alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Board of Directors Meeting 

Wednesday, June 3, 2020, 2:30 PM 

(approximate start time) 

This event is closed to the public 

Information summaries for the below listed projects can be found on dfc.gov 

Meeting Agenda 

I. CHAIRMAN OPENS MEETING 

II. ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVALS 

a. Tribute – The Honorable Mark Green 

b. Minutes - March 11, 2020 DFC Board of Directors Meeting 

III. PROJECTS 

a. Banco Guayaquil SA (Ecuador) 

Structured Finance 

b. Banco Pichincha DPR (Ecuador) 

Structured Finance 

c. Industrial DPR Funding (Guatemala) 

Structured Finance 

d. Prodigy Finance (Global) 

Structured Finance 

e. Bayport Mexico and Colombia Facility (Colombia, Mexico) 

SME Finance 

f. Asia Partners I LP (Southeast Asia) 

Equity 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Meeting Agenda 

Page 2 

g. AfricInvest IV (Africa Regional) 

Equity 

h. SPE AIF I, LP (North Africa, Francophone Africa, Ethiopia, Kenya) 

Equity 

i. South Asia Growth Fund II (India) 

Equity 

j. Alta Growth Capital, Mexico Fund III, L.P. (Latin America) 

Equity 

k. Freshtohome (India) 

Equity 

IV. TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE 

a. Technical Assistance Overview 

b. Tulu Moye Geothermal Power Project (Ethiopia) 

c. Milk Mantra (India) 

d. Delegation of Authority – Technical Assistance 

V. REPORTS 

VI. MEETING ADJORNED 

Location: Meeting will be held via videoconference.
----

ORDER OF THE COURT

(Fifth Chamber)

of 8 October 2004

in Case C-249/03 Commission of the European Communities v Transport Environment Development Systems (Trends) and Others (1)

(Arbitration clause - Decision 2004/407/EC, Euratom - Articles 2 and 3 - Reference to the Court of First Instance)

(2005/C 69/05)

Language of the case: Greek

In Case C-249/03: application under Article 238 EC, brought on 10 June 2003, by Commission of the European Communities (Agent: M. Patakia, assisted by M. Bra, K. Kapoutzidou and S. Chatziyiannis) against Transport Environment Development Systems (Trends), a civil partnership with non-profit-making aims, established in Athens (Greece), (Lawyer: V. Christianos), Marios Kontaratos, residing in Athens (Greece), Anastasios Tillis, residing in Neo Irakleio, Attica (Greece), (Lawyer: V. Christianos), Georgios Argyrakos, residing in Athens (Greece), Konstantinos Petrakis, residing in Cholargos, Attica (Greece), Fotini Koutrouba, residing in Glyfada, Attica (Greece) – the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of C. Gulmann, acting for the President of the Chamber, R. Schintgen and G. Arestis (Rapporteur), Judges; M. Poiares Maduro, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has made an order on 8 October 2004, the operative part of which is as follows:

Case C-249/03 is referred to the Court of First Instance of the European Communities.

----

(1)OJ C 184 of 02.08.2003.

----
DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE

HEADQUARTERS AIR FORCE FLIGHT STANDARDS AGENCY 

03 Oct 14

MEMORANDUM FOR HQ FAA/AGC-10

FROM: HQ AFFSA/A3O

 6500 South MacArthur Blvd (AJW31AF)

 Oklahoma City, OK 73169 

SUBJECT: Addition to Exemption 7960 (Docket No. FAA-2001-10191)

1. Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Exemption 7960 was granted to the United States 

Air Force on 24 Jan 2003 (renewed as 7960F on 11 Jul 2013) and exempts certain activities of 

the USAF from the provisions of 14 CFR §91.209 (a)(1) and (b). The requirement for the Air 

Force, and other military service’s aircraft participating in approved joint or combined air 

operations, to conduct night vision device (NVD) training with lights out in Military Operating 

Areas (MOA) continues. We request two additional MOAs be added to the Exemption IAW 14 

CFR Part 11. 

2. The Air Force respectfully requests additional MOA’s be added to the list of approved areas. 

The list of MOAs to be covered under this exemption is maintained as Attachment 1 to this 

letter. Changes to this list from the previous list include two additional of MOAs.

