alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EX-10.1(b)



 Exhibit 10.1 (b) 
 June 1, 2013 
 Waypoint Capital Management 

23 Green St. – Suite 210 
 Huntington, N.Y.
11743 
 Attention: Mr. Robert Calabretta 
  

	 	Re:	Management Agreement Renewals 

 Dear
Mr. Calabretta: 
 We are writing with respect to your management agreements concerning the commodity pools to which reference is made below
(the “Management Agreements”). We are extending the term of the Management Agreements through June 30, 2014 and all other provisions of the Management Agreements will remain unchanged. 

 

	 	•	 	 Emerging CTA Portfolio L.P. 


  

	 	•	 	 Global Diversified Futures Fund L.P. 


  

	 	•	 	 Waypoint Master Fund L.P. 


  

	 	•	 	 Diversified 2000 Futures Fund L.P. 


 Please acknowledge receipt of this modification by signing one copy of this letter and returning it to the attention of Mr. Damian George at the address above or fax to 212-296-6868. If you have any
questions I can be reached at 212-296-1292. 
 Very truly yours, 

 

			
	CERES MANAGED FUTURES LLC
		
	By:	 	/s/ Damain George
		 	 Damain George
 Chief
Financial Officer & Director


  

			
	WAYPOINT CAPITAL MANAGEMENT
		
	By:	 	/s/ Robert Calabretta
		
	Print Name:	 	Robert Calabretta
		
	DG/sr
<PAGE>

                                                                     EXHIBIT 32e

        Certification Pursuant to Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18
                            of the United States Code

      I, E. James Ferland, Chief Executive Officer of PSEG Power LLC, to the
best of my knowledge, certify that (i) the Annual Report of PSEG Power LLC on
Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2005 (the "Report") fully complies
with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 and (ii) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of PSEG
Power LLC.

                                    /s/ E. James Ferland
                                  --------------------------------------
                                    E. James Ferland
                                    PSEG Power LLC
                                    Chief Executive Officer
                                    February 27, 2006
# C_2023024EN.01001901.xml

| 23.1.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 24/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.1.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 24/19

---

Appeal brought on 4 May 2022 by Luis Miguel Novais against the order of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 4 March 2022 in Case T-66/22, Novais v Portugal

(Case C-295/22 P)

(2023/C 24/25)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Parties

Appellant: Luis Miguel Novais (represented by: Á. Oliveira and C. Almeida Lopes, advogados)

Other party to the proceedings: Portuguese Republic

By order of 24 November 2022, the Court (Sixth Chamber) dismissed the appeal as manifestly unfounded.

---
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 15

- 40250 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff

- Appellee

v.
JUAN AMAYA , Defendant

- Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 7:14

- CR

- 1528

- 1

Before JONES , SOUTHWICK , and COSTA , Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: *
The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Juan Amaya has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores , 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Amaya h a s not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for

* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. 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 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED December 15 , 2015 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 15-40250 Document: 00513308791 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/15/2015No. 15

- 40250

2 appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, c ounsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the
APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5 TH C IR

. R. 42.2. Case: 15-40250 Document: 00513308791 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/15/2015
EX-10.10



 Exhibit 10.10 

Description of Non-Employee Director Compensation 

Section 3.11 of the Company’s Amended and Restated Bylaws grant the Board of Directors authority to fix the compensation of
directors. Pursuant to this authority, the Company’s Board of Directors authorized the following compensation for non-employee directors by resolution adopted on June 5, 2013: 

 

	 	(1)	Non-employee directors receive $60,000 per year ($15,000 per quarter) for service on the Board (the “Annual Retainer”); 

  

	 	(2)	The non-executive Chairman of the Board receives $50,000 per year for service in addition to the Annual Retainer; 

  

	 	(3)	The chairman of the Audit Committee receives $15,000 per year for service in addition to the Annual Retainer; and 

  

	 	(4)	Audit committee members receive $1,000 for each audit committee meeting attended.
U. S. ELECTION ASSISTANCE COMMISSION

VOTING SYSTEM TESTING AND CERTIFICATION PROGRAM

1335 East West Highway, Suite 4300

Silver Spring, MD 20910

SENT VIA EMAIL

June 9, 2017

Sue McKay 

Director of Certification

Election Systems & Software

11208 John Galt Boulevard

Omaha, Nebraska 68137

Approval of Voting System Testing Application Package

Dear Sue McKay,

The U.S. Election Assistance Commission (EAC) completed the review of the 

application package for Election Systems and Software’s (ES&S) EVS 6.2.0.0 voting 

system. The application was accepted and assigned the following unique application 

number: EVS6200. 

