alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 10.17(3)

December 15, 2003

Technitrol, Inc.
1210 Northbrook Drive, Suite 385
Trevose, PA  19053

AMI Doduco, Inc.
Murray Corporate Park
1003 Corporate Drive
Export, PA  15632

Gentlemen:

Upon your acceptance of the terms of this letter agreement as evidenced by your
execution and delivery to Fleet Previous Metals Inc. (the "Consignor"), on or
before the date hereof, of a copy of this letter, Technitrol, Inc. and AMI
Doduco, Inc. (f/k/a Advanced Metallurgy, Incorporated) (collectively, the
"Customer") and the Consignor agree, effective as of the date hereto to amend
the fifth sentence of Paragraph 1 of that certain Consignment Agreement dated as
of November 18, 1997, by and between the Consignor and the Customer, as the same
may have been heretofore amended (as amended, the "Consignment Agreement"), to
read as follows:

            At no time shall the value of consigned commodities exceed (i)
            $25,000,000; (ii) such limit as the parties may agree upon; or (iii)
            such limit as Consignor may approve in its sole discretion
            ("Consignment Limit").

Except as amended hereby, the Consignment Agreement and all agreements securing
the Consignment Agreement shall remain in full force and effect and are in all
respects hereby ratified and affirmed.

                                      Sincerely,

                                      FLEET PRECIOUS METALS, INC.
                                      Consignor


                                      By:   /s/ Richard M. Seufert
                                         -----------------------------------
                                              Richard M. Seufert
                                              Senior Vice President

<PAGE>

                                                                EXHIBIT 10.17(3)

Technitrol, Inc.
AMI Doduco, Inc.
January 29, 2004
Page 2


ACCEPTED AND AGREED AS OF THE
29TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2004.

TECHNITROL, INC.
Customer


By:      /s/ Thomas Considine
   -------------------------------------
         Thomas J. Considine, Jr.
          Vice President and Treasurer


AMI DODUCO, INC.
Customer


By:   /s/ Thomas Considine
   -------------------------------------
        Thomas J. Considine, Jr.
         Treasurer

The above signatory has the authority to execute the above amendment on behalf
of Technitrol, Inc.

TECHNITROL, INC.


By:     /s/ Drew A. Moyer
   -------------------------------------
         Drew A. Moyer
         Secretary

The above signatory has the authority to execute the above amendment on behalf
of AMI Doduco, Inc.


By:     /s/ Drew A. Moyer
   -------------------------------------
          Drew A. Moyer
          Secretary
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING

MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

OF FLORIDA

SECOND DISTRICT

JOHNSTON HAYWOOD, DOC #R46512, )

)

Appellant, )

)

v. ) Case No. 2D18-218

)

STATE OF FLORIDA, )

)

Appellee. )

)

Opinion filed July 27, 2018.

Appeal pursuant to Fla. R. App. P. 

9.141(b) (2) from the Circuit Court for 

Pinellas County; Philip J. Federico, Judge.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. 

LaROSE, C.J., and BLACK and LUCAS, JJ., Concur.
I 

112TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5367 

To reduce temporarily the rate of duty on certain machinery for molding 

unvulcanized rubber for tubeless radial tires. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 7, 2012 

Mr. DUNCAN of South Carolina introduced the following bill; which was 

referred to the Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To reduce temporarily the rate of duty on certain machinery 

for molding unvulcanized rubber for tubeless radial tires. 

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

3 SECTION 1. CERTAIN MACHINERY FOR MOLDING 

4 UNVULCANIZED RUBBER FOR TUBELESS RA5 DIAL TIRES. 

6 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subchapter II of chapter 99 of 

7 the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States is 

8 amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following 

9 new heading: 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 5367 IH

‘‘ 9902.01.00 Numerically controlled machinery for molding or otherwise forming uncured, 

unvulcanized rubber to be 

used in production of tubeless radial tires designed 

for off-the-highway earthmover (haulage) use, with 

section widths measuring 

68.86 cm or more but not 

greater than 149.9 cm and 

rim diameters measuring 

124.4 cm but not greater 

than 160.02 cm, such tires 

of a type classified in subheading 4011.94.40, and 

parts of such machinery 

(provided for in subheading 8477.51.00) ......... 1.4% No change No change On or before 

12/31/2015 ’’. 

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

2 subsection (a) applies to articles entered, or withdrawn 

3 from warehouse for consumption, on or after the 15th day 

4 after the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 207 (Wednesday, October 25, 2000)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 63837]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-27245]



[[Page 63837]]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

48 CFR Part 225

[DFARS Case 99-D005]


Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement; Foreign 
Military Sales Customer Observation of Negotiations

AGENCY: Department of Defense (DoD).

