alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 21

 

LIST OF SUBSIDIARIES

(as of December 31, 2007)

 

Subsidiaries of Terra Energy & Resource Technologies, Inc.

 

1. Terra Insight Corporation, a Delaware corporation, 100% owned

2. Terra Insight Technologies Corporation, a Delaware corporation, 100% owned

3. Terra Resource Technologies, Inc., a New York corporation, 100% owned

 

 

Subsidiary of Terra Insight Corporation

 

1. Terra Resources, Inc., a Delaware corporation, 100% owned

 

 

Subsidiaries of Terra Resources, Inc.

 

1. Terra Resources Operations Co., Inc., a Texas corporation, 100% owned

2.  Namterra Mineral Resources (Proprietary) Limited, 95% owned

 

 

Equity Interests of Terra Resources, Inc.

 

1. Tierra Nevada Exploration Partners, LP, a Delaware limited partnership

2. New Found Oil Partners, LP, a Delaware limited partnership

3. TexTerra Exploration Partners, LP, a Delaware limited partnership
EXHIBIT 10.1

 

TravelCenters of America LLC

 

Current Compensation Plan for Directors

 

	
Annual Retainer for Independent   Directors:
    	
$35,000
    
	
 
    	
 
    
	
Meeting Fees for Independent   Directors:
    	
$750 per day per board or   committee meeting, with a maximum fee of $1,500 for any one day with multiple   board and committee meetings
    
	
 
    	
 
    
	
Share Grants for all Directors:
    	
7,500 annually to be granted on   the day of the first board meeting following the Annual Meeting of   Shareholders (or, for Directors who are first elected or appointed at other   times, on the day of the first board meeting attended)
    
	
 
    	
 
    
	
Chair of the Audit Committee:
    	
$15,000 per year
    
	
 
    	
 
    
	
Chair of the Nominating and   Governance Committee:
    	
$5,000 per year
    
	
 
    	
 
    
	
Chair of the Compensation   Committee:
    	
$5,000 per year
    


 

TravelCenters of America LLC generally reimburses all Directors for travel expenses incurred in connection with their duties as Directors and for out of pocket costs incurred from their attending certain continuing education programs.

 

1
Exhibit
32.2




CERTIFICATION




Pursuant
to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002




(18
U.S.C. 1350)




Pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of (18 U.S.C. 1350), the undersigned officer of Elephant Talk
Communications, Inc., a California corporation (the “Company”), does hereby
certify, to the best of such officer’s knowledge and belief, that:




(1)           The
Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2008 (the “Form
10-K”) of the Company 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 Form 10-K fairly presents, in all materials
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.


Date:  April
      15, 2009
              
              /s/ Steven
      van der VeldenSteven
      van der Velden, President and Chief Executive Officer




This certification shall not be deemed
“filed” for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act, or otherwise
subject to the liability of that section.  Such certification will not
be deemed to be incorporated by reference into any filing under the Securities
Act or the Securities Exchange Act.
1 

### Small Manufacturing Process for PMN ChemicalDow -WeylChem CDA #AR31320 1 

### Small Processing for PMN Chemical

1

2

Pot Boiler Distill x3

35 Heavies (20 NCS) 50 Lights (5 NCS)

Drum Storage

4 3

175 NCS from Reaction

260 Crude Product (200 NCS)

5 Water/Solvent NCS = New Chemical Substance

all quantities = kg/day

6 CleaningDow -WeylChem CDA #AR31320 1 

### Large Manufacturing Process for PMN Chemical

Reaction

Vessel Divinylbenzene/Ethylvinylbenzene 1600 Solvent 6000 Hydrogen Peroxide 50% 2300 Catalyst and other Additives 800

Water 6200 water and organics (25 NCS) 1

3 1750 Organic (1550 NCS)

4

Distill x3

200 Heavies (95 NCS) 100 Lights (5 NCS)

Drum or

Bulk Container

Storage

6 5

1450 NCS

7 Water/Solvent Solvent 2

8 Cleaning NCS = New Chemical Substance

all quantities = kg/batch
Kortne Jayoun STURGIS, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D18-0342