ES&S selected SLI Compliance as the lead VSTL for this testing engagement and testing 

will be conducted to the VVSG 1.0. If the system meets the criteria for a grant of 

certification, the system will be assigned the number “ESSEVS6200,”as per your request 

on the application form (EAC-002C).

The Certification Program assigned Ryan Macias as Project Manager to oversee this 

testing engagement. The goal of the Project Manager is to facilitate the communication 

between EAC staff (including Technical Reviewers), manufacturer, and VSTL to 

optimize the efficiency of the certification process. The Project Manager will monitor the 

voting system throughout its life cycle in the Certification Program, and ensure the 

process meets the requirements of the Certification Program’s manuals.

The contact information for this Project Manager is:

• Name: Ryan Macias, Certification Program Specialist 

• Email: rmacias@eac.gov 

• Phone: (202) 579-5496 

In addition, the two lead EAC technical reviewers assigned to this system are:

• Tom Caddy, tcaddy@gmail.com; and
• Tom Watson, txtwatson@gmail.com

The EAC may at any time utilize additional technical reviewers to assist in the review of 

test plans, test cases, and test reports. All communications with the technical reviewers 

shall be facilitated through the Project Manager.

Finally, we strongly encourage you to regularly visit the EAC’s Web site (www.eac.gov) 

for the latest Notices of Interpretation and Clarification, news, program manuals, and 

updates. The exact location of this information is: http://www.eac.gov/programareas/voting-systems. The information contained in the Notices of Interpretation and 

Clarification is critical to understanding testing standards and program requirements. It is 

a manufacturer’s responsibility to ensure they adhere to all procedural requirements of 

the program. 

If you have any questions or need further information about this matter, please do not 

hesitate to contact us at your earliest convenience. We thank you in advance for your 

cooperation in this matter.

Sincerely,

Brian Hancock

Director of Voting System Testing and Certification
- Skip to main content
- About Us
- Contact Us
- FAQs
-  Language Assistance ****    - English
  - español
  - 中文: 繁體版
  - Việt-ngữ
  - 한국어
  - Tagalog
  - Русский 

U.S. Department of Education

U.S. Department of Education

        - Student Loans
        - Grants
        - Laws
        - Data

# Thông báo dành cho những người có khả năng Anh ngữ hạn chế

# Thông báo dành cho những người có khả năng Anh ngữ hạn chế

                                    -        Phòng Dân Quyền
Nếu quý vị có khó khăn trong việc hiểu  Anh ngữ thì quý vị có thể yêu cầu các dịch vụ hỗ trợ ngôn ngữ cho các thông tin của Bộ dành cho công chúng.  Các dịch vụ hỗ trợ ngôn ngữ này đều miễn phí.  Nếu quý vị muốn biết thêm chi tiết về các dịch vụ phiên dịch hay thông dịch, xin vui lòng gọi số 1-800-USA-LEARN (1-800-872-5327), TTY: (800) 877-8339 TTY / ASCII (American Standard Code For Information Interchange), hoặc email: Ed.Language.Assistance@ed.gov. 

