alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>

EXHIBIT 10.57

                 FIFTH AMENDMENT TO PURCHASE AND SALE AGREEMENT

         THIS FIFTH AMENDMENT TO PURCHASE AND SALE AGREEMENT ("Fifth
Amendment"), made effective as of this 17th day of August, 2007, by and between
DEACON ENTERPRISES, INC., a Michigan Corporation, whose address is 600 South
Deacon, Detroit, Michigan 48217 ("Seller"), and VOYAGER PETROLEUM, INC., a
Nevada corporation, whose address is 123 East Ogden Avenue-Suite 102A, Hinsdale,
IL 60521, ("Purchaser").

                              W I T N E S S E T H:

         WHEREAS, on January 19, 2007 Seller and Purchaser entered into a
Purchase and Sale Agreement for land situated in the City of Detroit, County of
Wayne, and State of Michigan ("Original Agreement"); and

         WHEREAS, on April 18, 2007 Seller and Purchaser executed a First
Amendment to Purchase and Sale Agreement ("First Amendment") extending the
Purchaser's due diligence inspection period until May 18, 2007; and

         WHEREAS, on May 15, 2007 Seller and Purchaser executed a Second
Amendment to Purchase and Sale Agreement ("Second Amendment") extending the
Purchaser's due diligence inspection period until June 18, 2007; and

         WHEREAS, on June 18, 2007 Seller and Purchaser executed a Third
Amendment to Purchase and Sale Agreement ("Third Amendment") extending the
Purchaser's due diligence inspection period until July 18, 2007 ("Third
Amendment"); and

         WHEREAS, on July 18, 2007 Seller and Purchaser executed a Fourth
Amendment to Purchase and Sale Agreement ("Fourth Amendment") extending the
Purchaser's due diligence inspection period until August 17, 2007 (Original
Agreement, First Amendment, Second Amendment, Third Amendment, and Fourth
Amendment are collectively the "Agreement"); and

         WHEREAS, Seller and Purchaser desire to amend the Agreement;

         NOW THEREFORE, Seller and Purchaser agree as follows:

1.     EXTENSION OF INSPECTION PERIOD. Purchaser's right to inspect and evaluate
       the Property and otherwise determine whether Purchaser shall purchase the
       property (the "Inspection Period") shall be extended until August 23,
       2007 at 5:00 p.m. EST without additional cost to Purchaser.

2.     COUNTERPARTS AND FACSIMILE. This Amendment may be executed in any number
       of counterparts all of which when taken together, shall constitute one in
       the same instrument. Facsimile signatures and e-mailed PDF versions of
       signatures shall be deemed originals for the purposes of execution and
       delivery of this Amendment.

         The parties have executed this Fifth Amendment on the day and date
first above written.

SELLER:                                      PURCHASER:

DEACON ENTERPRISES, INC.                     VOYAGER PETROLEUM, INC.


By: /s/ Verlin Eppert                        By: /s/ Sebastien Dufort
    ----------------------------                 -------------------------------
    VERLIN EPPERT, President                     SEBASTIEN DUFORT, President
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE FORM 
10-Q FOR THE QUARTER ENDED SEPT. 30, 1998 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                           5,619
<SECURITIES>                                         0 
<RECEIVABLES>                                      233
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                        339
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 6,267
<PP&E>                                           1,751
<DEPRECIATION>                                   1,018
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   7,069
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                              904
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           186 
<OTHER-SE>                                       5,821    
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     7,069
<SALES>                                            811
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 1,166
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    7,102
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (5,936)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (5,936)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (5,936)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.32)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.32)
        

</TABLE>
FILED

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

APR 2, 2009

THOMAS K. KAHN

CLERK

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 08-13589

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D. C. Docket No. 07-00032-CR-1-SPM

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

ERNEST LEE LINTON,

Defendant-Appellant.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Florida

_________________________

(April 2, 2009)

Before BARKETT, MARCUS and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Gwendolyn Spivey, appointed counsel for Ernest Lee Linton in this direct
criminal appeal, has moved to withdraw from further representation of the

appellant and filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct.

1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Our independent review of the entire record reveals

that counsel’s assessment of the relative merit of the appeal is correct. Because

independent examination of the entire record reveals no arguable issues of merit,

counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED, and Linton’s convictions and

sentences are AFFIRMED.

2
An official website of the United States government         Here's how you know         
**Official websites use .gov**
A **.gov** website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.
**Secure .gov websites use HTTPS**
 A **lock (lock )** or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Skip to main content (Press Enter).