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

February 09, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Denied.
```

[Federal Register: July 1, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 126)]
[Notices]               
[Page 38073-38074]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr01jy10-34]                         

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

COMMISSION ON CIVIL RIGHTS

 
Agenda and Notice of Public Meeting of the Iowa Advisory 
Committee

    Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the rules and 
regulations of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights (Commission), and 
the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), that a planning meeting of 
the Iowa Advisory Committee to the Commission will convene by 
conference call at 2 p.m. and adjourn at approximately 3 p.m. on 
Wednesday, July 28, 2010. The purpose of this meeting is to continue 
planning a civil rights project.
    This meeting is available to the public through the following toll-
free call-in number: (866) 364-7584, conference call access code number 
84802075. Any interested member of the public may call this number and 
listen to the meeting. Callers can expect to incur charges for calls 
they initiate over wireless lines, and the Commission will not refund 
any incurred charges. Callers will incur no charge for calls they 
initiate over land-line connections to the toll-free telephone number. 
Persons with hearing impairments may also follow the proceedings by 
first calling the Federal Relay Service at 1-800-977-8339 and providing 
the Service with the conference call number and contact name Farella E. 
Robinson.
    To ensure that the Commission secures an appropriate number of 
lines for the public, persons are asked to register by contacting 
Corrine Sanders of the Central Regional Office and TTY/TDD telephone 
number, by 4 p.m. on July 21, 2010.
    Members of the public are entitled to submit written comments. The 
comments must be received in the regional office by August 28, 2010. 
The address is U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, 400 State Avenue, Suite 
908, Kansas City, Kansas 66101. Comments may be e-mailed to 
frobinson@usccr.gov, Records generated

[[Page 38074]]

by this meeting may be inspected and reproduced at the Central Regional 
Office, as they become available, both before and after the meeting. 
Persons interested in the work of this advisory committee are advised 
to go to the Commission's Web site, http://www.usccr.gov, or to contact 
the Central Regional Office at the above e-mail or street address.
    The meeting will be conducted pursuant to the provisions of the 
rules and regulations of the Commission and FACA.

    Dated in Washington, DC, June 28, 2010.
Peter Minarik,
Acting Chief, Regional Programs Coordination Unit.
[FR Doc. 2010-15990 Filed 6-30-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6335-01-P
```
Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h

Maura D. Corriga n Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathawa y A lton Thomas Davis,

J ustices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_______________________________________ __ Clerk December 3, 2010

p1124 

# Order

December 3, 2010

141245

DELSHONE MAJORS, as Personal Representative of the Estate of DAVID EUGENE MAJORS, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 141245 COA: 289972 Wayne CC: 07-710697-NO OFFICER LAVON HOWELL, Defendant,

and

TROOPER RICHARD FELL, TROOPER JAMES GRADY, and TROOPE R TIMOTHY RAJALA, Defendants-Appellants.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the May 6, 2010 judgment of the Court of Appeals is consid ered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
#### Elaine I. KASSIN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. The SELECT GROUP, LLC; Kimberly Barber; Cisco Systems, Inc., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 17-1575

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: July 20, 2017

Decided: July 24, 2017

Elaine I. Kassin, Appellant Pro Se. Alexander Tevis Marshall, James Clay Rollins, OGLETREE DEAKINS NASH SMOAK & STEWART, PC, Richmond, Virginia* for Appellees.

Before DUNCAN and WYNN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Elaine I. Kassin seeks to appeal the district court’s orders dismissing her civil complaint for failure' to state a claim and denying her motion for reconsideration. On appeal, we confine our review to the issues raised in the Appellant’s brief. *See*4th Cir. R. 34(b). Because Kassin’s informal brief does not challenge the basis for the district court’s disposition, Kassin has forfeited appellate review of the court’s orders. *See Williams v. Giant Food Inc.,*370 F.3d 423, 430 n.4 (4th Cir. 2004). Accordingly, we deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*DISMISSED*
#### Alexander Otis MATTHEWS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Ryan FAULCONER, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 16-7667

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: April 25, 2017

Decided: April 27, 2017

Alexander Otis Matthews, Appellant Pro Se.

Before MOTZ, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Alexander Otis Mathews appeals the district court’s order denying his Rule 59(e) motion for reconsideration of its order reclassifying Matthews’ complaint as an attorney misconduct disciplinary complaint and denying his misconduct claims. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. *Matthews v. Faulconer,*No. 1:15-cv-00448-LO-MSN (E.D. Va., filed Nov. 14 & entered Nov. 15, 2016). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*AFFIRMED*
Darrell Lee JACKSON v. STATE

CR-16-0035

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

April 7, 2017

Reh. denied.
Joel MCFARLANE, Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s), v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee(s)/Respondent(s),

CASE NO.: 3D17-0189

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

AUGUST 24, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.
14415

#### GRIDDLE *ET AL.*v. TAYLOR

(189 S. E., 461)

*352
      *Mr. W. A.*Isgett, for appellant,

*Mr. L. Marion*Gressette, for respondent.