Hoặc viết thư gởi đến:

U.S. Department of EducationInformation Resource CenterLBJ Education Building400 Maryland Ave., S.W.Washington, DC 20202
             How Do I Find...?    - Student loans, forgiveness
- Higher Education Rulemaking
- College accreditation
- Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA)
- FERPA
- FAFSA
- 1098, tax forms
- More...
      Information About...    - Elevating Teaching
- Early Learning
- Engage Every Student
- Unlocking Career Success
- Cybersecurity
             
*Our mission* is to promote student achievement and preparation for global competitiveness by fostering educational excellence and ensuring equal access.
- Student Loans
- Repaying Loans
- Defaulted Loans
- Loan Forgiveness
- Loan Servicers
- Grants & Programs
- Apply for Pell Grants
- Grants Forecast
- Apply for a Grant
- Laws & Guidance
- Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA)
- FERPA
- Civil Rights
- IDEA Website
- Data & Research
- Education Statistics
- Postsecondary Education Data
- ED Data Express
- Nation's Report Card
- What Works Clearinghouse
- Open Data Platform
- COVID Relief Data
- About Us
- Contact Us
- ED Offices
- Jobs
- Press Releases
- FAQs
- Recursos en español
- Budget, Performance
- Privacy Program
- Homeroom Blog
- Notices
- FOIA
- Privacy Policy
- Accessibility
- Security
- Information Quality
- Inspector General
- Whitehouse.gov
- USA.gov
- Benefits.gov
- Regulations.gov
From: Blumenfeld, Jared To: atobin@azleg.gov Cc: azgov@az.gov ; Tom.horne@azag.gov ; pablo_carrillo@mccain.senate.gov; steve_voeller@flake.senate.gov ; carmen.gallus@mail.house.gov ; jennifer.cox@mail.house.gov ; amy.emerick@mail.house.gov ; tom.vanflein@mail.house.gov ; adam.deguire@mail.house.gov ; matthew.tully@mail.house.gov ; rich.patrick@mail.house.gov ; randy.kutz@mail.house.gov; jodee.winterhof@mail.house.gov ; president.benshelly@navajo-nsn.gov ; ptalayumptewa@hopi.nsn.us ; executivemail@gric.nsn.us; dgowan@azleg.gov ; rgray@azleg.gov ; jmesnard@azleg.gov ; bbarton@azleg.gov ; pboyer@azleg.gov ; hcarter@azleg.gov ; dcoleman@azleg.gov ; jdial@azleg.gov; kfann@azleg.gov ; dgoodale@azleg.gov ; dlesko@azleg.gov ; dlivingston@azleg.gov ; kbrophymcgee@azleg.gov ; jpierce@azleg.gov ; eorr@azleg.gov ; tshope@azleg.gov ; stsmith@azleg.gov ; brobson@azleg.gov ; bthorpe@azleg.gov ; ktownsend@azleg.gov ; chcampbell@azleg.gov ; bwheeler@azleg.gov ; ahale@azleg.gov ; lalston@azleg.gov ; mcardenas@azleg.gov ; adalessandro@azleg.gov ; jescamilla@azleg.gov ; rgabaldon@azleg.gov ; lhernandez@azleg.gov ; jlarkin@azleg.gov ; smach@azleg.gov ; jmendez@azleg.gov ; mquezada@azleg.gov ; asherwood@azleg.gov ; vsteele@azleg.gov ; msaldate@azleg.gov ; Perciasepe Bob ; Mccarthy, Gina ; McCabe, Janet; Ryerson.Teddy ; Lyons, Ann ; McKaughan, Colleen ; Lee, Anita ; Jordan, Deborah ; Maier, Brent; Heller, Zoe ; Zito, Kelly Subject: EPA Response to Request for Additional Public Hearings for Navajo Generating Station (NGS) Date: Thursday, May 30, 2013 4:35:39 PM Attachments: NGS and EPA Hearings letter FINAL signed.pdf



# Dear Mr. Tobin,

I am responding to your letter dated May 15, 2013, requesting that we hold several public hearings in Phoenix and around the State of Arizona to take comment on EPA’s proposed rule regarding the Navajo Generating Station (NGS). We recognize the significance of participation by the numerous stakeholders including the tribes, employees of NGS and the residents of Arizona’s metropolitan areas.

We intend to hold five public hearings at locations throughout the State. One of the first hearings will be in Page, Arizona, near the Navajo Generating Station, so that employees of the facility and residents of Page can attend. We plan to hold two hearings in Indian country, one on the Navajo reservation and one on the Hopi reservation, to afford tribal members the opportunity to participate in our process on tribal land. We will also conduct a hearing in Phoenix and one in Tucson.

