alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
REQUEST FOR AN EARLY EFFECTIVE DATE Pursuant To Government Code Section 11343.4(c)

The Air Resources Board (ARB or Board) requests, pursuant to Government Code section 11343.4(c), that the Office of Admi nistrative Law (OAL) prescribe an “earlier

effective date” for the Pr oposed 2011 Amendments to th e Airborne Toxic Control

Measure for In-Use Diesel-Fueled Trans port Refrigeration Units (TRU) and TRU Generator Sets, and Facilities Wher e TRUs Operate that was adopted on October 21, 2011. ARB believes the followi ng demonstrates “good cause” for OAL to prescribe an earlier effective date – i.e., an ef fective date to coinci de with the filing of the regulations with the Secretary of State.

DEMONSTRATION OF GOOD CAUSE

In this rulemaking, the Board adopted amendment s that include an ex tension for in-use performance standards based on delays due to private financing, equipment manufacturer delays, or installer delays for compliance technology (Title 13, California Code of Regulations secti on 2477.5(l)). A maximum four-month extension may be granted if the compliance technology was ordered at least two months before the compliance date for verified diesel emissions control strategies (VDCES) and no later than four months before the compli ance date for engine replacements, unit replacements, and trailer replacements. T he purchase order must be consistent with these limits. The early effective date is needed because the four-month order deadlines

are imminent.

In addition, the amendments include an exempt ion for TRU-equipped re frigerated trucks and trailers used by mobile catering compan ies to store food for emergency responders, such as firefighters suppressing wildfires. (Title13, California Code of Regulations section 2477.5(j)). Good cause exists to support an earlier effective date of this exemption because California is presently experiencing numerous wildfires and the exemption will ensure that m obile catering service companies are not impeded in providing food services to the personnel res ponding to such wildfires during this fire season. Mobile catering companies have expr essed to ARB staff their concerns that they could be cited for violating the exis ting TRU regulation because much of their equipment is not compliant with the TRU regulation, and ARB created this exemption to

address their concerns.

For the reasons set forth above, ARB believe s there is good cause for OAL to prescribe an earlier effective date and hereby requests that OAL approve an earlier effective date, coinciding with OAL’s submittal of its approval of this rulemaking action to the Secretary of State pursuant to Government Code section 11343.4(c).

Date: August 21, 2012 _________ ___/s/_______________

__ Alex Wang, Senior Staff Counsel
EX-4.27



 Exhibit 4.27 
 SUPPLEMENTARY AGREEMENT 
 TO THE ONLINE GAME LICENSE AGREEMENT

 Date of Signing: December 23, 2009 
 Party A: Hangzhou Snow Wolf Software Co., Ltd. 
 Party B: Shanghai Giant Network
Technology Co., Ltd. 
 WHEREAS, Licensor and Licensee entered into The Online Game License Agreement on August 13, 2009 (the
“Original Agreement”). 
 NOW, after negotiations, the Parties wish to amend certain term of the Original Agreement.

  

	1.	In the Original Agreement, “The computing formula of the Royalty Fee shall be as follows: the Gross Consumption of Game Points*85% (deducting discounts on game
point cards, channel costs)*94.5% (deducting business tax) *24% (royalty percentage).”, shall be changed into “The computing formula of the Royalty Fee shall be as follows: the Gross Consumption of Game Points*88% (deducting discounts on
game point cards, channel costs)*94.5% (deducting business tax) *24% (royalty percentage).” 

  

	2.	Due to the change of the game operation condition, the Parties may still change the above computing formula of the Royalty Fee with supplementary agreement in the
future. 

  

	3.	In all the rest that is not provided by this Supplementary Agreement the Parties shall be governed by the Original Agreement. 


 

	4.	This Supplementary Agreement is made in two counterparts and shall become effective after signed by both Parties. 


 

			
	Party A (Seal): Hangzhou Snow Wolf Software Co., Ltd.	 	Party B (Seal): Shanghai Giant Network Technology Co., Ltd.

 By: QIN, Yu
#### Fay vs. Lovejoy and another.

*Usury*— Set-off.

1. To avoid a contract on the ground of usury, it must appear that the lender know the facts and acted with a view of evading the law.

2. Where F., acting as the agent of L., procured a loan for him at the highest rate of interest, and also retained three per cent, in his own hands, stating to L. that it had been deducted by the lender, and the note and mortgage given to secure the loan were afterwards sold by the lender to F. : *Seld,*in an action by F. to foreclose the mortgage &c., that L. might have set-off the amount so retained with interest, if the facts had been stated in his answer, but there was no ground for the defense of usury.

