alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 3.3

FIRST AMENDMENT  TO  FIRST AMENDED AND RESTATED AGREEMENT  OF LIMITED PARTNERSHIP OF  TRANSMONTAIGNE PARTNERS L.P.

THIS FIRST AMENDMENT to First Amended and Restated Agreement of Limited Partnership of TransMontaigne Partners L.P. ("First
Amendment") dated as of January 23, 2006 is entered into by TransMontaigne GP L.L.C., a Delaware limited liability company (the "Company"), as the General Partner, of TransMontaigne
Partners L.P., a Delaware limited partnership (the "Partnership"). In consideration of the covenants, conditions and agreements contained herein, the parties hereto hereby agree as follows:

R E C I T A L S:

A.    The
Company previously entered into the First Amended and Restated Agreement of Limited Partnership of TransMontaigne Partners L.P., effective as of May 27,
2005 (the "Partnership Agreement").

B.    The
Company has determined that it is in the best interests of the Partnership to change the Partnership's fiscal year, for financial and tax reporting purposes, from
June 30 to December 31, effective as of December 31, 2005.

C.    Pursuant
to Section 13.1(e) of the Partnership Agreement, the Company, as General Partner of the Partnership, without the approval of any partner, has the
authority to amend the Partnership Agreement to reflect a change in the fiscal year or taxable year of the Partnership and any other changes the Company, as General Partner of the Partnership,
determines to be necessary or appropriate as a result of a change in the fiscal year or taxable year of the Partnership.

NOW,
THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises and the covenants, conditions, and agreements contained herein, and for other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and
sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the Parties hereto hereby agree as follows:

1.Definitions.    Capitalized terms, unless otherwise defined herein, shall have the
meanings ascribed thereto in the Partnership Agreement.

2.Change in Fiscal Year.    Section 8.2 of the Partnership Agreement is hereby
amended by deleting the reference to "June 30" therein and inserting in lieu thereof "December 31."

4.Effective Time.    This First Amendment shall be effective as of December 31,
2005, notwithstanding the date of execution hereof.

5.Governing Law.    This First Amendment shall be subject to and governed by the laws of
the State of Colorado, excluding any conflicts-of-law rule or principle that might refer the construction or interpretation of this First Amendment to the laws of another
state.

Except
as otherwise amended herein, the remaining terms and provisions of the Partnership Agreement shall remain in full force and effect.

IN
WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company has executed this First Amendment as of the date above set forth.

TRANSMONTAIGNE GP L.L.C., general
partner of TransMontaigne Partners L.P.By:

/s/ ERIK B. CARLSONName:

Erik B. CarlsonTitle:

Senior Vice President


---



QuickLinks
#### Lloyd C. STALEY, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.

No. 27476.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

March 16, 1955.

No attorney on appeal for appellant.

Leon Douglas, State’s Atty., Austin, for the ■ State.

MORRISON, Presiding Judge.

The offense is indecent exposure; the punishment, 2 years.

The record contains no bills of exception.

Motion for new trial was overruled and notice of appeal was given on July 19, 1954.

The statement of facts vvas filed in the trial court on March 8, 1955, which is long after the expiration of the 90 days provided ¡by Article ,759a, Vernon’s Ann. C.C.P., and .cannot be considered.

All proceedings appearing’ regular, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
|                                                                                                   
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                                                   
|View History: Annual Download Data (XLS File)                                                     
|View History: Annual                                                                               
|View History: Annual                                                                               
|View History:                                                                                      
|                                                                                                   
|U.S. Federal Offshore Crude Oil + Lease Condensate Reserves New Field Discoveries (Million Barrels)
|                                                                                                   
|                                                                                                   
|U.S. Federal Offshore Crude Oil + Lease Condensate Reserves New Field Discoveries (Million Barrels)
|                                                                                                   

|Decade                                                                                                                            | Year-0 | Year-1 | Year-2 | Year-3 | Year-4 | Year-5 | Year-6 | Year-7 | Year-8 | Year-9
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------
|2000's                                                                                                                            |        |        |        |        |        |        |        |        |        | 96    
|2010's                                                                                                                            | 10     | 410    | 7      | 181    | 140    | 20     | --     | --     | --     | --    
|2020's                                                                                                                            | --     | --     |        |        |        |        |        |        |        |       
|- = No Data Reported;  -- = Not Applicable;  NA = Not Available;  W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data.
|                                                                                                                                 
|Release Date: 12/30/2022                                                                                                         
|Next Release Date: 12/29/2023
I 

112TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4500 

To extend the temporary suspension of duty on 5-Chloro-1-indanone. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 24, 2012 

Mr. BISHOP of Georgia introduced the following bill; which was referred to 

the Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To extend the temporary suspension of duty on 5-Chloro1-indanone. 

