alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### In re: Lawrence C. DAVIS, Jr., Debtor, Lawrence C. Davis, Jr., Appellant, v. E. Rebecca Case, Appellee.

No. 02-2159.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted Feb. 3, 2003.

Decided Feb. 7, 2003.

Before BOWMAN, WOLLMAN, and LOKEN, Circuit Judges.

[UNPUBLISHED]

PER CURIAM.

Lawrence C. Davis, Jr. appeals the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel’s (BAP’s) or*790der affirming the bankruptcy court’s1 dismissal of Davis’s bankruptcy petition. The bankruptcy court dismissed the petition after Davis faded to appear at the meeting of creditors, and then failed to appear at a later show-cause hearing. The court denied reinstatement of his case, and the BAP affirmed. Davis argues that he did not receive notice of the meeting of creditors, because the notice was sent to an address other than the place of his incarceration; he was unable to attend the meeting and the show-cause hearing due to his incarceration; the bankruptcy court abused its discretion in disregarding indications in the record that he was incarcerated; and he should have been allowed to make the required appearances by alternative means, such as by telephone.

We find no prejudicial abuse of discretion by the bankruptcy court. Davis did not list his prison address on his bankruptcy petition; did not contest that he received notice of the initial or continued show-cause hearings; did not request alternative arrangements to physical appearance until after his case had been dismissed; and has not shown that he was prejudiced by the dismissal. *See*11 U.S.C. § 349 (unless court orders otherwise, dismissal of case does not bar discharge — in a later case — of debts dischargeable in dismissed case, and also does not bar debtor from filing subsequent petition unless case was dismissed for willful failure to abide by court orders or debtor sought voluntary dismissal); *In re Sochia,*231 B.R. 158, 160-62 (Bankr.W.D.N.Y.1999) (debtor had not shown immediate need for bankruptcy relief, or prejudice from waiting until release from confinement to file new petition and personally attend creditors’ meeting); *cf. Mullen v. Galati,*843 F.2d 293, 294 (8th Cir.1988) (per curiam) (dismissal may be warranted for persistent failure to prosecute complaint).

Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed. *See*8th Cir. R. 47B. We also deny the pending motions as meritless or moot.

1

. The Honorable James J. Barta, United States Bankruptcy Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri.
EXHIBIT 21

SUBSIDIARIES OF DUPONT PHOTOMASKS, INC.

|Name                                            |  | Organized Under Laws of   |  | Ownership |  
|----------------------------------------------- |  | ------------------------- |  | --------- | -
|DuPont Dai Nippon Engineering                   |  | Delaware                  |  | 50.0      | %
|DuPont Photomasks Company Limited, Shanghai     |  | Peoples Republic of China |  | 71.5      | %
|DuPont Photomasks Delaware, Inc.                |  | Delaware                  |  | 100.0     | %
|DuPont Photomasks Foreign Sales Corporation     |  | Barbados                  |  | 100.0     | %
|DuPont Photomasks (France) S.A.                 |  | France                    |  | 100.0     | %
|DuPont Photomasks GmbH                          |  | Germany                   |  | 100.0     | %
|DuPont Photomasks Korea Limited                 |  | Republic of Korea         |  | 100.0     | %
|DPI Reticle Technology Center, LLC              |  | Delaware                  |  | 25.0      | %
|DuPont Photomasks Japan Company, Limited        |  | Japan                     |  | 100.0     | %
|DuPont Photomasks Singapore Pte Limited         |  | Singapore                 |  | 100.0     | %
|DuPont Photomasks Taiwan, Limited               |  | Republic of China         |  | 47.5      | %
|Orion Operating Corp.                           |  | Delaware                  |  | 100.0     | %
|DPI Holdings, Inc.                              |  | Delaware                  |  | 100.0     | %
|Bindkey Acquisition Corporation                 |  | Delaware                  |  | 100.0     | %
|DuPont Photomasks Germany GmbH                  |  | Germany                   |  | 100.0     | %
|Advanced Mask Technology Center GmbH & Co. KG   |  | Germany                   |  | 33.3      | %
|Maskhouse Building Administration GmbH & Co. KG |  | Germany                   |  | 33.3      | %
|DuPont Photomasks Suzhou Ltd                    |  | Peoples Republic of China |  | 100.0     | %

---

QuickLinks
EX-4.1



 Exhibit 4.1 
 January 17, 2012 
 Securities and Exchange Commission 

450 Fifth Street, N.W. 
 Judiciary Plaza

 Washington, DC 20549 
  

	RE:	Carnival Corporation, Commission File No. 1-9610, and 


	  	Carnival plc, Commission File No. 1-15136 


Gentlemen: 
 Pursuant to Item 601(b)
(4) (iii) of Regulation S-K promulgated under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, Carnival Corporation and Carnival plc (the “Companies”) hereby agree to furnish copies of certain long-term debt instruments to the
Securities and Exchange Commission upon the request of the Commission, and, in accordance with such regulation, such instruments are not being filed as part of the joint Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Companies for their year ended
November 30, 2011. 
 Very truly yours, 
 CARNIVAL CORPORATION AND CARNIVAL PLC 
 /s/ Arnaldo Perez 

