OF HEARINGS WASHINGTON, DC ·r**-~** ·I; · f

.. )

_ ..**~** -:-

_, ......t
DocketNo. FAA-2012-0477 LIBERTY FOUNDATION, INC. ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No. 2011-GL-03-0070 Respondent


### ORDEREXTENDING DEADLINE FORFILING LISTS OFWITNESSES AND EXHIBITS
On August 27,2014, an Order Cancelling November 2013 Hearing and Granting/Denying Other Reliefwas filed. Among other things, this Order set a new deadline of March 25, 2014, for the parties to file their lists ofwitnesses and exchange exhibits. On March 18, 2014, the FAA telephoned the Office ofHearings requesting a status update regarding a decision onthe FAA's Motion for Summary Judgment, because ofthe impact a decision would have on the FAA's List ofWitnesses and Exhibits. On March 21,2014, the Office ofHearings attorney staffe-mailed the parties that the Judge would issue an Order extending the deadline on March 24, 2014. Pursuant to 14 C.F.R. § 13.205(a)(6), and after reviewing all relevant caselaw, decisions, regulations, statutory authority, motions, pleadings, and being fully advised;


### IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: The March 25, 2014 deadline for the parties to file their List ofWitnesses and Exhibits is extended to April 4, 2014. ·

Attachment: Service List•,' 

## l

SERVICE LIST- BY U.S. MAIL ORIGINAL & ONE COPY 

### Federal Aviation Administration1 

### 800 Independence Avenue, S.W. Washington, DC 20591 Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 Wilbur Wright Building-Suite2W1000

Mr. Christopher Stevenson Complainant's Counsel 

### Office ofthe Regional Counsel P.O. Box 20636 Atlanta, GA 30320 TEL: 404-305-5200 FAJ(: 404-305-5223 Mr. Stuart A. Goldstein Respondent's Counsel 

### Stuart A. Goldstein, P.A. 7300 North Kendall Drive, Suite 380 Miami, FL 33156 TEL: 305-670-1222 FAX: 305-400-0685 Judge J.E. Sullivan U 

### S. Administrative LawJudge 

### Office ofHearings, M-20 U.S. Department ofTransportation 1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. (E11-310) Washington, DC 20590 TEL: 202-366-2142 FAJ(: 202-366-7536 ONE COPY 

### FDMS No. FAA-2012-0477 (Civil Penalty Action)

1 Service was by U.S. Mail. For service in person orby expedited courier, use the following address: Federal Aviation Administration, 600 Independence Avenue, S.W., WilburWright Building-Suite 2Wl000, Washington, DC 20591; Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430.
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 237 (Wednesday, December 10, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 65098-65099]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-32294]


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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration
[TA-W-33, 936; TA-W-33, 936A]


Jennmar Corp. of Tennessee and Marjenn Trucking of Tennessee, 
Knoxville, Tennessee; Notice of Termination of Investigation

    Pursuant to Section 221 of the Trade Act of 1974, an investigation 
was initiated on October 27, 1997 in response to a worker petition 
which was filed on October 27, 1997 on behalf of workers at Jennmar 
Corp. of Tennessee and Marjenn Trucking of Tennessee, Knoxville, 
Tennessee.
    The petitioners have requested that the petition be withdrawn. 
Consequently, further investigation in this case would serve no 
purpose, and the investigation has been terminated.


[[Page 65099]]


    Signed in Washington, D.C. this 25th day of November, 1997.
Grant D. Beale,
Acting Director, Office of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. 97-32294 Filed 12-9-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-30-M
277 treaters filed at least one report

321114 252 321113 12 321212 1 321912 2 321999 7 INVALID 3 (all are 321114)

46 Creosote 102 As or As Compounds 34 Benzo(ghi)perylene 104 Cr or Cr Compounds 57 PACs 216 Cu or Cu Compounds 22 Pentachlorophenol 25 Pb or Pb Compounds 16 Hexachlorobenzene 14 Methanol 28 DDLC 2 Ammonia 3 Anthracene 1 Cumene 3 Dibenzofuran 1 Diisocyanates 4 Naphthalene 1 Mercury Compounds 3 Phenanthrene 1 MIBK 2 Styrene 11 Sodium Nitrite 1 Formaldehyde 1 Xylene Reporting Facility Breakdown, by NAICS Code



### TRI Reporting Summary - CY 2007

Number of Reports Filed, by Chemical
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 231 (Tuesday, December 2, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 63724]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-31474]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Land Management
[AZ-933-1990-00]


Notice of Availability of the Finding of No Significant Impact 
and the Programmatic Environmental Assessment for Selected Actions for 
Mining Claim Use and Occupancy in Arizona

AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, Interior.