ACTION: Proposed rule; withdrawal.

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

SUMMARY: DoD is withdrawing the proposed rule published at 64 FR 22825 
on April 28, 1999. The rule proposed to amend the Defense Federal 
Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) to allow Foreign Military 
Sales (FMS) customers to observe contract price negotiations. This 
change was proposed as a part of a DoD initiative to improve the FMS 
process. DoD has reconsidered this rule based on public comments. DoD 
is considering alternative methods of satisfying the pricing 
information needs of countries that acquire supplies and services 
through the FMS program. Therefore, DoD is withdrawing the proposed 
rule.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Amy Williams, Defense Acquisition 
Regulations Council, OUSD (AT&L) DP (DAR), IMD 3C132, 3062 Defense 
Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301-3062. Telephone (703) 602-0288; telefax 
(703) 602-0350. Please cite DFARS Case 99-D005.

Michele P. Peterson,
Executive Editor, Defense Acquisition Regulations Council.
[FR Doc. 00-27245 Filed 10-24-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5000-04-M
Order issued: November 

### 3b , 2012



## In The (Court of Appeals Iffifth EliMrirt of exas at Dallas

No. 05-12-00848-CV LUCKY MERK, LLC D/B/A GREENVILLE BAR & GRILL, ET AL., Appellants V. GREENVILLE LANDMARK VENTURE, LTD., ET AL., Appellees

On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 4

Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 10-02411-D



### ORDER We GRANT appellants' November 26, 2012 motion for an extension of time to file their notice of appeal. Appellants' notice of appeal filed on June 19, 2012 is deemed timely filed for jurisdictional purposes. We DENY appellees' November 27, 2012 motion to dismiss for want of jurisdiction. We ORDER David Roy, Official Court Reporter for County Court at Law No. 4 of Dallas County, Texas, to file the complete reporter's record on or before December 28, 2012. We DIRECTthe Clerk of this Court to send a copy of this order by electronic transmission to David Roy and all counsel of record.
Lauren N. Griffin 

ALSTON & BIRD LLP

101 S. Tryon Street Suite 4000

Charlotte, NC 28280

Re: Civil Case No. 6:20-cv-00569 - Sable Networks, Inc. et al v. Dell Technologies Inc. et al

Our records indicate that you are not admitted to practice in this Court. Western District of 

Texas Local Court Rule AT-1(f)(1) states: 

In General: An attorney who is licensed by the highest court of a state or another 

federal district court, but who is not admitted to practice before this court, may 

represent a party in this court pro hac vice only by permission of the judge presiding. 

Unless excused by the judge presiding, an attorney is ordinarily required to apply for 

admission to the bar of this court.

You were included as an attorney of record on a filing in the above-named cause. If you are 

representing a party, please submit a motion requesting the Court’s permission to appear in the above 

captioned case. If you wish to file an application to be admitted in the Western District of Texas, the 

application forms and the Local Rules for the Western District of Texas are available on our website 

www.txwd.uscourts.gov. If you are an attorney who maintains his or her office outside of the Western 

District of Texas, the judge may require you to designate local counsel. (Local Rule AT-2). 

If you have any questions concerning this matter, please contact our office. 

Sincerely,

Deputy Clerk

JEANNETTE J. CLACK

CLERK OF COURT

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS PHILIP J. DEVLIN

OFFICE OF THE CLERK CHIEF DEPUTY

800 FRANKLIN AVE., ROOM 380

WACO, TX 76701

July 16, 2020

Case 6:20-cv-00569-ADA Document 17 Filed 07/16/20 Page 1 of 1
Order filed December 13, 2011. 

In The

 

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-11-00401-CV

____________

SHARYON GATHE, Appellant

V.

JOSEPH C. GATHE, JR., Appellee

On Appeal from the 308th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 2006-69829

O R D E R

Appellant=s brief was due November 29, 2011. No brief or motion for extension of time 

has been filed. 

Unless appellant submits a brief, and a motion reasonably explaining why the brief was 

late, to the clerk of this court on or before January 12, 2012, the court will dismiss the appeal 

for want of prosecution. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(b). 

PER CURIAM
1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

WACO DIVISION

GYRODATA INCORPORATED,

Plaintiff, 

v.

SCIENTIFIC DRILLING 

INTERNATIONAL, INC.,

Defendant.

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

Civil Action No. 6:20-cv-00566-ADA

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

AGREED ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S REQUESTED DISCOVERY

On January 3, 2022 the Court heard oral argument regarding the parties’ discovery dispute. 

Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s requests and Defendant is hereby ORDERED to 

produce the following information by January 21, 2022:

• Information sufficient to understand all US and foreign sales and performance of the

DuraSet service.