National Security Agency/Central Security Service

Search
Search

Search

-  About    -  Leadership             
  -  Mission & Combat Support             
  -  Cybersecurity             
  -  Signals Intelligence             
  -  Central Security Service             
  -  Locations             
  -  Research             
  -  Diversity, Equity, Inclusion & Accessibility             
  -  Cybersecurity Collaboration Center      -  Collaborative Partnerships             
    -  Enduring Security Framework             
    -  DIB Cybersecurity Services             
    -  Standards and Certifications             
    -  Artificial Intelligence Security Center 
-  Press Room    -  Press Releases & Statements             
  -  News & Highlights             
  -  Declassification & Transparency Initiatives             
  -  Cybersecurity Advisories & Guidance             
  -  Telework and Mobile Security Guidance             
  -  DoD Microelectronics Guidance             
  -  Research Publications 
-  Careers    -  Unique Pathways             
  -  Innovation 
-  History    -  National Cryptologic Museum             
  -  Cryptologic History             
  -  National Cryptologic Memorial 

HomeHistoryCryptologic HistoryHistorical-EventsArticle View

PHOTO INFORMATION

** Download

** Details

** Share

# The On-The-Roof Gang

**                    SHARE                

**                    PRINT
# CE2004084EN.01012901.xml

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/129 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/129

---

(2004/C 84 E/0166)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-4002/03

by Marco Cappato (NI) to the Commission

(19 December 2003)

Subject:   Violation of privacy at the World Summit on the Information Society

Subject:

The World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) took place from 10 to 12 December 2003 at the Palaexpo in Geneva.

Three of the experts present — Alberto Escudero-Pascual (of the Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm), Stephane Koch (president of the Internet Society, Geneva) and George Danezis (a Cambridge University researcher) — have complained that the badges issued them on registration for the Summit contained radio frequency identification chips (RFID chips) enabling individual delegates' movements within the Palaexpo's different areas to be tracked.

It appears from the three experts' complaints that the use of such chips and the lack of a privacy policy on the part of the WSIS place it in breach of the EU privacy directive, of the UN guidelines on the use of personal files, and of Swiss law on personal data protection.

Was the Commission aware that the badges contained chips of this nature?

Will the Commission seek formal explanations from the organisers of the summit and the Swiss government, and will it call for the full and immediate deletion of the personal data thus illegally collected?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(28 January 2004)

(28 January 2004)

At the World Summit on the Information Society held in Geneva from 10 to 12 December 2003, use was reportedly made of RFID technology-based badges to control access to certain restricted areas at the Summit venue.

Although the Commission in principle promotes the use of new, innovative technology such as RFID, any application based on such technology should respect the principles applicable to the processing of personal data of Union citizens transferred from the Union to a third country.

The RFID system seemed to be partly functioning on the basis of the processing of personal data of participants who had registered online, prior to the Summit, from their resident country.

The Commission will seek further information on whether and how RFID-based applications were used in relation to personal data transferred from the Union, in order to assess the legality of the processing under Community law.

---
**Exhibit 21.1**MRV COMMUNICATIONS, INC.Subsidiaries of MRV   Subsidiary Name (1) Jurisdiction of OrganizationAlcadon AB SwedenCharlotte’s Networks, Inc. DelawareCreative Electronic Systems SA SwitzerlandEDSLan SpA ItalyInterdata FranceLuminent, Inc. DelawareMRV Communications – Boston Division, Inc. MassachusettsMRV Communications GmbH GermanyMRV International, Ltd. IsraelMRV Switzerland AG SwitzerlandTecnonet SpA Italy *(1)* *In accordance with Instructions (ii) to Exhibit (21) to the Exhibit Table in Item 601 ofRegulation S-K, Registrant has omitted from the above table two domestic and 18 foreignsubsidiaries in the network communications business: one domestic and two foreign subsidiariesin the optical components business: and one foreign subsidiary in the development stageenterprise business.*
95
# CE2004078EN.01065802.xml

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/658 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/658

---

(2004/C 78 E/0701)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3849/03

by Proinsias De Rossa (PSE) to the Commission

(16 December 2003)

Subject:   Compilation of information on organ transplants in Europe

Subject:

Further to its answer to my Written Question E-1666/03 (1), could the Commission indicate if it has now concluded the compilation of information on the situation in respect of organ transplants in the Member States and applicant countries. If so, what conclusions has it drawn, and what action does it now propose to take?

1

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(2 February 2004)

(2 February 2004)

The Commission has compiled data on the current practices and legal requirements related to organ transplantation in the Member States and the Acceding Countries and it is in the process of analysing the results. These results will be integrated in a more comprehensive report on a Community approach to be taken in the field of organ transplantation that the Commission will bring forward when the necessary analysis and preparation has been undertaken.