ACTION: Notice of availability.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 
1969 (NEPA), and Use and Occupancy Under the Mining Laws regulations 
(43 CFR 3715), the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) has prepared an 
environmental assessment (EA) that evaluates the impacts of typical 
mining claim and/or millsite occupancies. This EA describes and 
analyzes the proposed action, consisting of seven typical occupancy 
scenarios, and the no action option. The BLM provided a 30-day comment 
period. Analysis and response to the comments received have been 
incorporated into the present document and the final Finding of No 
Significant Impact (FONSI).

DATES: Copies of the EA and the Finding of No Significant Impact will 
be provided to any person, agency, or other interested parties, upon 
request.

ADDRESSES: Requests for copies should be addressed to: Bureau of Land 
Management, Arizona State Office, AZ-933, 222 North Central Avenue, 
Phoenix, AZ 85004-2203.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ralph Costa, Mining Engineer, Arizona 
State Office. Telephone: (602) 417-9349.

    Dated: November 19, 1997.
Gary D. Bauer,
Associate State Director.
[FR Doc. 97-31474 Filed 12-1-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-32-P
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 236 (Tuesday, December 9, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 64906]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-32199]


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

SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION


Revocation of License of Small Business Investment Company

    Pursuant to the authority granted to the United States Small 
Business Administration by the Final Order of the United States 
District Court for the Southern District of New York, dated August 25, 
1997, the United States Small Business Administration hereby revokes 
the license of The Hanover Capital Corporation, a New York corporation, 
to function as a small business investment company under the Small 
Business Investment Company License No. 02/02-0102 issued to The 
Hanover Capital Corporation on June 22, 1961, and re-issued on May 11, 
1987, and said license is hereby declared null and void as of September 
9, 1997.

United States Small Business Administration

    Dated: November 25, 1997.
Don A. Christensen,
Associate Administrator for Investment.
[FR Doc. 97-32199 Filed 12-08-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8025-01-P
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 22-1966

CONSUELO MARIA ROMERO-AREVALO,

 Petitioner,

v.

MERRICK B. GARLAND,

 Respondent.

On Appeal from an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted: March 14, 2023 Decided: May 11, 2023

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, NIEMEYER, Circuit Judge, and TRAXLER, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

ON BRIEF: Jose Rafael Campos, LAW OFFICES OF CAMPOS & ASSOCIATES, 

Wheaton, Maryland, for Petitioner. Brian M. Boynton, Principal Deputy Assistant 

Attorney General, Anthony C. Payne, Assistant Director, Abigail E. Leach, Office of 

Immigration Litigation, Civil Division, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, 

Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 22-1966 Doc: 24 Filed: 05/11/2023 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM:

Consuelo Maria Romero-Arevalo, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for 

review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board) dismissing her appeal 

from the Immigration Judge’s denial of her applications for asylum, withholding of 

removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). We have 

thoroughly reviewed the record and conclude that the evidence does not compel a ruling 

contrary to any of the administrative factual findings, see 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B), and 

that substantial evidence supports the denial of relief, see INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 

478, 481 (1992). Accordingly, we deny the petition for review for the reasons stated by 

the Board. In re Romero-Arevalo (B.I.A. Aug. 18, 2022). We dispense with oral argument 

because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this

court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

PETITION DENIED

USCA4 Appeal: 22-1966 Doc: 24 Filed: 05/11/2023 Pg: 2 of 2
## F IRST 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________

No. 1D 16

- 2188

_____________________________

L IDALE R. K ELLUM ,
Appellant,

v.