January 14, 1936.

The opinion of the Court was delivered by

Mr. Justice Carter.

*353This action by Ransom Griddle et al., as plaintiffs, against the defendant, John H. Taylor, arose in the County of Calhoun, this State, and involves the partition of a certain tract of land situate in said county.

The case comes to this Court on appeal by the plaintiffs from the decretal order issued by his Honor, Judge C. C. Eeatherstone. This Court is satisfied with the finding and conclusion expressed in the order issued by Judge Eeatherstone, and for the reasons stated therein the exceptions are overruled and the judgment of the lower Court is affirmed.

Note: The order of Judge Eeatherstone, dated April 28, 1936, will be incorporated in the report of the case.

Mr. Chief Justice Stabler and Messrs. Justices Bonham, Baker and Eishburne concur.
#### Benigno SANDOVAL-MADRIGAL, AKA Jesus Osequerra, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 13-74107

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted August 9, 2017 *

Filed August 15, 2017

Alexander H. Lubar'sky, Esquire, Attorney, Community Legal Centers, San Ma-teo, CA, for Petitioner

Paul Fiorino, Senior Litigation Counsel, OIL, DOJ—U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent

Before: SCHROEDER, TASHIMA, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Benigno Sandoval-Madrigal, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal, which was treated as a motion to reconsider. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reconsider. *Mohammed v. Gonzales,*400 F.3d 785, 791 (9th Cir. 2005). We deny the petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Sandoval-Madrigal’s motion to reconsider the agency’s denial of adjustment of status as untimely, where it was filed more than 30 days after the BIA’s 2011 order became final. *See*8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(6)(B) (motion to reconsider must be filed within 30 days of entry of a final order of removal); 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(47)(B)(i) (an order of removal becomes final when the BIA affirms the order); *Pinto v. Holder,*648 F.3d 976, 986 (9th Cir. 2011) (a BIA order denying relief from removal, but remanding solely for *284voluntary departure proceedings is a final order of removal).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. David A. HICKS, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 16-7717

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: July 14, 2017

Decided: July 20, 2017

David A. Hicks, Appellant Pro Se. Gary L. Call, Steven Loew, Assistant United States Attorneys, Betty Adkins Pullin, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee.

Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions áre not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

David A. Hicks appeals the district court’s order granting the Government’s motion to destroy evidence. The motion was granted in accordance with the district court’s local rules, and Hicks offers no evidence to support his claim that the exhibits support a claim of actual innocence. Accordingly, we affirm the grant of the Government’s motion. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*AFFIRMED*
#### Keith Lamonte HILL, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Harold W. CLARKE, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 16-7750

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: June 26, 2017

Decided: July 21, 2017

Keith Lamonte Hill, Appellant Pro Se. Virginia Bidwell Theisen, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Before NIEMEYER, WYNN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

*218Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Keith Lamonte Hill seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2012). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. *Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); *see Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003), When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. *Slack,*529 U.S. at 484-85, 120 S.Ct. 1595.

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Hill has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*DISMISSED*
Jared L. LAKES, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D18-0159

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

March 27, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Denied.
## F i n a l R u l e : C o n f i d e n t i a l D e t e r mi n a t i o n s f o r P a r t 98 D a t a M ee ti n g D o c u m e n t a t i o n : N a t i o n a l A ss o c i a ti o n o f C l e a n A i r A g e n c i es

D ate S ta ff C o n ta ct I n fo r m a ti o n ( N am e , e m a i l

, p h o n e #) N am e of O r g a n i z a ti o n ( A t t a c h l i s t of a l l

att e n d ee s n a m e s a nd em a i l s i f p o ss i b l e ) S u m ma r y o f D i s c u ss i o n ( e

. g

. ,
a pp l i c a b i l it y , r e p o r t i n g

r e q u i r e m e n t s , e t c .) W r i tt e n C o mm e n t s P r ov i d e d ?
D i d t h e y al s o

s u b mit t o D o c k e t? D at e s e n t to E PA

CC D

8 /3 Je nn if

e r B oh m an boh m an

. j e nn i f e r @ e pa

. gov 202

- 343

- 9548 N at i o n a l A s s o c i at i o n o f C l ea n A i r A d m i n i s t r a t o r s

– E m i s s i o n s &
M o d e l i n g C o mm i ttee E

P A ga ve a b r i e

f

p r e s e n t a ti on o

f t h e
p r opo s e d C

B I r u l e. S ee

a tt a c h e d s l i d e s

. N o. NA
Kathryn ELLISON and James Ellison, Appellants, v. The BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON, etc., Appellee.