3. The Air Force will continue to abide by all the terms and conditions of Exemption 7960, as 

amended. These include, but are not limited to: issuing a NOTAM at least 48 hours before the 

lights out operations are to begin; providing annual informational briefings to local flying 

organizations and other civilian users within 100 nautical miles of the MOA airspace; developing 

a letter of agreement with the servicing air traffic control facility; and continuous radar 

monitoring by military personnel to detect all nonparticipating aircraft. As lights out NVD 

operations have been conducted safely by these units since this exemption was granted in 2003, 

the Air Force Flight Standards Agency, on behalf of the Department of the Air Force, requests 

your consideration in granting this request.

3. I may be contacted at (405) 582-5017, e-mail: hqaffsa.a3of@tinker.af.mil. Thank you in 

advance for your consideration and assistance.

ERIC D. MEYN, Lt Col, USAF

Chief, Flight Directives Division (IMA)
ATTACHMENT 1

2014 MOA List for FAA Exemption 7960

* = new or change for 2014

MOA (All subdivisions unless otherwise noted. e.g. Eagle Hi & Lo, 1 & 2, etc.)

Adirondack Galena Pike

Airburst Gamecock Pine Hill

Avon Gandy Pinon Canyon

Bagdad Gladden Powder River

Basinger Goose Red Hills

Beaver Hart Reserve

Birch Hays Reveille

Bison Hill Top Rose Hill

Bronco Hog (Hi N&S, Lo N&S) Saddle

Brownwood Howard Salem

Brush Creek Jackal Sells

Buckeye Jarbidge Sevier

Buffalo Juniper Seymour Johnson

Bulldog Kingsville Smokey

Camden Ridge La Veta (Low) Snoopy

Carthage Lake Andes Steelhead

Cato Lake Placid Stony

Cheyenne Lindbergh Susitna

Condor Lowville Taiban

Cougar (Hi and Lo)* Lucin Talon

Cranberry Marian Tiger

Crypt Moody Tombstone

Delta Morenci Truman

Desert Mt. Dora Tupper

DeSoto Naknek Turtle

Devils Lake O’Neill Twelve Mile

Dolphin Olympic Viper

Duke Outlaw Volk

Eielson Owyhee Warrior

Eureka Palatka White Elk

Falls Paradise Yankee

Farmville Pecos Yukon

Fox Pickett
## I N T H E C O U R T O F C R I M I N A L A P P E A L S O F T E X A S

N O . A P - 7 6 , 6 4 6

E X P A R T E S H E R R I F R E D E R I C K , A p p l i c a n t

O N A P P L I C A T I O N F O R A W R I T O F H A B E A S C O R P U S C A U S E N O . 1 2 7 7 7 4 1 - B I N T H E 3 3 9 J U D I C I A L D I S T R I C T C O U R T T H F R O M H A R R I S C O U N T Y

P e r c u r i a m . O P I N I O N Pursuant to the provisions of Article 11.07 of the Texas Code of Crim i n al P ro ce dure, the cler k of the trial court transmitted to this Court this application for writ of habea s corpus. Ex parte Y oung , 418 S.W .2d 824, 826 (Tex. Crim. App. 1967). Applicant pleade d g uilty to possession of a controlled substance and was sentenc ed to six months’ state jail imprisonment. She did not appea l her c onviction. Applicant contends that she is actua lly innocent of the offe nse to which she pleade d g uilty

. Applicant was arr ested on S ep tember 12, 2010. The substance she possessed was sent to the Houston Police Depa

rtment crime lab for testing, but testing was not completed until Fe bruar y 23,2

2011. The results of the testing we re n o t av ai lable until more than four months afte r Applicant
enter ed a neg otiated plea of g uilty , on October 1, 2010. The results of the testing showed no controlled substanc e in the evide nce g ather ed fr om Applicant’s ar rest. The trial court has deter

mined that Applicant is entitled to relief on the basis of actua l innocenc e. See Ex part e T uley , 109 S.W .3d 3 8 8 (T ex . C ri m. App. 2002). Relief is g rante d. The judgme nt in Cause No. 1277741 in the 339th Judi cial District Court of Ha rris County

is set aside, and Applicant is rema

nded to the custody of t he sheriff of Har ris County

to answer

the cha rg es as set out in the indictment. The trial court shall issue any nece ssary bench war rant within 10 day s afte r the mandate of this Court issues. Copies of this opinion shall be sent to the Texas Depa rtment of Cr

im in a l Ju s ti c e

– Co r

r e c tional I nstitut ions Division and Pardons and Paroles Division.

