alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
SPECIAL POWER OF ATTORNEY


         KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS,  that the  undersigned  constitutes and
appoints  Danny  Edwards and Robert G.J.  Burg,  and each of them,  his true and
lawful   attorney-in-fact   and  agent  with  full  power  of  substitution  and
resubstitution,  for him  and in his  name,  place,  and  stead,  in any and all
capacities,  to sign the Annual  Report on Form 10-K for the  fiscal  year ended
December 31, 1996,  for filing with the  Securities  and Exchange  Commission by
Royal Grip, Inc., a Nevada corporation,  together with any and all amendments to
such  Form  10-K,  and to file  the  same  with all  exhibits  thereto,  and all
documents in connection therewith,  with the Securities and Exchange Commission,
granting to such  attorneys-in-fact and agents, and each of them, full power and
authority to do and perform each and every act and thing requisite and necessary
to be done in and about the  premises,  as fully and to all intents and purposes
as he might or could do in person, hereby ratifying and confirming all that such
attorneys-in-fact  and agents,  or each of them,  may lawfully do or cause to be
done by virtue hereof.

         DATED:     February 20, 1997

                                        /s/ Barry Entous
                                       ----------------------------
                                        Barry Entous


<PAGE>
STATE of California        )
                           )
County of Los Angeles      )

         On this 20th day of February,  1997, before me, the undersigned  Notary
Public,  personally  appeared  BARRY ENTOUS,  known to me to be the person whose
name is subscribed to the within  instrument and  acknowledged  that he executed
the same for the purposes therein contained.

         IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I hereunto set my hand and official seal.

                                            /s/ Wanda D. Perry
                                            ---------------------------
                                             Notary Public


[SEAL]
My commission expires

May 24, 1999
----------------------------
Exhibit 10.3


 


Consolidated and Secured Notes Modification
Agreement


 


AGREEMENT by and between Protalex, Inc.,
a Delaware corporation (the “Company”) and Niobe Ventures, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company (“Niobe”).


 


WHEREAS, Niobe is the holder of a Consolidated,
Amended and Restated Promissory Note (the “Consolidated Note”) made by the Company in the principal amount of
$9,219,366, dated October 11, 2013, with a maturity date of September 1, 2017, as of the date hereof (the “Consolidated
Note Maturity Date”); and


 


WHEREAS, Niobe is the holder of the Secured
Promissory Notes listed on the attached Schedule A (the “Secured Notes”) made by the Company in the aggregate
principal amount of $8,885,000, each with a maturity date of September 1, 2017, as of the date hereof (the “Secured Notes
Maturity Date”). Collectively, the Consolidated Note Maturity Date and the Secured Notes Maturity Date are hereinafter
referred to as the “Maturity Date”; and


 


WHEREAS, the parties desire to extend
the Maturity Date to March 31, 2018.


 


NOW THEREFORE, the parties hereby agree
as follows:


 


1.          The
Maturity Date is hereby extended to March 31, 2018.


 


2.          Except
as otherwise modified hereby, all other terms and provisions of the Consolidated Note and each of the Secured Notes shall remain
in full force and effect.


 


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have
duly executed and delivered this Agreement as of the date indicated below.


 


Dated: October 31, 2016


 


	 	PROTALEX, INC.
	 	 	 
	 	By:	/s/ Kirk M. Warshaw
	 	 	Kirk M. Warshaw, Chief Financial Officer
	 	 	 
	 	NIOBE VENTURES, LLC
	 	 	 
	 	By:	/s/ Arnold P. Kling
	 	 	Arnold P. Kling, Manager


 




     


     


    

 


Schedule A


 


Secured Notes with September 1, 2017 Maturity
Dates


 


	Outstanding
 Notes –
 Issuance Dates	 	Principal	 
	11/4/2014	 	$	300,000	 
	11/26/2014	 	$	430,000	 
	1/9/2015	 	$	645,000	 
	2/4/2015	 	$	545,000	 
	3/9/2015	 	$	395,000	 
	4/1/2015	 	$	300,000	 
	5/1/2015	 	$	345,000	 
	5/29/2015	 	$	345,000	 
	7/1/2015	 	$	345,000	 
	7/31/2015	 	$	345,000	 
	8/31/2015	 	$	345,000	 
	10/6/2015	 	$	345,000	 
	11/10/2015	 	$	345,000	 
	12/1/2015	 	$	345,000	 
	1/4/2016	 	$	345,000	 
	2/1/2016	 	$	345,000	 
	3/4/2016	 	$	345,000	 
	4/1/2016	 	$	345,000	 
	5/3/2016	 	$	345,000	 
	6/1/2016	 	$	345,000	 
	7/1/2016	 	$	375,000	 
	8/1/2016	 	$	375,000	 
	9/9/2016	 	$	345,000	 
	10/4/2016	 	$	345,000	 
	Total	 	$	8,885,000.00
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Maurice Eugene BROWN, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 93-4267

Non-Argument Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.