APPEAL from the Circuit Court for *Jefferson*Comity.

Foreclosure of a mortgage executed by *Lovejoy and wife*to one Merrill, to secure a note of tbe same date for $1000, with interest at 12 per cent. The mortgage and note were subsequently assigned, after due, to the plaintiff. The defense was usury: and the facts will sufficiently appear from the opinion.

Judgment for the plaintiff; from which the defendants appealed.

*Chas. Q-.*Williams, for appellants.

*Bennett & Gassoday,*for respondent.

Dixon, C. J.

Usury is a matter of intention, and to avoid a contract on that ground it must appear that the lender knew the facts and acted with a view of evading *the law. Otto v. Durege,*14 Wis., 574, and cases cited. There is no evidence that Merrill knew anything about the deduction of the 8 per cent, by *Fay,*or ever assented to it. The contract was, therefore, valid in the hands of Merrill; and being valid in his hands, it is also valid in the hands of his assignee, *Fay. Fay*acted as the agent of *Lovejoy*in procuring the loan, retained the three per cent, in his own hands, and then wrote *Lovejoy*that it had been deducted by Merrill. This was a deception on the part of Fay, for which *Lovejoy*might have been allowed in this action the sum detained, with interest, if the facts had been stated in his answer; but it did not make the contract with Merrill usurious.

*By the Court.*— Judgment affirmed.
Exhibit
32





CERTIFICATIONS
PURSUANT TO


SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


(18
U.S.C. SECTION 1350)





In
connection with the Quarterly Report of Impart Media Group, Inc., a Colorado
corporation (the "Company"), on Form 10-QSB for the period ended December 31,
2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), Joe
Martinez, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and Alan Chaffee, Principal
Financial Officer of the Company, do hereby certify, pursuant to §906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. § 1350), 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 result of operations of the Company.





/s/ Joe
Martinez


By: Joe
Martinez


Its:
Chief Executive Officer, Director





/s/ Alan Chaffee


By: Alan
Chaffee


Its:
Principal Financial Officer





May 1,
2009





[A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to
Impart Media Group, Inc. and will be retained by it and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.]
**Exhibit 23.2**

 

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLICACCOUNTING FIRM**

 

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the RegistrationStatements (Form S-8 Nos. 333-43716, 333-50579, 333-50581,333-50585, 333-53331, 333-62884, 333-65405, 333-104222, 333-10614, 333-121053)of Trammell Crow Company and Subsidiaries pertaining to the Restricted Stockand Nonstatutory Stock Option Awards to Certain Employees, the Trammell CrowCompany Employee Stock Purchase Plan, as amended, the Trammell Crow Company1997 Stock Option Plan, the Trammell Crow Company Long-Term Incentive Plan, asamended, the Trammell Crow Company Retirement Savings Plan, and RestrictedStock to Certain Employees of our report dated March 8, 2005, with respect tothe consolidated financial statements of TFK Retail, Ltd. included in theAnnual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2005.

 

 
| /s/ ERNST  & YOUNG LLP |   |
|----------------------------|--------|
|                       |
|                       |
| Dallas,  Texas             |
| March 13,  2006            |

 

----
# C_2015392EN.01000401.xml

| 25.11.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 392/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.11.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 392/4

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.7682 — Goldman Sachs/Altor/Hamlet)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2015/C 392/02)

On 5 August 2015, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the internal market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1). The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

1

| — | in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32015M7682. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32015M7682. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.

1

---
Exhibit 99.14

News
Release
March 15, 2000

Trading Symbols:TRBD (EASDAQ)

TURBODYNE REPORTS FURTHER ON THE SALE OF ITS LIGHT METALS DIVISION

Carpinteria, CAMarch 15, 2000Turbodyne Technologies Inc. (EASDAQ:TRBD)
announces the following update on the bankruptcy sale of substantially all of the assets of its subsidiaries, Pacific Baja Light Metals Corporation, Baja Pacific Light Metals, Inc., and Optima
Wheel, Inc. (collectively, the "Debtor").

On
December 14, 1999, the Bankruptcy Court entered an order authorizing the sale of substantially all of the assets of the Debtor to an assignee of Hawthorne Partners (the
"Buyer").

The
order provided that the Buyer shall assume up to $1.2 million of liabilities arising from the Debtor's obligations to Mexican governmental agencies and utility providers.
Turbodyne believes that these Mexican obligations do not exceed $1.2 million.

The
order also provided that the Buyer would not be responsible for the Debtor's obligations under any equipment lease, except to the extent the Buyer assumed such lease. All
equipment leases of the Debtor which Turbodyne guaranteed have been assumed by the Buyer, except for one. Turbodyne believes that the obligation of the Debtor and Turbodyne, as guarantor, will not
exceed $40,000 under the equipment lease rejected by the Buyer.