Deliver ed: September

28, 2011 Do Not Publish
EXHIBIT 99.1

CERTIFICATION OF THE PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER

I, Tor Olav Troim, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 20-F of CalPetro  Tankers (Bahamas
II) Limited;

2.  Based on my  knowledge,  this  annual  report  does not  contain  any untrue
statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact  necessary to make
the statements made, in light of the  circumstances  under which such statements
were made,  not  misleading  with  respect to the period  covered by this annual
report;

3.  Based  on my  knowledge,  the  financial  statements,  and  other  financial
information  included  in this annual  report,  fairly  present in all  material
respects the financial  condition,  results of operations  and cash flows of the
registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this annual report;

4.  The  registrant's  other  certifying  officer  and  I  are  responsible  for
establishing and maintaining  disclosure  controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and have:

a) designed  such  disclosure  controls and  procedures  to ensure that material
information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries,
is made known to us by others  within those  entities,  particularly  during the
period in which this annual report is being prepared;

b) evaluated  the  effectiveness  of the  registrant's  disclosure  controls and
procedures  as of a date  within 90 days prior to the filing date of this annual
report (the "Evaluation Date"); and

c) presented in this annual report our conclusions  about the  effectiveness  of
the  disclosure  controls  and  procedures  based  on our  evaluation  as of the
Evaluation Date;

5. The registrant's other certifying officer and I have disclosed,  based on our
most recent evaluation,  to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of
registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function):

a) all significant  deficiencies in the design or operation of internal controls
which  could  adversely  affect the  registrant's  ability  to record,  process,
summarize and report  financial data and have  identified  for the  registrant's
auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; and

b) any  fraud,  whether  or not  material,  that  involves  management  or other
employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal controls; and

6. The registrant's other certifying officer and I have indicated in this annual
report whether or not there were significant  changes in internal controls or in
other factors that could  significantly  affect internal controls  subsequent to
the date of our most recent  evaluation,  including any corrective  actions with
regard to significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.


/s/ Tor Olav Troim
---------------------------
Tor Olav Troim
President
(Chief Executive Officer)

Date:  June 30, 2003
Consent of Independent Certified Public Accountants


We  hereby  consent  to the  incorporation  by  reference  in  the  Registration
Statements  on  Form  S-3  (Reg.  Nos.  333-17715,   333-18695,  333-49505,  and
333-67271)  and  on  Form  S-8  (Reg.  Nos.  333-99262,   333-06899,  333-15701,
333-16043,  333-30445,  333-41305,  333-49495,  333-49493, 333-58261, 333-69915,
333-79001,  333-88329,  and  333-64252)  of MPS  Group,  Inc.  (formerly,  Modis
Professional  Services,  Inc.) and it subsidiaries of our report dated March 20,
2002 relating to the consolidated  financial  statements,  which appears in this
Form 10-K.

PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
Jacksonville, Florida
March 25, 2002
EXHIBIT 32.1

                          SECTION 906 CERTIFICATION OF
         PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER OF
                            FIRST AMERICAN GROUP INC.

In connection with the accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of First
American Group Inc. for the quarter ended June 30, 2011, the undersigned, Mazen
Kouta, President and Chief Executive Officer, principal accounting officer and
principal financial officer, of First American Group Inc., does hereby certify
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

     (1)  such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2011
          fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
          Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

     (2)  the information contained in such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for
          the quarter ended June 30, 2011 fairly presents, in all material
          respects, the financial condition and results of operations of First
          American Group Inc.

Date: August 12, 2011                 /s/ Mazen Kouta
                                      ------------------------------------------
                                      Mazen Kouta
                                      President, Treasurer, Principal Accounting
                                      Officer and Principal Financial Officer
Third District Court of Appeal

State of Florida

Opinion filed September 2, 2015.

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

No. 3D15-204

Lower Tribunal No. 13-4180

________________

Eller-I.T.O. Stevedoring Company, L.L.C., et al.,

Petitioners,

vs.

Lazaro Pandolfo and Olga Alvarez, etc.,

Respondents.

A Case of Original Jurisdiction – Prohibition.

Hamilton, Miller & Birthisel and Jerry D. Hamilton, Robert M. Oldershaw,

and Michael J. Dono, for petitioners.

Dorta Law and Matias R. Dorta and Gonzalo R. Dorta, for respondents. 