When we have scheduled the hearings we will publish a Federal Register notice announcing the locations, times, and information on how to participate. We will also ensure that this information is distributed widely via the press and online.

In the meantime, we will include your letter as a formal comment on our proposed action on NGS.

I trust this responds to your request.

Sincerely,

Jared Blumenfeld U.S. EPA Regional Administrator Pacific Southwest 415-947-8702
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 JB Oxford  Holdings,  Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending  September 30, 2005, as filed with
the Securities  and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report"),  I,
Christopher  L.  Jarratt,  Chief  Executive  Officer  of the  Company,  certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 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 the  Report  fairly  presents,  in all
material  respects,  the  financial  condition  and results of operations of the
Company.



/s/  Christopher L. Jarratt
---------------------------
Christopher L. Jarratt
Chief Executive Officer
November 14, 2005
### UNPUBLISHED



# UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT



#  C ARL R. C HALMERS ,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v. A NDREW J. W INSTON , individually and in his official capacity as No. 00-6943



# 
Chairman of the Board of Corrections; R ONALD A NGELONE , Director of the Virginia Department of Corrections, Defendants-Appellees. 

# 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria.

T.S. Ellis, III, District Judge. (CA-98-1714) Submitted: January 19, 2001
Decided: March 6, 2001
Before WILKINS, NIEMEYER, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed in part and dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion.

COUNSEL Carl R. Chalmers, Appellant Pro Se. Mark Ralph Davis, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees.Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

OPINION

PER CURIAM: Carl R. Chalmers appeals the district court’s orders denying relief on his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 2000) complaint and denying his motion for reconsideration filed pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e). A motion to alter or amend judgment under Rule 59(e) shall be filed no later than ten days after entry of the judgment. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e). Because Chalmers’ motion was not filed within ten days of the entry of judgment, the district court properly considered it as a Rule 60(b) motion, rather than a Rule 59(e) motion. See In re Burnley , 988 F.2d 1, 3 (4th Cir. 1993) (per curiam). A Rule 60(b) motion does not bring up for review the merits of the underlying substantivejudgment, nor does it toll the period for filing an appeal of the underlying judgment. See Browder v. Director, Dep’t of Corrections , 434 U.S. 257, 263 n.7 (1978).
Because Chalmers did not file his Rule 59(e) motion within ten days of the district court’s order dismissing his § 1983 complaint, entered on May 5, 2000, the time period for filing his appeal of that order was not tolled. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(4). Therefore, Chalmers’ appeal is only timely as to the district court’s denial of his subsequent motion for reconsideration. This Court reviews a denial of a Rule 60(b) motion for abuse of discretion. See NOW v. Operation Rescue , 47 F.3d 667, 669 (4th Cir. 1995) (per curiam).

We have reviewed the record and conclude that the district court’s denial of Chalmers’ motion for reconsideration did not constitute an abuse of discretion. Accordingly, we dismiss Chalmers’ appeal of the district court’s order dismissing his § 1983 complaint for lack of jurisdiction because Chalmers’ notice of appeal was untimely as to that order. We deny Chalmers’ motion to consolidate as moot and affirm the district court’s denial of Chalmers’ motion for reconsideration, particularly in light of our recent decision in Washlefske v. Winston , 2 C HALMERS v. W INSTON234 F.3d 179 (4th Cir. 2000). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED IN PART; AFFIRMED IN PART 3 C HALMERS v. W INSTON
##### 



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 UST Liquidating Corporation. (the Company) on Form
10-QSB for the period ended December 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
on the date hereof (the Report), I, Marc A. Weisman, Co-Chairman of Board of Directors of the
Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 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 the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and result of operations of the Company. /s/
Marc A. WeismanMarc A. WeismanCo-Chairman of Board of DirectorsFebruary 11, 2005
Exhibit 4.30 


 


[Note: Translation from the original agreement
written in Chinese]


 


Amendment to the Sixth Amended and Restated
Loan Agreement


 


 


This amendment was executed on August 15,
2013 in Beijing by the following parties:


 


eLong, Inc. (“Party A”) 