Senior Vice President, General Counsel 
 and
Secretary
# Gazzetta ufficiale L 30/2020

| | ISSN 1977-0707 |
| --- | --- |
| Gazzetta ufficiale
  dell’Unione europea | L 30 |
| | |
| Edizione in lingua italiana | Legislazione | 63° anno3 febbraio 2020 |

ISSN 1977-0707

Gazzetta ufficiale

dell’Unione europea

L 30

Edizione in lingua italiana

Legislazione

63° anno3 febbraio 2020

---

| Sommario | | Rettifiche | pagina |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| | * | Rettifica della decisione (UE) 2019/1815 del Consiglio, del 24 ottobre 2019, relativa alla nomina di due membri e di tre supplenti del Comitato delle regioni, conformemente alla proposta della Repubblica di Slovenia ( GU L 278 del 30.10.2019 ) | 1 |

Sommario

Rettifiche

pagina

*

Rettifica della decisione (UE) 2019/1815 del Consiglio, del 24 ottobre 2019, relativa alla nomina di due membri e di tre supplenti del Comitato delle regioni, conformemente alla proposta della Repubblica di Slovenia ( GU L 278 del 30.10.2019 )

( GU L 278 del 30.10.2019 )

1

| IT | Gli atti i cui titoli sono stampati in caratteri chiari appartengono alla gestione corrente. Essi sono adottati nel quadro della politica agricola ed hanno generalmente una durata di validità limitata.
  I titoli degli altri atti sono stampati in grassetto e preceduti da un asterisco. |
| --- | --- |

IT

Gli atti i cui titoli sono stampati in caratteri chiari appartengono alla gestione corrente. Essi sono adottati nel quadro della politica agricola ed hanno generalmente una durata di validità limitata.

I titoli degli altri atti sono stampati in grassetto e preceduti da un asterisco.

---

Rettifiche

| 3.2.2020 | IT | Gazzetta ufficiale dell’Unione europea | L 30/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.2.2020

IT

Gazzetta ufficiale dell’Unione europea

L 30/1

---

Rettifica della decisione (UE) 2019/1815 del Consiglio, del 24 ottobre 2019, relativa alla nomina di due membri e di tre supplenti del Comitato delle regioni, conformemente alla proposta della Repubblica di Slovenia

(
  Gazzetta ufficiale dell’Unione europea L 278 del 30 ottobre 2019
  )

Pagina 12, articolo 1, lettera b), primo trattino:

anziché:

| «— | sig. Aleksander Saša ARESNOVIČ, župan Mestne občine Maribor,» |
| --- | --- |

«—

sig. Aleksander Saša ARESNOVIČ, župan Mestne občine Maribor,»

leggasi:

| «— | sig. Aleksander Saša ARSENOVIČ, župan Mestne občine Maribor,». |
| --- | --- |

«—

sig. Aleksander Saša ARSENOVIČ, župan Mestne občine Maribor,».

---
Exhibit 31.2
 CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
Pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
             March 24, 2009
    
    By /s/ Shannon K S Johnson
    
    Chief Financial OfficerDate
    
    Shannon K S Johnson
    
    (principal financial officer and
principal
accounting officer)
II

104TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. 1527

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to treat recycling facilities

as solid waste disposal facilities under the tax-exempt bond rules, and

for other purposes.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

JANUARY 25, 1996

Mr. GREGG 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 treat recycling facilities as solid waste disposal facilities under

the tax-exempt bond rules, and for other purposes.

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 ‘‘Environmental Infra5 structure Financing Act of 1995’’.

6 SEC. 2. RECYCLING FACILITIES TREATED AS SOLID WASTE

7 DISPOSAL FACILITIES.

8 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 142 of the Internal Reve9 nue Code of 1986 (defining exempt facility bond) is
2

•S 1527 IS

1 amended by adding at the end the following new sub2 section:

3 ‘‘(k) SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL FACILITIES.—

4 ‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—For purposes of subsection

5 (a)(6), the term ‘solid waste disposal facilities’ in6 cludes qualified recycling facilities.

7 ‘‘(2) QUALIFIED RECYCLING FACILITIES DE8 FINED.—

9 ‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—For purposes of para10 graph (1), the term ‘qualified recycling facili11 ties’ means any facility used—

12 ‘‘(i) to sort and prepare municipal, in13 dustrial, and commercial refuse for recy14 cling, or

15 ‘‘(ii) in the recycling of qualified

16 refuse.

