alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EX-10.4(d)



 EXHIBIT 10.4(d) 

August 8, 2014 
 Morgan Stanley Smith Barney LLC 

522 Fifth Avenue, 13th Floor 
 New York, New York 10036 

 

	Re:	Ceres Managed Futures LLC: Amended Schedules 1 and 2 to the Alternative Investment Selling Agent Agreement 


Ladies and Gentlemen: 
 Pursuant to paragraph
13(c) of the Alternative Investment Selling Agent Agreement dated November 12, 2013, as amended on March 1, 2014; April 7, 2014 and as further amended from time to time (the “Agreement”), between, among others, Ceres
Managed Futures LLC (“CMF”), the general partner of each of the limited partnerships listed on Schedule 1 thereto (each, a “Partnership,” and together, the “Partnerships”), and Morgan Stanley Smith Barney LLC
(“MSSB”), CMF is hereby confirming that Schedules 1 and 2 to the Agreement are hereby deleted in their entirety and replaced with Schedules 1 and 2 attached hereto effective as of October 1, 2014. 

Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in the Agreement, by signing below MSSB hereby agrees to, acknowledges and accepts the amendment of
the Agreement, effective as of October 1, 2014. 








  
 Page 2 

 

 If the foregoing is in accordance with your understanding of our discussions, kindly sign and
return to us a counterpart hereof (by mail, facsimile or email) as soon as possible. 
  

			
	Sincerely,
	
	CERES MANAGED FUTURES LLC
		
	By:	 	/s/ Alper Daglioglu
		 	Alper Daglioglu
		 	President and Director
	
	EACH PARTNERSHIP LISTED ON SCHEDULE 1 HERETO
	
	By: Ceres Managed Futures LLC, the general partner of each Partnership
		
	By:	 	/s/ Alper Daglioglu
		 	Alper Daglioglu
		 	President and Director


 Confirmed, accepted and agreed to: 
  

			
	MORGAN STANLEY SMITH BARNEY LLC
		
	By:	 	/s/ Jeremy Beal
	Name: Jeremy Beal
	Title: Executive Director









  
 Page 3 

 

 SCHEDULE 1 
  

					
	 PARTNERSHIP
	 	 STATE AND DATE OF ORGANIZATION
	 	 EFFECTIVE DATE

	 AAA Capital Energy Fund L.P. II
	 	New York; March 25, 2002	 	March 1, 2014









  
 Page 4 

 

 SCHEDULE 2 
  

			
	 PARTNERSHIP
	  	 ONGOING SELLING AGENT FEE

	 AAA Capital Energy Fund L.P. II
	  	An amount which will be calculated by multiplying the fund’s round turn futures transactions by $15.00 each, swaps by up to an equivalent amount and options transactions by $7.50 each per side. In each case, the amount will
be reduced by applicable floor brokerage.
**CERTIFICATION      PURSUANT TO **

**18      U.S.C. Section 1350, **

**AS      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO **

**SECTION      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 **

** **

|       | (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 this Report fairly presents, in all material                respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the                Company. |

| /s/                Richard Jenkins                                   |
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Richard                Jenkins                                       |
| Chief                Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer   |

----
**Exhibit 99.01**Consent of Arthur C. Reichstetter     I hereby consent to the use of my name as an Independent Director Nominee in the RegistrationStatement on Form S-1 filed by El Paso Pipeline Partners, L.P. and the related prospectus and anyamendments thereto.Date: November 1, 2007     /s/ Arthur C. Reichstetter Arthur C. Reichstetter
p.1 

OAR Box 1132 

Prepped by Candice Davis 

Document Number: 

42) ll-F-6 

Docket Number: 

A-86-03 

Printed 4/18/2008 2:24:46 PM Sheet 42 of 122 
P.2 

QMS FACSIMTTF <~nVF.R SHEET 

TO: 

/rv/ / MrcOLfC 

„„„. PU B /^ W &!_ 

TELEPHONE: J I > ^ '—£_-Z 

fi-igi - as 

DATE NUMBER OF PAGES: 3-

FROM 

^ (Including this cover sheet) 

R*$*dj<L ^9- f j~rjf~u-fnr^ Ct 7W^dA ^ 

MESSAGE/INSTRUCTIONS 

i 

Pr~»sf 

C*J*- $~to~d •**£+' *~4 ]k^/y^ud?"-*^-/ ^^f- /f*-*^ Ua^J^--

EPA AIRD0CKE1 
P.3 

oversight program, such as records of testing on the diesel 

fuel or a contractual obligation between the upstream and 

the downstream parties involved. 