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

3 SECTION 1. 5-CHLORO-1-INDANONE. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Heading 9902.12.44 of the Har5 monized Tariff Schedule of the United States (relating to 

6 5-Chloro-1-indanone) is amended by striking the date in 

7 the effective period column and inserting ‘‘12/31/2015’’. 

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

9 subsection (a) applies to goods entered, or withdrawn from 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 4500 IH

1 warehouse for consumption, on or after the 15th day after 

2 the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Lundie Brown, Appellant.

(Appeal No. 1.)

Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Defendant appeals from his conviction of first degree attempted robbery (two counts) and first degree assault arising from his stabbing of the clerk of an adult bookstore in Rochester. The unequivocal testimony of the victim was sufficient to establish defendant’s identity as the clerk’s assailant. There was no *Brady*violation *(see, Brady v Maryland,*373 US 83). Defense counsel had advance knowledge of the essential exculpatory fact that the customer in the bookstore had failed to identify defendant and in fact had selected another photo from an array. Moreover, defense counsel was given the customer’s Grand Jury testimony in time to use that evidence at the appropriate time during trial *(see, People v Cortijo,*70 NY2d 868, 870; *People v Murray,*140 AD2d 949, 950, *lv denied*72 NY2d 960). Similarly, our review of the record reveals no *Casería*violation *(see, People v Caserta,*19 NY2d 18, 21). Nowhere in the direct testimony of the People’s witnesses is there reference to the fact that the clerk selected defendant’s picture from the photo array.

There was no unfairness in the court’s alibi rulings. It was within the court’s discretion to grant the People’s motion to preclude the alibi witnesses because the notice of alibi was late and insufficient and the People would have been prejudiced if forced to disprove the alibi defense without an opportunity to investigate it. Defendant failed to object to the cross-examination of defendant or to the rebuttal evidence, which, in any event, were proper. Finally, defendant’s inability to present his independent alibi witness was not due to the court’s ruling. The alibi witness deliberately made himself unavailable.

The prosecutor did not engage in improper burden shifting by arguing that defendant’s false alibi indicated his guilt. Finally, we see no reason to disturb the sentencing court’s *848exercise of discretion in sentencing defendant to *IVi*to 15 years. (Appeal from judgment of Monroe County Court, Egan, J.—attempted robbery, first degree.) Present—Callahan, J. P., Denman, Boomer, Lawton and Davis, JJ.
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.                  

###### Department of Energy

###### Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

          - [Docket No. RP00-548-000]

Take notice that on September 15, 2000, Gulf States Transmission Corporation (Gulf States), tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, Original Volume No. 1 the revised tariff sheets listed in Appendix A to the filing, with an effective date of October 1, 2000.

Gulf States states that this filing is made in compliance with the Commission's mandate under Order No. 637 that pipelines file to remove any tariff provisions that are inconsistent with the temporary removal of the maximum rate ceiling for short term capacity releases.

                    Any person desiring to be heard or to protest said filing should file a motion to intervene or a protest with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Sections 385.214 or 385.211 of the Commission's Rules and Regulations. All such motions or protests must be filed in accordance with Section 154.210 of the Commission's Regulations. Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceedings. Any person wishing to become a party must file a motion to intervene. Copies of this filing are on file with the                           ( print page 58061)                        Commission and are available for public inspection in the Public Reference Room. This filing may be viewed on the web at http://www.ferc.fed.us/​online/​rims.htm (call 202-208-2222 for assistance).                

David P. Boergers,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 00-24770  Filed 9-26-00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
|                                                    
|----------------------------------------------------
|                                                    
|View History: Annual Download Data (XLS File)      
|View History: Annual                                
|View History: Annual                                
|View History:                                       
|                                                    
|Alaska Non-Marketed Production  (Million Cubic Feet)
|                                                    
|                                                    
|Alaska Non-Marketed Production  (Million Cubic Feet)
|                                                    

|Decade                                                                                                                            | Year-0    | Year-1    | Year-2    | Year-3 | Year-4 | Year-5 | Year-6 | Year-7 | Year-8 | Year-9
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | --------- | --------- | --------- | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------
|2020's                                                                                                                            | 3,090,985 | 3,131,396 | 3,213,741 |        |        |        |        |        |        |       
|- = No Data Reported;  -- = Not Applicable;  NA = Not Available;  W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data.
|                                                                                                                                 
|Release Date: 5/31/2024                                                                                                          
|Next Release Date: 6/28/2024
I 

112TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4575 

To modify and extend the temporary reduction of duty on Isoxaflutole. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 24, 2012 

Mr. LUETKEMEYER introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To modify and extend the temporary reduction of duty on 

Isoxaflutole. 