17 ‘‘(B) QUALIFIED REFUSE.—For purposes

18 of this paragraph, the term ‘qualified refuse’

19 means—

20 ‘‘(i) yard waste,

21 ‘‘(ii) food waste,

22 ‘‘(iii) waste paper and paperboard,

23 ‘‘(iv) plastic scrap,

24 ‘‘(v) rubber scrap,
3

•S 1527 IS

1 ‘‘(vi) ferrous and nonferrous scrap

2 metal,

3 ‘‘(vii) waste glass,

4 ‘‘(viii) construction and demolition

5 waste, and

6 ‘‘(ix) biosolids (sewage sludge).

7 ‘‘(C) RECYCLING.—For purposes of this

8 paragraph, the term ‘recycling’ includes ei9 ther—

10 ‘‘(i) processing (including composting)

11 qualified refuse to a point at which such

12 refuse has commercial value; or

13 ‘‘(ii) manufacturing products from

14 qualified refuse when such refuse con15 stitutes at least 40 percent, by weight or

16 volume, of the total materials introduced

17 into the manufacturing process.

18 ‘‘(D) SPECIAL RULE.—Refuse shall not fail

19 to be treated as waste merely because such

20 refuse has a market value at the place such

21 refuse is located only by reason of the value of

22 such refuse for recycling.’’
4

•S 1527 IS

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

2 this section shall apply to bonds issued after the date of

3 the enactment of this Act.

Æ
Letter Agreement dated June 23, 2009 - Jordan Levy



 Exhibit 10.15.2 
 June 23, 2009 
 Jordan Levy 
 One HSBC Center 
 Suite 3850 
 Buffalo, NY 14203 
 Dear Jordan: 

Synacor, Inc. (the “Company”) would like to inform you that the Company’s Board of Directors (the
“Board”) has approved an option repricing program effective as of June 10, 2009 (the “Repricing”). On June 10, 2009, the Board determined that the far market value of the Company’s common stock (the
“Common Stock”) was $1.26 per share. Effective as of June 10, 2009, the Repricing amends the exercise price per share of your option to purchase 60000 (post-split) shares of Common Stock that was granted to you on 9/14/2007
that has an exercise price per share of $1.9967 (post-split) (“Underwater Option”), so that the exercise price per share of your Underwater Option will he equal to $1.26. 

Except for the change to the exercise price, as described above, all of the other terms of the Underwater Option remain the same and
continue to be governed by the option documentation evidencing the Underwater Option, including (without limitation) the number of shares subject to the Underwater Option, the vesting commencement date, vesting schedule, vesting acceleration (if
any) and status as incentive stock options (as described in Section 422(b) of the Internal Revenue Code) or nonstatutory stock options. 
 If you hold any additional options that do not constitute an Underwater Option as of June 10, 2009, such options are not affected in any manner by the Repricing and will continue to be subject to the
option documentation evidencing such options. 
 This letter agreement will be construed and interpreted in accordance with the
laws of the State of New York (other than their choice-of-law provisions) and may be executed in counterparts, each of which will be considered an original, but all of which together will constitute one agreement. Execution of a facsimile copy will
have the same force and effect as execution of an original, and a facsimile signature will be deemed an original and valid signature. 
 Please indicate your agreement with the above terms by signing below. You have until 5:00 p.m. EST on July 1, 2009 to sign and return this letter agreement to Julia Culkin. Please retain a copy of
your signed letter agreement with your option documentation evidencing the Underwater Option. 







 If you do not sign and return this letter agreement to Julia Culkin by July 1, 2009,
you will not be subject to the terms of this letter agreement, which means that your Underwater Option will not be repriced and will not be amended in any manner and will continue to be governed by the option documentation evidencing such Underwater
Option. 
 If you have any questions, please contact me at (716-362-3305). 

 

			
	Very truly yours,
	
	SYNACOR, INC.
		
	By:	 	 





	Title:	 	 VP Human Resources



 I agree to the terms of this letter agreement. 

 

			
	     





	 Signature

	
	     Jordan Levy

	 Jordan Levy

		
	Dated:	 	 5/21/09



  
 Page 2
II

104TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. 1773

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to make a technical correction

in the application of the minimum tax to the nonconventional fuels credit.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

MAY 17, 1996

Mr. SHELBY 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 make

a technical correction in the application of the minimum

tax to the nonconventional fuels credit.

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

3 SECTION 1. TECHNICAL CORRECTION IN APPLICATION OF

4 MINIMUM TAX TO FUELS CREDIT.

5 Effective with respect to taxable years beginning

6 after December 31, 1990, subclause (II) of section

7 53(d)(1)(B)(iv) is amended to read as follows:

8 ‘‘(II) the adjusted net minimum

9 tax for any taxable year is the amount

10 of the net minimum tax for such year
2

•S 1773 IS

1 increased in the manner provided in

2 clause (iii).’’.