S TATE OF F LORIDA ,
Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Bay County

. Hentz McC lellan , Judge

.
May 18, 2018

P ER C URIAM

.
Lidale R. Kellum appeals the trial court’s denial of his motion seeking postconviction relief based on newly discovered evidence. Because the evidence on which Kellum relied was discoverable at the time of his violation of probation hearing, the trial court properly denied the motion. See Rutherford v. State , 926 So. 2d 1100, 1107 (Fla. 2 006) (holding that newly discovered evidence must be based on facts that were unknown to the trial court, appellant

, and his counsel at the time of trial and that neither the appellant nor his counsel could have discovered the facts through
t he exercise of due diligence).

A FFIRMED

.2 B.L. T HOMAS , C.J., and R OWE and W INSOR , JJ., concur

.

_____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331

.

_____________________________

Henry Sims, Public Defender, Panama City

, for Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee

, for Appellee.
|                                         |         | Jurisdiction of |
|----------------------------------------------|--------------|-----------------|
| Name                                         |         | Incorporation   |
|                                         |         |            |
| Aeroflex Asia Ltd.                           |         | Hong Kong       |
| Aeroflex Asia Pacific Ltd.                   |         | England         |
| Aeroflex Colorado Springs, Inc.              |         | Delaware        |
| Aeroflex Control Components, Inc.            |         | Michigan        |
| Aeroflex France SAS                          |         | France          |
| Aeroflex Gaisler AB                          |         | Sweden          |
| Aeroflex GmbH                                |         | Germany         |
| Aeroflex Incorporated                        |         | Delaware        |
| Aeroflex / Inmet, Inc.                       |         | Michigan        |
| Aeroflex Japan K.K.                          |         | Japan           |
| Aeroflex Limited                             |         | England         |
| Aeroflex / Metelics, Inc.                    |         | California      |
| Aeroflex Microelectronics (Nanjing) Co. Ltd. |         | China           |
| Aeroflex Plainview, Inc.                     |         | Delaware        |
| Aeroflex RAD, Inc.                           |         | New York        |
| Aeroflex Systems Group, Inc.                 |         | Delaware        |
| Aeroflex / Weinschel, Inc.                   |         | Michigan        |
| Aeroflex Wichita, Inc.                       |         | Delaware        |
| MicroMetrics, Inc.                           |    | New Hampshire   |

----
#### Theresa HELM, Appellant, v. Russell T. KOHUTH et al., Appellees.

Nos. 72-715, 72-716.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

March 8, 1973.

*32Robert Orseck and Edward I. Sternlieb, of Podhurst, Orseck & Parks, Miami, and Baxter & Friedman, North Miami Beach, for appellant.

Charles M. Daniels, of Walsh, Dolan & Krupniclc, Fort Lauderdale, for appellee Kohuth and Lumberman’s Mutual Ins. Co.

Linwood Anderson, of Smathers & Thompson, Miami, for appellee Martin.

Henry Courtney, of Stephens, Magill, Thornton & Sever, Miami, for appellees Dodson and Winterhouse Corp.

PER CURIAM.

Plaintiff sought the reformation of a release. See generally 5 Fla.Jur., Cancellation, Reformation, etc., § 57, et seq. The pleading issue thereto was drawn between the parties. This issue was contained in and collateral to a damage suit for personal injuries. On the basis of affidavits, and despite plaintiff’s request for an opportunity to present testimony and evidence in a full trial upon the merits, the trial court determined that the release was not subject to reformation. This was tantamount to entry of summary judgment in favor of defendants and constituted error because the affidavits themselves demonstrated genuine issues of material fact which precluded entry of judgment as a matter of law upon this issue. Weinstein v. General Accident Fire & Life Assurance Co., Fla.App.1962, 141 So.2d 318; Wahlberg v. Miami Military Academy, Fla.App. 1969, 227 So.2d 531; Ocala Stud Farms, Inc. v. Drinkhouse, Fla.App.1972, 257 So. 2d 587.

The final judgment and assessment of costs hinged upon the above decision and same must be and are reversed and the cause remanded with instructions to grant the parties a full trial upon the issue of the reformation of the release and for further proceedings consistent therewith.

Reversed and remanded.

WALDEN, CROSS and OWEN, JJ., concur.