Before SUAREZ, C.J., and LAGOA and SCALES, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

We grant the Appellant’s, Eller-I.T.O. Stevedoring Company, LLC, Motion

to Clarify solely to indicate that the Court’s June 24, 2015 Order staying the

mandate in Case No. 3D15-204 does not stay the proceedings in the trial court,

Lower Case No. 13-04180 CA 32.
COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA

Present: Chief Judge Fitzpatrick, Judges Elder and Overton Argued at Richmond, Virginia

RENEE AGARD MEMORANDUM OPINION * BY v. Record No. 1247-97-2 JUDGE NELSON T. OVERTON MARCH 10, 1998 ANTHONY L. THOMPSON, A MINOR, BY CLAY B. BLANTON, GUARDIAN AD LITEM

FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF CHARLES CITY COUNTY Samuel T. Powell, III, Judge (Renee Agard, pro se , on brief). (Clay B. Blanton, Guardian ad litem , on brief) for appellee. 1

Renee Agard appeals the refusal of the circuit court to sever her parental rights to her son, Anthony L. Thompson (hereinafter "Anthony"). Because we find no error, we affirm. According to the parties' statement of facts, Anthony ran away from home on August 2, 1995 to the home of his grandmother and aunt. He left because he was frequently beaten by his stepfather, Walter Agard. Ms. Agard knew of the beatings and yet did nothing to stop them. As a result of this abuse, Anthony was placed in the custody of Charles City County Social Services and later his aunt and grandmother. Walter Agard was convicted of assault and battery in connection with the beatings. Ms. Agard moved the Charles

* Pursuant to Code § 17-116.010 this opinion is not designated for publication.

1 Both parties waived oral argument. Therefore, we have decided the case on the briefs and the record.- 2 - City County Juvenile and Domestic Relations District Court to terminate her parental rights to Anthony due to her fear of Anthony, the strain her husband's incarceration placed upon her marriage and the financial constraints of her family. Both the juvenile and circuit courts denied her request on the grounds that Anthony still showed affection for his mother, and he was no longer in her custody. "Under familiar principles we view [the] evidence and all reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to the prevailing party below. Where, as here, the court hears evidence ore tenus , its finding is entitled to great weight and will not be disturbed on appeal unless plainly wrong or without evidence to support it."

Martin v. Dep't of Soc. Services , 3 Va. App. 15, 20, 348 S.E.2d 13, 16 (1986) (quoting Simmons v. Simmons , 1 Va. App. 358, 361, 339 S.E.2d 198, 199 (1986)). On the spare record before us, we cannot say the court's conclusion, that the best interests of the child are served by preserving the ties between him and his mother, is either plainly wrong or without support. Accordingly,

we affirm.

Affirmed.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JUAN PABLO LONDONOGUTIERREZ,

 Petitioner,

 v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 11-73027

Agency No. A098-569-190

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted November 18, 2014** 

Before: LEAVY, FISHER, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

Juan Pablo Londono-Gutierrez, a native and citizen of Colombia, petitions

for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his

appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his application for

FILED

NOV 24 2014

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

 * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

 ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
asylum and withholding of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. 

We grant the petition for review and remand.

In denying Londono-Gutierrez’s asylum and withholding of removal claims,

the agency found Londono-Gutierrez failed to establish past persecution or a fear

of future persecution on account of a protected ground. When the IJ and BIA

issued their decisions in this case, they did not have the benefit of this court’s

decisions in Henriquez-Rivas v. Holder, 707 F.3d 1081 (9th Cir. 2013) (en banc),

Cordoba v. Holder, 726 F.3d 1106 (9th Cir. 2013), and Pirir-Boc v. Holder, 750

F.3d 1077 (9th Cir. 2014), or the BIA’s decisions in Matter of M-E-V-G-, 26 I. &

N. Dec. 227 (BIA 2014), and Matter of W-G-R-, 26 I. & N. Dec. 208 (BIA 2014). 

Thus, we remand Londono-Gutierrez’s asylum and withholding of removal claims

to determine the impact, if any, of these decisions. See INS v. Ventura, 537 U.S.

12, 16-18 (2002) (per curiam).

In light of this conclusion, we do not reach Londono-Gutierrez’s remaining

contentions regarding his asylum and withholding of removal claims at this time.

PETITION FOR REVIEW GRANTED; REMANDED.