B. Fuel Specifications for Vehicle -Certification 

and Other Compliance Testing 

Certification fuel used for 1991-1993 model year 

engines would contain 0.10 sulfur percentage by weight 

(± 0.02 weight percent). Beginning with the 1994 model 

year, certification fuel would have a sulfur content 

ranging from 0.03 to 0.05 sulfur percentage by weight. All 

other compliance testing (e.g., recall, selective 

enforcement audits) would be conducted using test fuels 

containing the same amount of sulfur as the test fuel used 

in certifying the particular model year vehicle being 

tested. That is, 1991-1993 model year engines would be 

tested with fuel containing 0.10 sulfur percentage by 

weight (+. 0.02 weight percent), and 1994 and later model 

year engines would be tested with fuel having a sulfur 

content ranging from 0.03 to 0.05 sulfur percentage by 

weight. 

C. Requests for Comment on Specific Issues 

We request and encourage general and specific comments 

with supporting data and analysis on the following issues. 

-60-
EXHIBIT
32





Certification
of Chief Executive Officer Pursuant to


Section
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350








In
connection with the quarterly report on Form 10Q-SB of Bibb Corporation
(Registrant), as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
hereof (the Report), I, Judson Bibb, Chief Executive Officer, hereby certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge and
belief:





(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 Registrant.











Date:  August
9,
2008                                                                           BIBB CORPORATION





/s/
Judson Bibb


By:
Judson Bibb, President,


Chief
Executive Officer, Secretary,


Treasurer,
Chief Financial Officer


and
Principal Accounting Officer
U.S. Deportment 

of Transponation 

Federal Aviation 

Administration 

September 12, 2012 

Mr. Bryan Lawson 

690 Prospect Street 

Forsyth, MT 59327 

Dear Mr. Lawson: 

Exemption No. 10624 

800 Independence Ave .. S W 

Washington. DC 20591 

Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2012-0540 

This letter is to inform you that we have granted your request for exemption. It transmits our 

decision, explains its basis, and gives you the conditions and limitations of the exemption. 

The Basis for Our Decision 

By letter dated May 14, 2012, you petitioned the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) for 

an exemption from§ 65.91(c)(l) of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) to the 

extent necessary to allow you to apply for an inspection authorization (IA) without being 

actively engaged in maintaining aircraft for at least the 2 years before application or holding a 

current effective mechanic certificate which has been in effect for a total of at least 3 years. 

The FAA has determined that good cause exists for not publishing a summary of the petition 

in the Federal Register because the requested exemption would not set a precedent, and any 

delay in acting on this petition would be detrimental to you. 

The FAA has reviewed the facts and circumstances presented by the petitioner along with the 

facts of the Order of Revocation. The FAA has found there is a high demand for lA services 

to support agricultural operations in Montana, the Dakotas, and Wyoming. The FAA also has 

found there is only one other IA within a 50-mile radius of the petitioner, which is insufficient 

to satisfy the demand as demonstrated by numerous letters in support of the petition submitted 

by the local aircraft owners. The FAA agrees it is in the public interest to avoid an 

unnecessary burden on aircraft owners and operators in the petitioner's local area in obtaining 

AFS-12-378-E 
necessary maintenance and inspection services for their aircraft. The FAA also agrees that 

because of Mr. Lawson's prior experience and demonstrated skill as an IA, granting this 

petition would not adversely affect safety. 

Our Decision 

Under the authority contained in 49 U.S.C. §§ 40113 and 44701, which the FAA 

Administrator has delegated to me, I hereby grant Mr. Bryan Lawson an exemption from 

2 

14 CFR § 65.91(c)(l) to the extent necessary to allow you to become eligible for an lA subject 

to the conditions and limitations described below. 