Æ
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1781 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

104th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 1781

To amend the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States to provide 
              for duty free treatment for epoxide resins.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                              May 20, 1996

   Mr. Craig introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
                  referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States to provide 
              for duty free treatment for epoxide resins.

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

SECTION 1. ELIMINATION OF DUTY ON EPOXIDE RESINS.

    (a) In General.--Subheading 3907.30.00 of the Harmonized Tariff 
Schedule of the United States is amended to read as follows:
    

          ``     3907.30.00      Epoxide resins....  Free               Free (A, CA, E,                         
                                                                         IL, J, K, MX)     15.4 cents/kg +      
                                                                                            47%                 
                                                                                                              ''

    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) applies 
with respect to goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for 
consumption, on or after the 15th day after the date of the enactment 
of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1903 Engrossed in Senate (ES)]

  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
104th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 1903

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
 To designate the bridge, estimated to be completed in the year 2000, 
that replaces the bridge on Missouri highway 74 spanning from East Cape 
Girardeau, Illinois, to Cape Girardeau, Missouri, as the ``Bill Emerson 
               Memorial Bridge'', and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. DESIGNATION OF BILL EMERSON BRIDGE.

    The bridge, estimated to be completed in the year 2000, that 
replaces the bridge on highway 74 spanning from East Cape Girardeau, 
Illinois, to Cape Girardeau, Missouri, shall be known and designated as 
the ``Bill Emerson Memorial Bridge''.

SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

    Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, paper, or other 
record of the United States to the bridge referred to in section 1 
shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Bill Emerson Memorial 
Bridge''.

            Passed the Senate June 25, 1996.

            Attest:

                                                             Secretary.
104th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                                S. 1903

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 To designate the bridge, estimated to be completed in the year 2000, 
that replaces the bridge on Missouri highway 74 spanning from East Cape 
Girardeau, Illinois, to Cape Girardeau, Missouri, as the ``Bill Emerson 
               Memorial Bridge'', and for other purposes.
```
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Rafael VELARDE, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 93-10601.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Argued and Submitted May 13, 1994.

Decided June 2, 1994.

Alexander Silvert, Asst. Federal Public Defender, Honolulu, HI, for defendant-appellant.

Michael K. Kawahara, Asst. U.S. Atty., Honolulu, HI, for plaintiff-appellee.

Before: FARRIS, BEEZER, and RYMER, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam.

PER CURIAM:

Two police officers observed Rafael Ve-larde walk rapidly through the Honolulu International Airport, abruptly change his path of travel on a few occasions, and nervously glance around as if checking for signs of *849police surveillance. The officers stopped Ve-larde and asked him questions about his travel plans. After receiving his permission, they searched his shoulder bag and discovered approximately one kilogram of cocaine. Velarde was charged with possession of cocaine with intent to distribute in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and 841(b)(1)(B). When the district court denied his motion to suppress the cocaine, Velarde entered a conditional guilty plea and appealed. He argues that the court erred in applying federal law instead of Hawaii’s more stringent exclusionary rule, *see State v. Quino,*74 Haw. 161, 840 P.2d 358 (1992), *cert. denied,*- U.S. -, 113 S.Ct. 1849, 123 L.Ed.2d 472 (1993), and in concluding that he freely consented to the questioning and the search.

We affirm the court’s decision to apply federal law and its determination that Velarde voluntarily agreed to talk to the police and to let them search his shoulder bag for the reasons stated in the district court’s well-reasoned opinion. *United States v. Velarde,*823 F.Supp. 792, 794-797 (D.Haw.1993). *See also United States v. Brady,*993 F.2d 177, 179 (9th Cir.1993); *United States v. Ayers,*924 F.2d 1468, 1478 (9th Cir.1991); *United States v. Chavez-Vernaza,*844 F.2d 1368, 1374 (9th Cir.1987); *United States v. $25,000 U.S. Currency,*853 F.2d 15.01, 1504-05 (9th Cir.1988).

We need not address the court’s alternative ruling that the officers would have been justified in briefly detaining Velarde without his consent, as permitted by *Terry v. Ohio,*392 U.S. 1, 20-22, 88 S.Ct. 1868, 1879-81, 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968). *Velarde,*823 F.Supp. at 797-98. We note, however, that to support a *Terry*stop, the police must identify specific facts which distinguish the suspect from the numerous innocent travelers who erratically dash through airports. *Terry,*392 U.S. at 21, 88 S.Ct. at 1880; *Reid v. Georgia,*448 U.S. 438, 441, 100 S.Ct. 2752, 2754, 65 L.Ed.2d 890 (1980).

AFFIRMED.