The
order also provided that the Buyer would not be responsible for the Debtor's obligations in connection with any employment or labor agreements or any pension plan of the Debtor.
After reasonable inquiry, the Company has been unable to determine the amount of the contingent liabilities but believes that they will not have an adverse impact on its ability to remain a going
concern.

Turbodyne
Technologies Inc., a California based high technology company, specializes in the development of charging technology for internal combustion engines plus the development and
manufacturing of high-tech assemblies for electrically assisted turbochargers and superchargers. Turbodyne Technologies Inc.'s headquarters is located in Carpinteria, CA; the European business
location is Frankfurt, Germany.

Contacts:

Corporate
Communications, Peter Weichselbraun (800) 566-1130
VP Group FinanceInvestor Relations, Ken Fitzpatrick (800) 566-1130
European Investor Relations, Markus Kumbrink +49-69-975-44-665

---

QuickLinks
#### Baxter vs. The State.

A contract executed on behalf of the territory of Wisconsin, by a commissioner who affixed to it a seal composed of a piece of paper fastened by a wafer, is, as to the territory, an unsealed instrument. The seal must be regarded as that of the commissioner individually.

A motion to amend the complaint on such contract, by averring that the instrument, which had been declared on as unsealed, was in fact under'the seal of *489the territory, was denied upon the ground that it appeared from the instrument itself, shown to the court on the hearing of the motion, that the amendment would be unavailing.

September 1.

This was an action upon a contract, entered into between the plaintiff and the territory of Wisconsin. The complaint counted upon the contract as an unsealed instrument. A motion was now made for leave to amend the complaint by stating that the instrument was under the seal of the territory.

*J. H. Knowlton*and *J. A*Sleeper, for the motion.

*J. H.*Howe, Attorney General, *contra.*

*By the Court,*

Paine, J.

A motion has been made for leave to amend the complaint, so as to aver that the contract sued on was under seal, and thus avoid the plea of the statute of limitations, upon which the case has thus far turned. In support of the motion the plaintiff filed an affidavit, showing that at the time of filing the complaint the contract had been mislaid, and that he had forgotten that it was under seal, but that he had since found it, and that it was a sealed instrument. The contract itself was also submitted to us for inspection in passing upon this motion. It shows that the parties signing the instrument affixed seals to their names, that used by the commissioner of the territory being composed of a piece of paper fastened by a wafer. We are satisfied, as was contended by the attorney general, that this can be regarded only as -the seal of the commissioner individually, and not as the seal of the territory. The latter could have been bound in covenant only by the use of its official seal, and though its agent affixed his individual seal, it was still but a simple contract as against the territory. Ang. & Ames on Corp., § 295, Note 1, and cases cited.

We should allow the amendment if it did not appear that it would be unavailing. But if in the amendment, the facts should be alleged as they are, it would be immaterial, as it would not vary the question so far as the statute of limitations is concerned. If-it should be averred generally that the contract was sealed by the territory, it fully appears that such an averment could not be sustained by the proof. For this reason the motion is denied.
<PAGE>   1
                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.12

March 13, 2000

Mr. Andrew Fox
Acting President and CEO
High Speed Net Solutions, Inc.
434 Fayetteville Street Mall, Suite 2120
Raleigh, NC 27601

Dear Andy:

Summus, Ltd. ("Summus") hereby agrees that during the term of the Software
License Agreement (the "SLA") entered into between Summus, Ltd., and High Speed
Net Solutions, Inc. ("HSNS"), dated February 18, 2000, neither Summus nor any of
its Affiliates will directly engage in any use of the MaxxSystem Software or of
the product functionality contained in the MaxxSystem Software, either alone or
in any combination, for a purpose that is directly competitive with the business
of HSNS as it is presently constituted. Affiliate is a person or entity that
directly or indirectly controls, is controlled by, or is under common control
with Summus.

Furthermore, Summus hereby agrees that from the date of the SLA through the
earlier of July 1, 2001, or the effective date of termination of the SLA, Summus
shall not sell, license or grant any other rights to use the MaxxSystem software
or the product functionality contained in the MaxxSystem Software to entities
other than Summus for any use that is directly competitive with the business of
HSNS as presently constituted. In the case of Summus Affiliates, the restriction
contained in the preceding sentence shall continue throughout the term of the
SLA. Without limiting the foregoing, the prohibition in this paragraph shall not
apply to licenses of the MaxxSystem software to an entity solely for the purpose
of such entity marketing, advertising and/or promoting such entity's own
products, services or views and opinions.