Conditions and Limitations 

1. Mr. Lawson shall meet all the requirements of§ 65.91(c)(1), except that portion of 

(c)(1) which states, in part, "has been in effect for not less than the 3-year period 

immediately before the date of application." 

2. Mr. Lawson shall pass the written test prescribed in§ 65.9l(c)(5) prior to the 

issuance of the inspection authorization. 

3. A copy of this exemption must be presented to the local FAA district office at the 

time of application. 

Sincerely, 

cr-m tWJohn M. Allen 

Drrector, Flight Standards Service
Exhibit 32.1



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 the Quarterly Report of Belvedere Resources Corporation (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended June 30, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date here of (the "report"), I, Shawn Englmann, Chief Executive Officer and 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 this Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

Dated this 24th day of August, 2007.



| |                                                    
| | ---------------------------------------------------
| | SHAWN ENGLMANN
Shawn Englmann                      
| | Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer
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).

The Honorable Andrew J. Guilford, United States District Judge for ***

the Central District of California, sitting by designation.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

 v.

EDDIE DAVID ZAMARRIPA,

 Defendant - Appellant.

No. 10-30324

D.C. No. 2:10-cr-02025-FVS-1

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Washington

Fred L. Van Sickle, Senior District Judge, Presiding

Submitted August 3, 2011** 

Seattle, Washington

Before: NOONAN and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges, and GUILFORD, District

Judge.*** 

FILED

AUG 08 2011

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2

Eddie David Zamarripa (“Zamarripa”) entered a conditional guilty plea to a

charge of being a felon in possession of a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §

922(g)(1). He appeals the district court’s denial of his motion to suppress the

firearm that police officers found during an investigative stop. We have

jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and we affirm. 

We review de novo the denial of a motion to suppress, while reviewing for

clear error the underlying factual findings. United States v. Davis, 530 F.3d 1069,

1077 (9th Cir. 2008).

The investigative stop was supported by reasonable suspicion that criminal

activity may have been afoot. See Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 30 (1968). The

officers had reason to believe that Zamarripa (a) resembled a car-prowl suspect; (b)

had just banged on a car and invited its occupants to fight; (c) was wearing a gangrelated head covering in an area known for gang activity; and (d) had previously

been associated with gang activity in the area. Considering the totality of the

circumstances, these facts were enough to support an investigative stop. See

United States v. Johnson, 581 F.3d 994, 999 (9th Cir. 2009) (“Reasonable

suspicion is formed by specific, articulable facts which, together with objective and

reasonable inferences, form the basis for suspecting that the particular person
3

detained is engaged in criminal activity.” (citation and internal quotation marks

omitted)).

The frisk was also justified. The officers were aware of Zamarripa’s recent,

aggressive encounter with a car and were outnumbered by Zamarripa and his

companions. Moreover, the area where the stop occurred was known for gangrelated violence, Officer Salinas recognized Zamarripa as having connections with

a gang from a previous interaction, and Zamarripa was wearing a color claimed by

the Norteño gang in Yakima. Based on these facts, the officers reasonably

suspected that Zamarripa may have been armed and dangerous. See Johnson, 581

F.3d at 999. 

AFFIRMED.
**Exhibit 31.1**I, Joseph A. Mills, certify that:1. I havereviewed this report on Form 10-Q/A of Eagle Rock Energy Partners, L.P.;2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact oromit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstancesunder which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by thisreport;3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operationsand cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:     a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating tothe registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within thoseentities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;     b) (Intentionally omitted pursuant to SEC Release No. 34-47986);     c) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls andprocedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and     d) disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter that has materiallyaffected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting; and5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the auditcommittee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):     a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internalcontrol over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’sability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and     b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have asignificant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.   Date:November 1, 2007 /s/ Joseph A. Mills     Joseph A. Mills  Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Eagle Rock  Energy G&P, LLC, General Partner of Eagle Rock  Energy GP, L.P., General Partner of Eagle Rock  Energy Partners, L.P.
2
1

Brunner, Christine

From: Sargeant, Kathryn

Sent: Tuesday, February 25, 2014 4:19 PM

To: Whiteman, Chad

Subject: Answers to some of your Tier 3 questions (EO12866 review 2060-AQ86)

Attachments: EO_12866_ Tier 3_Final_Rule_Summary_CommentsV4_2_25_2014.docx

Ok, the change will be included in the redlined version I send you this afternoon. 