• Information sufficient to understand Defendant’s accounting practices for 

its international sales of the DuraSet service.

• Information related to moving and/or exporting the DuraSet service and related

products and services overseas, including communications regarding such

moving/exportation. 

Case 6:20-cv-00566-ADA-DTG Document 58 Filed 01/11/22 Page 1 of 2
2

• The information provided shall include information from Defendant’s subsidiary,

Scientific Drilling Controls Limited. 

ENTERED this the 11th day of January, 2022.

Case 6:20-cv-00566-ADA-DTG Document 58 Filed 01/11/22 Page 2 of 2
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY RESEARCH TRIANGLE PARK, NC 27711

The Honorable JamilahNasheed State Senator District 05 201 West Capitol Avenue Jefferson City, Missouri 65101-6806 Dear Senator Nasheed: 

### AUG 

## 222014

OFFICE OF AIR QUALITY PLANNING AND STANDARDS

Thank you for your letter ofJuly 29, 2014, to United States Environmental Protection Agency Administrator McCarthy regardingthe EPA's review ofthe national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) for ozone. The Administrator asked that I respond onher behalf. The EPA is currently inthe midst ofreviewing the ozone NAAQS. We expects to complete its review and issue a proposed rule reflecting the Administrator's decision about the appropriateness ofrevising the standards by December 1, 2014. As we move forward, we will take into account your comments in favor oftightening the 8-hourprimary ozone standardto a level of60 parts perbillion (ppb). Under the Clean Air Act, decisions regardingthe NAAQS must be based solely on an evaluation ofthe health and environmental effects evidence. The EPA is prohibited from considering costs or ease of implementation in setting the NAAQS. However, once the Administrator has determined the appropriate level for the standards, costs are carefully considered as part ofthe implementationprocess. Your comments and recommendations will be forwarded to the docket for this rulemaking (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0699) so thatthey may be considered, along with the recommendations of the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee, and other comments received, as the EPA develops its proposed decision. Again, thank you for your letter. I appreciate the opportunity to be ofservice, and hope this information has been helpful to you. Sincerely, 

# vrvv)\"{\,,

___**<i)~ tephenD.~** 

Director Office ofAir Quality Planning and Standards

Internet Address (URL) • http://www.epa.gov Recycled/Recyclable • Printed wHh Vegetable Oil Based Inks on Recycled Paper (Minimum 25% Postconsumer)
#### The State of Ohio, Appellee, *v.*LoConti, Appellant.

(No. 27816

Decided December 6, 1939.)

*212
      *Mr. Frank T. Gullitan,*prosecuting attorney, and *Mr. Neil W. McGill,*for appellee.

*Mr. Ben P. Babb*and *Mr. Robert Kaplan,*for appellant.

It is ordered and adjudged that said appeal as of right be, and the same hereby is, dismissed for the reason no debatable constitutional question is involved in said cause.

*Appeal dismissed.*

Weygandt, C. J., Day, Zimmerman, Williams, Matthias and Hart, JJ., concur.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-7408

WALTER WHITE,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

WARDEN JOYCE FRANCIS,

Defendant- Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern

District of West Virginia, at Wheeling. Frederick P. Stamp, Jr.,

Senior District Judge. (5:06-cv-00166-FPS)

Submitted: March 27, 2008 Decided: April 2, 2008

Before TRAXLER and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Walter White, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Walter White appeals the district court’s order accepting

the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on

his complaint filed pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents

of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). We have reviewed

the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny the

motion to appoint counsel and affirm for the reasons stated by the

district court. White v. Francis, No. 5:06-cv-00166-FPS, (N.D.W.

Va. July 18, 2007). We dispense with oral argument because the

facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the

materials before the court and argument would not aid the

decisional process.

AFFIRMED
### Page 1 of 3 **Disposition Comments Docket No:**  

### FAA - 2012 - 1316 These comments are in **Directorate ID:** 

### 201 2 -NM - 1 86 - AD response to an SNPRM Originating Office Tracking No.: **Next Step:** FRAN SNPRM 

### N o C omments/Only

Supportive Comments Received

– If this box is checked, no signatures are required. 