Legal Address: 4th Floor, Hutchence
David Century Garden, George Town, Grand


Cayman, Cayman Islands


 


Guangfu Cui (“Party B”) 


Residence: No.1, XiangHongqi Street, Haidian
District, Beijing


ID No.: [     ]


 


Each party hereto shall be called a “Party”
and together the “Parties” 


 


Whereas: 


 


		1.	On December 26, 2012, Party A and Party B entered into the Sixth Amended and Restated Loan Agreement
(the “Loan Agreement”), whereby Party A loaned Party B RMB500,000 for use as 50% of the registered capital of Beijing
Asiamedia Interactive Advertising Co., Ltd. (“Beijing Media”).



 


		2.	Due to the development of the business, on July 31, 2013, eLong Information Technology Co., Ltd. increased
the registered capital of Beijing Media from RMB1,000,000 to RMB30,000,000.



 


NOW THEREFORE, Party A and Party B
hereby agree to amend certain terms of the Loan Agreement as set forth below:


 


		1.	As Party B’s equity interest in Beijing Media has changed from 50% to 1.67%, therefore the corresponding
descriptions of the shareholding of Party B in the Loan Agreement are hereby changed to 1.67%.



 


		2.	Other than the amendment noted above, no other changes are made to the Loan Agreement.



 


		3.	This Amendment shall be effective as of the date first set forth above, and shall constitute an integral
part of the Loan Agreement. In the event of any conflict between the terms of this Amendment and the Loan Agreement, the terms
of this Amendment shall prevail. Matters not explicitly set forth in this Amendment shall be governed by the Loan Agreement.



 


		4.	This Amendment is in duplicate and each Party holds one copy. Each original has the same legal effect.



 


[No text hereunder]


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 




    	1



    	 



    

 


Exhibit 4.30 


 


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Parties to this Agreement
or their duly authorized representatives have executed this Agreement as of the date first written above.


 


Party A: eLong, Inc.


	Authorized Representative (Signature):	/s/ Sami Farhad	


 


 


Party B: Guangfu Cui


	Signature:	/s/ Guangfu Cui	 


 




 






    	2
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.0

                         CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

     We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement
(Form S-3 No. 333-39308) of Friede Goldman Halter, Inc., the Registration
Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-87853) pertaining to the 1997 Equity Incentive Plan
of Friede Goldman Halter, Inc., the Registration Statement (Form S-8 No.
333-92237) pertaining to the 401(k) Profit Sharing Plan of Friede Goldman
Halter, Inc., and the Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-92051) pertaining
to the Amended and Restated 1997 Equity Incentive Plan of Friede Goldman Halter,
Inc. of our report dated March 26, 2003, with respect to the consolidated
financial statements of Friede Goldman Halter, Inc. included in this Annual
Report (Form10-K) for the year ended December 31, 2002.

                              /s/ ERNST & YOUNG LLP

New Orleans, Louisiana
April 11, 2003
```

[Congressional Bills 105th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.J. Res. 123 Introduced in House (IH)]

105th CONGRESS
  2d Session
H. J. RES. 123

     To disapprove the rule submitted by the Health Care Financing 
  Administration, Department of Health and Human Services, on June 1, 
  1998, relating to surety bond requirements for home health agencies 
               under the Medicare and Medicaid Programs.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             June 17, 1998

 Mr. Nussle (for himself, Mr. Watkins, and Mr. Talent) introduced the 
following joint resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Ways 
 and Means, and in addition to the Committee on Commerce, for a period 
    to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for 
consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the 
                          committee concerned

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION

 
     To disapprove the rule submitted by the Health Care Financing 
  Administration, Department of Health and Human Services, on June 1, 
  1998, relating to surety bond requirements for home health agencies 
               under the Medicare and Medicaid Programs.

    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled, That Congress disapproves the 
rule submitted by the Health Care Financing Administration, Department 
of Health and Human Services, on June 1, 1998 (volume 63, number 104, 
page 29648 of the Federal Register), relating to surety bond 
requirements for home health agencies under the medicare and medicaid 
programs, and such rule shall have no force or effect.
                                 <all>
```