---

(1)  OJ C 51 E, 26.2.2004, p. 122.

1

---
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.2



                   CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS


As independent public accountants, we hereby consent to the incorporation by
reference in this S-8 registration statement of our report dated February 12,
1999 included in Cybex International, Inc.'s Form 10-K for the year ended
December 31, 1998.


                                                         /s/ ARTHUR ANDERSEN LLP

Philadelphia, Pa.,
  June 3, 1999
2014 Decisions

Opinions of the United

States Court of Appeals

for the Third Circuit

4-4-2014

In Re: Joe Toney, Jr.

Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential

Docket No. 13-4751

Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2014

This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2014 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.

Recommended Citation

"In Re: Joe Toney, Jr." (2014). 2014 Decisions. Paper 364.

http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2014/364
HLD-008 (Revised) NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________

No. 13-4751

___________

IN RE: JOE M. TONEY, JR.,

 Petitioner

____________________________________

On a Petition for Writ of Mandamus from the

United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania

(Related to M.D. Pa. Civ. No. 11-cv-00780)

____________________________________

Submitted Pursuant to Rule 21, Fed. R. App. P.

March 6, 2014

Before: McKEE, Chief Judge, GARTH and SCIRICA, Circuit Judges

(Opinion filed: April 4, 2014)

_________

OPINION

_________

PER CURIAM

Pro se petitioner, Joe Toney, has filed a mandamus petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1651, wherein he seeks to compel the United States District Court for the Middle 

District of Pennsylvania to rule on motions for summary action filed by the parties to the 

underlying civil action. Finding no basis for granting mandamus relief, we will deny the 

petition.

From a review of the District Court docket, an order disposing of the parties’ 
2

summary judgment motions, as well as Toney’s motion for default judgment, was entered 

on March 18, 2014. Accordingly, Toney’s petition for writ of mandamus seeking to 

compel the District Court to dispose of the motions is moot. The petition for a writ of 

mandamus is thus denied.
----

(2004/C 78 E/0908)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3762/03

by Konstantinos Hatzidakis (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(11 December 2003)

Subject:   Commission proceedings against Greece for infringing Community legislation in the telecommunications sector

In response to a recent question I tabled on the provision of the ADSL service in Greece (E-3072/03 (1)), the Commissioner responsible stated that ‘Greece has not yet transposed the new Community [regulatory] framework [for electronic communications]’ and that ‘the Commission has been informed of the slow progress in the provision of broadband services in Greece’. He also states that the ‘the Commission has initiated infringement proceedings against Greece for non-communication of the transposition measures.’ As regards the limited margin between wholesale and retail prices for the provision of ADSL lines, he states that the Commission is following the case closely and will ‘either bring infringement proceedings ... or use its powers under the EC Treaty competition rules’ should the behaviour by OTE prove to be incompatible with its obligations under Article 82 of the EC Treaty.

Will the Commission say:

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(3 February 2004)

----

(1)  See page 218.

(2)  Directive 2002/21/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on a common regulatory framework for electronic communications networks and services (Framework Directive), OJ L 108, 24.4.2002.

(3)  Directive 2002/22/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on universal service and users’ rights relating to electronic communications networks and services (Universal Service Directive), OJ L 108, 24.4.2002.

(4)  Directive 2002/20/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on the authorisation of electronic communications networks and services (Authorisation Directive), OJ L 108, 24.4.2002.

(5)  Directive 2002/19/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on access to, and interconnection of, electronic communications networks and associated facilities (Access Directive), OJ L 108, 24.4.2002.

(6)  IP/03/1356 and IP/03/1750.

(7)  Communication from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions (COM(2003) 715 final), Report on the Implementation of the EU Electronic Communications Regulatory Package.

(8)  Notice on the application of the competition rules to access agreements in the telecommunications sector — Framework, relevant markets and principles, OJ C 265, 22.8.1998.

----
• , REF ID :A68056e 

24 

USCIB: 5./4 

16 March 1955 

MEMCRANPUM FOR TEE M1jiMR§RS CF USCIB: 

Subject: File Reference to USCIB 29./16 of l4 March 1955. 

Subject named document should have been given the file reference 

number 29.19/18. It is requested that copies be annotated accordingly. 

for future reference. 