From: Whiteman, Chad [mailto:Chad_S_Whiteman@omb.eop.gov] 

Sent: Tuesday, February 25, 2014 3:40 PM 

To: Sargeant, Kathryn 

Subject: RE: Answers to some of your Tier 3 questions (EO12866 review 2060-AQ86) 

Kathryn, One follow-up comment on today’s passback. Chad
EXHIBIT 32.2





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 the Quarterly Report of Z3 Enterprises, Inc.  (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2010,   as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), each of the undersigned, in the capacities and on the dates indicated below, hereby certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to his knowledge:





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 operation of the Company.





3.  A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.











Date:  November 22, 2010               By: /s/ Judson Bibb


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


Judson Bibb


Chief Financial Officer
**Exhibit
      32.1**





**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 the Quarterly Report of SFH I Acquisition Corp. (the "Company")
      on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities
      and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Armen Karapetyan,
      certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of
      the
      Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:





(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:
                May 13, 2008
            /s/Armen
                KarapetyanArmen
                Karapetyan
#### DENISON AUTO CO. v. MITCHUSSON et ux.

No. 11097.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. Dallas.

Jan. 28, 1933.

Charles Reasonover, of Denison, for appellant.

Asa M. Pearson, of Denison, for appellees.

BOND, J.

It appears in the record that this suit originated in a justice court, where the amount in controversy and the judgment rendered is less than $100. The Courts of Civil Appeals have no jurisdiction of an appeal in such cases. Article 1819, subd. 2, Revised Statutes of 1925.

Appellant’s suit is based upon a note in the sum of $68, and- to foreclose a chattel mortgage on an automobile, alleged to have been executed by one of the appellees, Mrs. J. R. Mitchusson. The record on appeal does not affirmatively show that the amount of the note, or the value of the automobile, is sufficient to confer jurisdiction on this court. We cannot assume jurisdiction under the status of the record. This court has, in many instances, found it necessary and proper -to allow litigants further opportunity to perfect records and supply anything improperly omitted therefrom to reach the ends of justice; but as -the condition of this record, as presented, is such it does not show necessary jurisdictional facts, we can do nothing except to dismiss the appeal. For the reasons stated, the appeal is dismissed.

Dismissed.
#### In the Matter of Elise Verdejo, a Person Alleged to be Incapacitated. Steven T. Rondos, as Coguardian of Elise Verdejo, Appellant.

[773 NYS2d 546]

*308Order, Supreme Court, New York County (William Davis, J.), entered on or about November 6, 2002, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the brief, denied the application of Steven T. Rondos, Esq., coguardian of the person and property of Elise Verdejo, for legal fees in connection with the preparation of the 2000 annual account of the estate of Elise Verdejo, an incapacitated person, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, to the extent of remanding the matter to Supreme Court for a statement of its reasons for the denial of the fee award.

Supreme Court has broad discretion in determining the reasonable amount of attorneys’ fees to be awarded in a guardianship proceeding and, absent the abuse of that discretion, the court’s determination will be upheld *(see Matter of Tijuana M.,*303 AD2d 681 [2003]; *Matter of Mavis L.,*285 AD2d 509 [2001]). Supreme Court must ascertain whether the fee requested is necessary, fair and reasonable *(see Matter of Linda R.,*304 AD2d 832 [2003]; *Matter of Castano,*248 AD2d 382 [1998]) and, in order to permit a proper appellate review, it must “ ‘provide a concise but clear explanation of its reasons for the fee award,’ ” or the lack thereof *(Ricciuti v Lombardi,*256 AD2d 892, 893 [1998], quoting *Hensley v Eckerhart,*461 US 424, 437 [1983]).

Supreme Court herein failed to delineate the grounds which formed the basis of its decision and, as a result, we remand the matter to Supreme Court for a statement of its reasons for the denial of the application for attorneys’ fees. Concur—Buckley, P.J., Nardelli, Sullivan and Lerner, JJ.