July 20, 1994.

*120Joaquin Perez and Jonathan Karl Thiele, Miami, FL, for appellant.

Kendall Coffey, U.S. Atty., Orlando A. Prescott, Alice Ann Burns, Linda Collins Hertz, and Yvette R. Prescott, Asst. U.S. Attys., Miami, FL, for appellee.

Before TJOFLAT, Chief Judge, EDMONDSON and DUBINA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

In this drug case, defendant argues that the district court abused its discretion by refusing to give a lesser included offense charge to the jury. Defendant says the jury should have had an opportunity to find him guilty of simple possession for personal use, as an alternative to importation and possession with intent to distribute.

The district court did not abuse its discretion by refusing to give the lesser included offense charge. Defendant possessed two kilograms of 93% pure cocaine. Defendant also admitted that he planned to sell the cocaine. No rational jury could have concluded, based on the evidence, that defendant intended to possess the cocaine for purely personal use. *See U.S. v. Catchings,*922 F.2d 777, 780-81 (11th Cir.1991).

Our conclusion in this case is strengthened by the fact that Brown’s defense rested *not*on a theory that corresponds to the requested instruction, that is, that defendant had no intent to distribute. Rather, defendant argued at trial that he lacked knowledge of the cocaine. When a defendant relies on an exculpatory defense that, if believed, would lead to acquittals on both the greater and lesser charges, it is no abuse of discretion to refuse to instruct the jury on a lesser included offense. *See U.S. v. Zwpata-Tamallo,*833 F.2d 25, 28-29 (2nd Cir.1987).

Defendant’s conviction is AFFIRMED.
EXHIBIT 13.2



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 this Annual Report of Canadian
Zinc Corporation (the “Company”) on Form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2015, as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Trevor Cunningham, 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 results of operations of the Company.







|Date: October 3, 2016 | By: | /s/ Trevor
    L. Cunningham                                                                                                          
|--------------------- | --- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                      |     |                                                                                                                                       
|                      |     | Trevor
                                    L. Cunningham, CPA, CMA
        Vice President, Finance and Chief Financial
        Officer



The foregoing certification is being furnished
solely pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code)
and is not being filed as part of the Report or as a separate disclosure document.
#### Floyd E. HUNTLEY, Petitioner, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE.

No. 11485.

Circuit Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Aug. 1, 1939.

A. W. Clapp, Charles W. Briggs, and Wayne C. Gilbert, all of St. Paul, Minn., for petitioner.

James W. Morris, Asst. Atty. Gen., Sewall Key, Sp. Asst, to Atty. Gen., and J. P. Wenchel, Chief Counsel, Bureau of Internal Revenue, and C. E. Lowery, Sp. Atty., Bureau of Internal Revenue, both of Washington, D. C, for respondent.

PER CURIAM.

Cause remanded to Board of Tax Appeals for further proceedings, per stipulation of party.
#### Application of James F. WILSON for Writ of Habeas Corpus.

No. A-12268.

Criminal Court of Appeals of Oklahoma.

Jan. 4, 1956.

James F. Wilson, pro se.

Mac Q. Williamson, Atty. Gen., for respondent.

JONES, Presiding Judge.

This is an original action in habeas corpus instituted by James F. Wilson to secure his release from confinement in the penitentiary. The Attorney General has demurred to the petition as being insufficient to justify the issuance of the writ.

The petition alleges that petitioner was sentenced to serve a term of 30 years imprisonment in the penitentiary by the District Court of Tulsa County in case No. 15,201, but the alleged crime which was committed is not stated. The petition alleges “that your petitioner was entered a plea of guilty by his attorney, without any witnesses appearing against him, that the alleged complaints are completely without merit, that the charges are false and petitioner is entitled to his immediate release.”