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

3 SECTION 1. ISOXAFLUTOLE. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Heading 9902.11.46 of the Har5 monized Tariff Schedule of the United States (relating to 

6 Isoxaflutole) is amended— 

7 (1) by striking ‘‘Free’’ and inserting ‘‘4.6%’’; 

8 and 

9 (2) by striking ‘‘12/31/2012’’ and inserting 

10 ‘‘12/31/2015’’. 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 4575 IH

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

2 subsection (a) apply with respect to goods entered, or 

3 withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or after 

4 the 15th day after the date of enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Lawrence Arfman, Appellant.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Posner, J.), dated October 6, 1988, convicting him of absconding in the first degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

There is no merit to the defendant’s challenge to the constitutionality of Penal Law § 60.35 and CPL 420.35, which provide for the imposition or waiver, in the court’s discretion, of the $100 mandatory surcharge *(see, People v Barnes,*62 NY2d 702). Moreover, should the defendant find himself unable to pay the surcharge at the conclusion of his imprisonment, he may then move for a waiver thereof *(see,*CPL 420.35, 420.10 [5]; *People v West,*124 Misc 2d 622; *People v Williams,*131 AD2d 525). Mangano, P. J., Kunzeman, Kooper, Sullivan and Ritter, JJ., concur.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-6941
MICHAEL P. WILLS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant - Appellee.Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Richard L. Williams, Senior District Judge. (CA-99-110-3) Submitted: November 18, 1999 Decided: November 23, 1999 Before WILKINS, HAMILTON, and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Michael P. Wills, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Michael P. Wills appeals from the district court’s order adopting the magistrate judge’s recommendation to dismiss his action seeking compensation for damages to his personal property. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See United States v. Wills , No. CA-99-110-3 (E.D. Va. June 16, 1999). We dispense with oral argument becausethe facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
|                                                                                                                             
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                                                                             
|View History: Annual Download Data (XLS File)                                                                               
|View History: Annual                                                                                                         
|View History: Annual                                                                                                         
|View History:                                                                                                                
|                                                                                                                             
|Kansas Associated-Dissolved Natural Gas, Wet After Lease Separation, Reserves Extensions and Discoveries (Billion Cubic Feet)
|                                                                                                                             
|                                                                                                                             
|Kansas Associated-Dissolved Natural Gas, Wet After Lease Separation, Reserves Extensions and Discoveries (Billion Cubic Feet)
|                                                                                                                             

|Decade                                                                                                                            | Year-0 | Year-1 | Year-2 | Year-3 | Year-4 | Year-5 | Year-6 | Year-7 | Year-8 | Year-9
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------
|2010's                                                                                                                            |        |        |        |        |        |        | 0      | 1      | 0      | 0     
|2020's                                                                                                                            | 0      | 0      |        |        |        |        |        |        |        |       
|- = No Data Reported;  -- = Not Applicable;  NA = Not Available;  W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data.
|                                                                                                                                 
|Release Date: 12/30/2022                                                                                                         
|Next Release Date: 12/29/2023
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. R.47.5 the Court has determined that this

opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under

the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 02-60406

Summary Calendar

VERONICA MCCALLUP,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

WEYERHAEUSER COMPANY,

Defendant-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Mississippi

USDC No. 3:02-CV-252-WS

October 28, 2002

Before GARWOOD, JOLLY and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Veronica McCallup, Mississippi prisoner no. K1256, appeals the

district court’s dismissal of her civil rights action pursuant to

28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) for failure to state a claim.

On appeal, McCallup has abandoned the allegations in her

complaint r egarding her eviction, the loss of bonding money, and

the loss of money to a car dealership by failing to brief these2

issues. S ee Yohey v. Collins

, 9 85 F.2d 222, 224-25 (5th Cir.

1 993). We need not address the new issues McCallup attempts to

raise before this court. See Leverette v. Louisville Ladder Co.

,

183 F.3d 339, 342 (5th Cir. 1999). With respect to McCallup’s

assertion that she was deprived of certain property rights relating

to timber, she stated that the land on which the timber was located

is owned by a corporation. This corporation has not been named as

a party to this action. Further, the factual allegations of the

complaint do not suffice to suggest any likelihood of the presence

of state action and action under color of state law as required for

all claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. See, e.g., A merican Mfrs. Mut.

Ins. Co. v. Sullivan

, 119 S.Ct. 977, 985-89 (1999). Nor do the

allegations of the complaint tend to show with respect to any

complained of deprivation of property rights that Mississippi’s

postdeprivation remedies are inadequate. S ee Hudson v. Palmer

, 468

U.S. 517, 533 (1984); Nickens v. Melton , 38 F.3d 183, 185-86 (5th

Cir. 1994). Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is

AFFIRMED.