In consideration for the above described commitments by Summus, HSNS agrees to
pay Summus $1,000 dollars concurrently with the execution of this letter and to
implement commercially viable sales and marketing facilities to promote its
Service Bureau use (as defined in the Revenue Sharing Agreement dated February
18, 2000) of the MaxxSystem Software.

Agreed to by:                                Agreed to by:
/s/ Dr. Bjorn Jawerth                        /s/ Andrew Fox
-----------------------                      ---------------------
Dr. Bjorn Jawerth                            Andrew Fox
President and Chairman of the Board          Acting President and CEO,
Summus, Ltd.                                 Executive Vice President
                                             High Speed Net Solutions, Inc.
# C_2016259EN.01000401.xml

| 16.7.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 259/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.7.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 259/4

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

1

15 July 2016

(2016/C 259/07)

1 euro =

1 euro =

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,1128 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 117,63 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4375 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,83275 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 9,4556 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,0899 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 9,3183 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 27,040 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 314,95 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 4,4099 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 4,4802 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 3,2125 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,4538 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,4317 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 8,6283 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,5534 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 1,4961 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 260,06 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 15,9668 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 7,4355 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,5023 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 14 563,77 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,3932 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 51,950 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 70,3711 |
| THB | Thai baht | 38,898 |
| BRL | Brazilian real | 3,6232 |
| MXN | Mexican peso | 20,4417 |
| INR | Indian rupee | 74,5850 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,1128

JPY

Japanese yen

117,63

DKK

Danish krone

7,4375

GBP

Pound sterling

0,83275

SEK

Swedish krona

9,4556

CHF

Swiss franc

1,0899

ISK

Iceland króna

NOK

Norwegian krone

9,3183

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CZK

Czech koruna

27,040

HUF

Hungarian forint

314,95

PLN

Polish zloty

4,4099

RON

Romanian leu

4,4802

TRY

Turkish lira

3,2125

AUD

Australian dollar

1,4538

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,4317

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

8,6283

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,5534

SGD

Singapore dollar

1,4961

KRW

South Korean won

1 260,06

ZAR

South African rand

15,9668

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

7,4355

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,5023

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

14 563,77

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,3932

PHP

Philippine peso

51,950

RUB

Russian rouble

70,3711

THB

Thai baht

38,898

BRL

Brazilian real

3,6232

MXN

Mexican peso

20,4417

INR

Indian rupee

74,5850

---

(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.

1

Source

---
[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 16-11926

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D.C. Docket No. 2:10-cr-00025-JES-SPC-1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

HECTOR L. ROMAN BAEZ, JR., 

a.k.a. Tito, 

 Defendant-Appellant.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Florida

________________________

(November 30, 2016)

Before WILLIAM PRYOR, JULIE CARNES and JILL PRYOR, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: 

Case: 16-11926 Date Filed: 11/30/2016 Page: 1 of 2 
2

Hector Baez Jr. appeals pro se the denial of his motion to correct errors in

his presentence investigation report. See Fed. R. Crim. P. 36. The district court 

ruled that the elimination of criminal history points from a presentence report is

“not a ‘clerical error’ within the meaning of Rule 36.” We affirm.

The district court did not err by denying Baez’s motion. A district court may 

use Rule 36 to correct a clerical error in a judgment, Fed. R. Crim. P. 36, but the 

correction “may not be used to make a substantive alteration to a criminal 

sentence,” United States v. Portillo, 363 F.3d 1161, 1164 (11th Cir. 2004). Baez

moved to deduct points that had been assessed for four prior convictions on the 

grounds they “did not qualify under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.2(e)(1)” and “cause[d] [him] 

to have an upgrade security classification within the Federal Bureau of Prisons.” 

Because a reduction in criminal history points would alter Baez’s sentencing range, 

his motion does not request the type of “minor and mechanical” change allowed 

under Rule 36. See id. at 1165. Baez cannot raise a substantive challenge to the 

calculation of his sentence in a motion to correct a clerical error.

We AFFIRM the denial of Baez’s motion to correct a clerical error.

Case: 16-11926 Date Filed: 11/30/2016 Page: 2 of 2
# C_2016334EN.01000101.xml

| 10.9.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 334/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.9.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 334/1

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.8154 — Alpiq/GETEC Energie/JV)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2016/C 334/01)

On 25 August 2016, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the internal market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1). The full text of the decision is available only in the German language and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

1

| — | in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32016M8154. EUR-Lex is the online access to the European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32016M8154. EUR-Lex is the online access to the European law.

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.

1

---