*186The petition does not give much information to this court. It would appear, however, that the petitioner had an attorney and a plea of guilty was entered to some crime. Of course when a plea of guilty is entered, the allegations of the information are taken as true and it is not necessary for any witnesses to appear against the accused.

Habeas corpus may not be substituted for an appeal and in a habeas corpus proceeding this court may not inquire into the guilt or innocence of the accused but are limited to determining whether or not the court which sentenced the accused exceeded its jurisdiction in pronouncing sentence. Since there is nothing in the petition to show that the trial court was without jurisdiction, the writ of habeas, corpus is denied.

BRETT and POWELL, JJ., concur.
### DLA PCB Import Petition

Schedule of presentations for the informal hearing on July 8, 2014.

**Time Speaker**  9:00 a.m. – 9:15 a.m. Wi lliamNoggle (EPA) – Introduction 9:15 a.m. – 9:45 a.m. Dr. Rennae Anderson 9: 4 5 a.m. – 11:00 a.m. Presentations/Comments from hearing attendees 11:00 a.m. – 11:15 a.m. --- Break --- 11:15 a.m. – 1:00 p.m. Continue presentations/comments from hearing attendees
# C_2010161EN.01001201.xml

| 19.6.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 161/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.6.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 161/12

---

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 29 April 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Firenze — Italy) — Camar Srl v Presidenza del Consiglio dei Ministri

(Case C-102/09) (1)

(International agreements - Yaoundé Convention - Fourth ACP-EEC Lomé Convention - Standstill clause - Internal taxation - Bananas)

(2010/C 161/16)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale di Firenze

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Camar Srl

Defendant: Presidenza del Consiglio dei Ministri

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Tribunale di Firenze — Common organisation of the markets — Bananas — Compatibility with Article 14 of the First Yaoundé Convention and with the import system governed by the ACP-EEC Lomé Convention of a national law imposing a consumption tax on bananas originating in Somalia

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | Article 14 of the Convention of Association between the European Economic Community and the African States and Madagascar associated with the Community, signed at Yaoundé on 20 July 1963, did not preclude a tax on bananas originating in Somalia such as that introduced by Law No 986/1964 of 9 October 1964. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Article 14 of the Convention of Association between the European Economic Community and the African States and Madagascar associated with the Community, signed at Yaoundé on 20 July 1963, did not preclude a tax on bananas originating in Somalia such as that introduced by Law No 986/1964 of 9 October 1964.

| 2. | The national court is not required to examine the specific effects of increases of a tax on imports of bananas originating in Somalia, such as the tax introduced by the legislation at issue in the main proceedings, by comparison with the situation before 1 April 1976, in order to determine whether such increases are compatible with the standstill clause in Article 1 of Protocol No 5 on bananas annexed to the Fourth Lomé Convention. However, increases of such a tax which simply adjust it to take account of inflation are not incompatible with that clause. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The national court is not required to examine the specific effects of increases of a tax on imports of bananas originating in Somalia, such as the tax introduced by the legislation at issue in the main proceedings, by comparison with the situation before 1 April 1976, in order to determine whether such increases are compatible with the standstill clause in Article 1 of Protocol No 5 on bananas annexed to the Fourth Lomé Convention. However, increases of such a tax which simply adjust it to take account of inflation are not incompatible with that clause.

---

(1)  OJ C 129, 6.6.2009.

---
# C_2008171EN.01003901.xml

| 5.7.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 171/39 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.7.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 171/39

---

Action brought on 21 April 2008 — Victor Guedes-Indústria e Comércio v OHIM — Consorci de l'Espai Rural de Gallecs (GALLECS)

(Case T-151/08)

(2008/C 171/74)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Victor Guedes-Indústria e Comércio, SA (Lisbon, Portugal) (represented by: B. Braga da Cruz, lawyer)

Applicant

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

Defendant

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Consorci de l'Espai Rural de Gallecs (Barcelona, Spain)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal:

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 16 January 2008 in case R 986/2007-2; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 16 January 2008 in case R 986/2007-2;

| — | order OHIM to refuse the grant of the registration of Community trademark No 3 710 597 in respect of the goods in classes 29 and 31: and |
| --- | --- |

—

order OHIM to refuse the grant of the registration of Community trademark No 3 710 597 in respect of the goods in classes 29 and 31: and

| — | order the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for the Community trade mark: Consorci de l'Espai Rural de Gallecs

Applicant for the Community trade mark:

Community trade mark concerned: The figurative mark ‘GALLECS’ for goods in classes 29 and 31 — application No 3 710 597

Community trade mark concerned:

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The applicant

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings:

Mark or sign cited: The national figurative mark ‘GALLO’ for goods in class 29; the national figurative mark ‘GALLO AZEITE NOVO’ for goods in class 29; the national figurative mark ‘AZEITE GALLO’ for goods in class 29; the national mark ‘GALLO AZEITE NOVO’ for goods in class 29; the Community figurative mark ‘GALLO’ for goods in class 29

Mark or sign cited:

Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejection of the opposition in its entirety

Decision of the Opposition Division:

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) and of Article 8(5) of Council Regulation No 40/94 as the contested mark is similar to earlier marks and its use would be detrimental to the distinctive character of such, taking into account the usual practices in the relevant commercial sector as well as the other circumstances of the case.

Pleas in law:

---
<PAGE>   1
                                                                      EXHIBIT 21



               Subsidiaries of Murdock Communications Corporation


      As of December 31, 1997, the subsidiaries of Murdock Communications 
Corporation were as follows:

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
Name                                                   Jurisdiction of Incorporation or Organization
----                                                   ---------------------------------------------
<S>                                                    <C>
MCC Acquisition Corp.                                  Iowa
Priority International Communications Inc.             Texas
PIC Resources Corp.                                    Texas
ATN Communications Incorporated                        Delaware
Giude*Star, L.L.C. (1)                                 Iowa
</TABLE>

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

(1)  Murdock Communications Corporation has a 50% ownership interest in this 
     limited liability company.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Postal Service

# AGENCY:

                        Postal ServiceTM.                    

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.

# DATES:

*Date of required notice:*                         January 11, 2024.                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Sean C. Robinson, 202-268-8405.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on January 4, 2024, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a                     *USPS Request to Add Priority Mail Express, Priority Mail & USPS Ground Advantage® Contract 42 to Competitive Product List.*                     Documents are available at                     *www.prc.gov,*                     Docket Nos. MC2024-159, CP2024-165.                

Sean C. Robinson,

Attorney, Corporate and Postal Business Law.

[FR Doc. 2024-00387 Filed 1-10-24; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
IB 

Union Calendar No. 509 

115TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4738 

[Report No. 115–662, Part I] 

To amend the Investment Company Act of 1940 to provide complaint and 

burden of proof requirements for certain actions for breach of fiduciary 

duty. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 8, 2018 

Mr. EMMER introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee 

on Financial Services, and in addition to the Committee on the Judiciary, 

for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case 

for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the 

committee concerned 

MAY 7, 2018 

Reported from the Committee on Financial Services 

MAY 7, 2018 

The Committee on the Judiciary discharged; committed to the Committee of 

the Whole House on the State of the Union and ordered to be printed 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 4738 RH

A BILL 

To amend the Investment Company Act of 1940 to provide 

complaint and burden of proof requirements for certain 

actions for breach of fiduciary duty. 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 4738 RH

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 ‘‘Mutual Fund Litiga5 tion Reform Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. COMPLAINT AND BURDEN OF PROOF REQUIRE7 MENTS FOR CERTAIN ACTIONS FOR BREACH 

8 OF FIDUCIARY DUTY. 

9 Section 36(b) of the Investment Company Act of 

10 1940 (15 U.S.C. 80a–35(b)) is amended by adding at the 

11 end the following: 

12 ‘‘(7) In any such action brought by a security 

13 holder of a registered investment company on behalf 

14 of such company— 

15 ‘‘(A) the complaint shall state with par16 ticularity all facts establishing a breach of fidu17 ciary duty, and, if an allegation of any such 

18 facts is based on information and belief, the 

19 complaint shall state with particularity all facts 

20 on which that belief is formed; and 

21 ‘‘(B) such security holder shall have the 

22 burden of proving a breach of fiduciary duty by 

23 clear and convincing evidence.’’. 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with BILLS
Union Calendar No. 509 

115TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4738 

[Report No. 115–662, Part I] 

A BILL 

To amend the Investment Company Act of 1940 to 

duty. ments for certain actions for breach of fiduciary provide complaint and burden of proof requireMAY 7, 2018 

Reported from the Committee on Financial Services 

MAY 7, 2018 

The Committee on the Judiciary discharged; committed 

the Union and ordered to be printed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with BILLS