No. 3D16-2723

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Opinion filed May 2, 2018

Ice Appellate, and Thomas Erskine Ice (Lake Worth), for appellants.

Albertelli Law, and Brandon S. Vesely (Tampa), for appellee.

Before SUAREZ, EMAS, and LOGUE, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. *See**U.S. Bank Nat'l Ass'n v. Clarke*, 192 So.3d 620, 622 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016) (quoting *Ortiz v. PNC Bank, Nat'l Ass'n*, 188 So.3d 923, 925 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016) ) ("Where a copy of a note is attached to a complaint and the plaintiff later files with the court the original note in the same condition as the copy attached to the complaint, 'the combination of such evidence is sufficient to establish that the [plaintiff] had actual possession of the note at the time the complaint was filed and, therefore, had standing to bring the foreclosure action, absent any testimony or evidence to the contrary.' "); *Deutsche Bank Nat'l Tr. Co. v. de Brito*, 235 So.3d 972, 975 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017) ("The foundation for admission of a business record may be established by a records custodian or other qualified witness, and that witness authenticating the records need not be the *987person who actually prepared the business records.").
Krystal Marie SMITH, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D16-0824

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

November 08, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.
Exhibit 4.60

    

     

    

    Addendum No. 1

    to the Memorandum of Agreement dated 4th July 2018

    (the “MOA”)

    in respect of “ANDERIDA” (the “Vessel”)

    between

    YLGC ALPHA OWNING LTD. of Marshall Islands (the “Sellers”)

    and

    GLOBAL MERIDIAN
        HOLDINGS LIMITED of Bermuda (the “Original Buyers”)

    _______________________________

    
      
        	1.	
                The Original Buyers hereby nominate:-

              


      

    

    MERIDIAN 9 LIMITED (the “Buyers”)

        Registered Office: Canon’s Court,
        22 Victoria Street, Hamilton, HM 12, Bermuda

    as the final buyers to complete the purchase and delivery of the Vessel as per the MOA and the Buyers hereby accept the nomination.

    
      
        	2.	
                The Sellers hereby agree to the above nomination.

              


      

    

    
      
        	3.	
                The Buyers hereby assume all the rights and obligations of the Original Buyers under the MOA.

              


      

    

    
      
        	4.	
                The Original Buyers hereby






                      guarantee the due and punctual performance of the Buyers’ obligations under the MOA.

              


      

    

    
      
        	5.	
                Except as otherwise provided herein, all other terms and conditions of the MOA shall remain unchanged and in full force .

              


      

    

    
      
        	6.	
                This Addendum No. 1 shall be
                      governed by and construed in accordance with English law and Clause 16 ( Law and Arbitration) of the MOA shall apply to this Addendum No. 1 as if set out herein if full (mutatis mutandis).

              


      

    

    
      
        	7.	
                This Addendum No. 1 may be entered into in any counterparts which when taken together shall constitute one and the same instrument.

              


      

    

    Date: 16th July 2018

    

    

    	 	 	 	 
	
            
              /s/ George A. Kaklamanos

            

          	 	
            
              /s/ Phillip Anderson

            

          	 
	
            For and on behalf of

                the Sellers

          	 	
            For and on behalf of

                the Original Buyers

          	 


    

    

    

    

    	 	 
	
            
              /s/ Phillip Anderson

                

            

          	 
	
            For and on behalf of

                the Buyers
Tisha SUZANNE, Appellant, v. INDIGO LAND GROVELAND, LLC, Appellee.

Case No. 5D16-4467

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed May 22, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Rodney WYNN, Defendant-Appellant

No. 16-11036 Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed July 27, 2017

James Wesley Hendrix, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Northern District of Texas, Dallas, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Rodney Wynn, Pro Se

Before JOLLY, OWEN, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges..

PER CURIAM!: *

The attorney appointed to represent Rodney Wynn has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), and *United States v. Flores,*632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Wynn has filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein, as well as Wynn’s response. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. *See*5th Cir. R. 42.2.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.