USCIB: 5./4 

@'pproved for Release by NSA on 05-07-2014 pursuant to E.O. 1352e
-82 -81 -80 -79 -78 -77 -76 -75

 37

 38

 39

 40

★

▲

▲

▲

▲

★ ▲

▲

▲ ▲

 500

 1000

 1500

 500

18 12 06 00

07/09

NOAA HYSPLIT MODEL

 Backward trajectory ending at 2300 UTC 09 Jul 07

 EDAS Meteorological Data

Source

★ at 38.77 N 77.11 W Meters AGL
An official website of the United States government         Here's how you know         
**Official websites use .gov**
A **.gov** website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.
**Secure .gov websites use HTTPS**
 A **lock (lock )** or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Skip to main content (Press Enter).

National Security Agency/Central Security Service

Search
Search

Search

-  About    -  Leadership             
  -  Mission & Combat Support             
  -  Cybersecurity             
  -  Signals Intelligence             
  -  Central Security Service             
  -  Locations             
  -  Research             
  -  Diversity, Equity, Inclusion & Accessibility             
  -  Cybersecurity Collaboration Center      -  Collaborative Partnerships             
    -  Enduring Security Framework             
    -  DIB Cybersecurity Services             
    -  Standards and Certifications             
    -  Artificial Intelligence Security Center 
-  Press Room    -  Press Releases & Statements             
  -  News & Highlights             
  -  Declassification & Transparency Initiatives             
  -  Cybersecurity Advisories & Guidance             
  -  Telework and Mobile Security Guidance             
  -  DoD Microelectronics Guidance             
  -  Research Publications 
-  Careers    -  Unique Pathways             
  -  Innovation 
-  History    -  National Cryptologic Museum             
  -  Cryptologic History             
  -  National Cryptologic Memorial 

HomeAcademicsK12 PartnershipSpeakers Bureau Evaluation Form for Teachers

Hosted by Defense Media Activity - WEB.mil
II 

114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1438 

To allow women greater access to safe and effective contraception. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MAY 21, 2015 

Ms. AYOTTE (for herself, Mr. GARDNER, Mrs. ERNST, Mr. BURR, Mr. JOHNSON, Mr. TILLIS, and Mr. HELLER) introduced the following bill; which 

was read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To allow women greater access to safe and effective 

contraception. 

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 ‘‘Allowing Greater Ac5 cess to Safe and Effective Contraception Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. APPLICATIONS FOR NON-PRESCRIPTION CONTRA7 CEPTIVE DRUGS. 

8 (a) PRIORITY REVIEW OF APPLICATION.—The Sec9 retary of Health and Human Services (referred to in this 

10 section as the ‘‘Secretary’’) shall give priority review to 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with BILLS

2 

•S 1438 IS

1 any supplemental application submitted under section 

2 505(b) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 

3 U.S.C. 355(b)) for a contraceptive drug, provided that— 

4 (1) the supplemental application is with respect 

5 to a drug intended for routine use; and 

6 (2) if the supplemental application is approved, 

7 with respect to individuals aged 18 and older, such 

8 drug would not be subject to section 503(b)(1) of 

9 the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 

10 U.S.C. 353(b)(1)). 

11 (b) FEE WAIVER.—The Secretary shall waive the fee 

12 under section 736(a)(1) of the Federal Food, Drug, and 

13 Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 379h(a)(1)) with respect to a 

14 supplemental application that receives priority review 

15 under subsection (a). 

16 (c) OVER-THE-COUNTER AVAILABILITY.—Notwith17 standing any other provision of law, with respect to indi18 viduals under age 18, a contraceptive drug that is eligible 

19 for priority review under subsection (a) shall be subject 

20 to section 503(b)(1) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cos21 metic Act (21 U.S.C. 353(b)(1)). 

22 SEC. 3. EMPOWERING WOMEN TO MAKE THEIR OWN 

23 HEALTH DECISIONS. 

24 (a) NO LIMITATIONS BASED ON WHETHER A DRUG

25 IS PRESCRIBED.—Section 9003 of the Patient Protection 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with BILLS

3 

•S 1438 IS

1 and Affordable Care Act (Public Law 111–148), and the 

2 amendments made by such section, are repealed, and the 

3 Internal Revenue Code of 1986 shall be applied as if such 

4 section, and amendments, had never been enacted. 

5 (b) NO LIMITATIONS ON HEALTH FSAS.—Sections 

6 9005 and 10902 of the Patient Protection and Affordable 

7 Care Act (Public Law 111–148) and section 1403 of the 

8 Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010 

9 (Public Law 111–152), and the amendments made by 

10 such sections, are repealed, and the Internal Revenue 

11 Code of 1986 shall be applied as if such sections, and 

12 amendments, had never been enacted. 

Æ 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with BILLS