### Has the reference d service information been revised since the NPRM was issued? I f ye s, lis t latest revision and attach a cop y. 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 sam e issue should be discussed together.**  Do not list all of the issues from one commenter togeth er. 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 o

f 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 w ith 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, do uble**  **- click**  **here**

### Page 3 of 3 **S ignature Section**  Signature indicates concurrence with this action. Originating Office Tracking No.: **ASE** Printed Name **: Date** 

**Branch Man ager**  **Date**
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 205 (Monday, October 23, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 63245]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-27097]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RP01-39-000]


Wyoming Interstate Company, Ltd.; Notice of Compliance Filing

October 17, 2000.
    Take notice that on October 11, 2000, Wyoming Interstate Gas 
Company, Ltd. (WIC) tendered for filing a letter stating that WIC 
believes it is currently in full compliance with Section 
284.12(c)(2)(ii) of the Commission's Regulations. Order No. 587-L 
requires pipelines to be in compliance with this regulation by November 
1, 2000, to permit shippers to offset imbalances on different contracts 
held by the shipper and to trade imbalance.
    WIC further states that copies of its filing have been served on 
WIC's jurisdictional customers and public bodies.
    Any person desiring to be heard or to protest said filing should 
file a motion to intervene or a protest with the Federal Regulatory 
Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance 
with Sections 385.214 or 385.211 of the Commissions' 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 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. 00-27097 Filed 10-20-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
IIB 

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 570 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MARCH 9, 2011 

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Health, Education, 

Labor, and Pensions 

AN ACT 

To amend the Public Health Service Act to enhance the 

roles of dentists and allied dental personnel in the Nation’s disaster response framework, 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, 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with BILLS
2 

HR 570 RFS 

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Dental Emergency Re3 sponder Act of 2011’’. 

4 SEC. 2. DENTAL EMERGENCY RESPONDERS: PUBLIC 

5 HEALTH AND MEDICAL RESPONSE. 

6 (a) NATIONAL HEALTH SECURITY STRATEGY.—Sec7 tion 2802(b)(3) of the Public Health Service Act (42 

8 U.S.C. 300hh–1(b)(3)) is amended— 

9 (1) in the matter preceding subparagraph (A), 

10 by inserting ‘‘and which may include dental health 

11 facilities’’ after ‘‘mental health facilities’’; and 

12 (2) in subparagraph (D), by inserting ‘‘(which 

13 may include such dental health assets)’’ after ‘‘med14 ical assets’’. 

15 (b) ALL-HAZARDS PUBLIC HEALTH AND MEDICAL

16 RESPONSE CURRICULA AND TRAINING.—Section 

17 319F(a)(5)(B) of the Public Health Service Act (42 

18 U.S.C. 247d–6(a)(5)(B)) is amended by striking ‘‘public 

19 health or medical’’ and inserting ‘‘public health, medical, 

20 or dental’’. 

Passed the House of Representatives March 8, 

2011. 

Attest: KAREN L. HAAS, 

Clerk. 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with BILLS
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).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

In re: SHANEL ANN STASZ,

 Debtor,

SHANEL ANN STASZ,

 Appellant,

 v.

ROSENDO GONZALEZ, Chapter 7

Trustee,

 Appellee.

No. 11-60025

BAP No. 10-1145

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the Ninth Circuit

Bankruptcy Appellate Panel

Pappas, Dunn, and Kirscher, Bankruptcy Judges, Presiding

Submitted May 14, 2013** 

Before: LEAVY, THOMAS, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.

Chapter 7 debtor Shanel Ann Stasz appeals pro se from the Bankruptcy

FILED

MAY 22 2013

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 11-60025

Appellate Panel’s (“BAP”) judgment affirming the bankruptcy court’s order

compelling turnover of estate property. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.

§ 158(d). We review de novo BAP decisions, and apply the same standard of

review that the BAP applied to the bankruptcy court’s ruling. Boyajian v. New

Falls Corp. (In re Boyajian), 564 F.3d 1088, 1090 (9th Cir. 2009). We affirm.

The bankruptcy court properly concluded that the funds held on account of

the West Hollywood Domestic Non Grantor Trust were property of the bankruptcy

estate because the law of the case established that Stasz had rescinded that trust

before filing for bankruptcy. See Thomas v. Bible, 983 F.2d 152, 154 (9th Cir.

1993) (law of the case doctrine generally precludes reconsideration of an issue that

has already been decided by the same court, or a higher court, in the identical

case); see also Abele v. Phoenix Suns Ltd. P’ship (In re Harrell), 73 F.3d 218, 219

(9th Cir. 1996) (per curiam) (bankruptcy estate “includes ‘all legal or equitable

interests of the debtor in property as of the commencement of the case’” (quoting

11 U.S.C. § 541(a)(1)).

We do not address issues raised for the first time on appeal. See Brown v.

Gen. Tel. Co. of Cal., 108 F.3d 208, 210 n.1 (9th Cir. 1997) (per curiam).

Stasz’s contentions concerning collateral estoppel, the trust’s alleged exempt

status, and the necessity of an adversary proceeding are unpersuasive for the
3 11-60025

reasons stated by the BAP. 

AFFIRMED.