2 11-73027
Page 1 of 3

Disposition Comments

Docket No: FAA-2014-0005 These comments are in

Directorate ID: 2013-NM-144-AD response to an SNPRM

Originating Office Tracking No.: 2013-0165

Next Step: FRAN SNPRM

 No Comments/Only Supportive Comments Received – If this box is checked, no signatures are 

required.

No Has the referenced service information been revised since the NPRM was issued? If yes,

list latest revision and attach a copy. Note that changes beyond the scope of the previously 

published NPRM will require a new notice. Contact the Directorate focal point for guidance.

Instructions: Summarize all comments by issue (not by commenter) and provide your recommended resolution of 

each issue. All comments relating to the same issue should be discussed together. Do not list all of the issues 

from one commenter together. If changes to the AD are required based on the comments received, explain why and 

describe in detail what change(s) you recommend. Reference FAA-IR-M-8040.1C Chapter 9.

ISSUE 1: Select one of the following: 

If other, explain: 

Commenter(s): 

What change to the AD action is requested? 

Why is the change requested or how is it justified? 

Do we agree? 

If YES, we agree because Make the following changes to the AD: 

If PARTIALLY AGREE, we agree with because We disagree with because 

Make the following changes to the AD: 

If NO, we don’t agree because 

ISSUE 2: Select one of the following: 

If other, explain: 

Commenter(s): 

What change to the AD action is requested? 

Why is the change requested or how is it justified? 

Do we agree? 

If YES, we agree because Make the following changes to the AD: 

If PARTIALLY AGREE, we agree with because We disagree with because 

Make the following changes to the AD:
Page 2 of 3

If NO, we don’t agree because 

For additional issues, double-click here
Page 3 of 3

Signature Section

Signature indicates concurrence with this action.

Originating Office Tracking No.: 

ASE Printed Name: Date

Branch Manager Date
Exhibit 10(e)6 12-31-2013


Exhibit 10(e)6


ALLETE Executive Annual Incentive Plan
Form of Award
Effective 2014
[Eligible Executive Employees]


Target Award Opportunity






	
		
	Base Salary
	$

	 
	 

	Times
	 

	 
	 

	Award Opportunity (percent of base salary)
	%

	 
	 

	Equals
	 

	 
	 

	Target Award 
	$






Performance Levels and Award Amounts




	
			
	Goal Performance Level
	Payout as Percent of 
Target Award
	Award Amount 

	Superior
	200% 
	$

	Target
	100% 
	$

	Threshold
	37.5% 
	$

	Below Threshold
	0% 
	$








Goals


	
									
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	Goal

	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	Weighting

	 
	Financial Goals
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 

	 
	 
	Net Income 
	50%

	 
	 
	Cash from Operating Activities
	 
	25%

	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 

	 
	Strategic & Operational Positioning Goals
	 
	 
	 
	  25% 

	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	100%






Compensation Subject to Compensation Recovery Policy


Annual Incentive Plan Compensation is subject to recoupment as defined in the Compensation Recovery policy.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Gaby Gonzalez, Also Known as Gambino Conrad Gonzalez, Also Known as Gaby Gomez, Appellant.

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Howard E. Bell, J.), rendered May 25, 1989, convicting defendant after jury trial of two counts of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree and one count of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him as a predicate felon to concurrent terms of 5-10 years imprisonment, unanimously affirmed.

A police officer, using eight-power binoculars, observed defendant from the rooftop of a 12-story building from a distance of about 120-140 feet, selling vials of cocaine to two separate individuals. The two buyers were arrested in possession of the contraband, and defendant was subsequently apprehended while still in the officer’s line of sight. The arresting backup officer seized two more vials of cocaine and a quantity of cash from defendant. Any inconsistencies between the testimony of the observing officer and the arresting backup officer were inconsequential, and in any event were within the province of the jury to resolve *(People v Rodriguez,*168 AD2d 210, 211).

Defendant’s claim that a missing witness charge should have been given, raised for the first time on this appeal, is without merit. There is no reason to believe that other backup officers who had not observed the transactions could have *322provided material testimony of more than cumulative value *(People v Perez,*157 AD2d 581, *lv denied*75 NY2d 922; *see, People v Paez,*159 AD2d 259, *lv denied*76 NY2d 740).

The prosecutor’s comments on summation, as tempered by curative instructions from the bench, were fair response to defendant’s attack on the credibility of the People’s witnesses *(see, People v Galloway,*54 NY2d 396). Concur—Murphy, P. J., Carro, Kupferman and Smith, JJ.