alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 45 (Friday, March 7, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 10562]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-5662]


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

FEDERAL MARITIME COMMISSION


Notice of Agreement(s) Filed

    The Commission hereby gives notice of the filing of the following 
agreement(s) under the Shipping Act of 1984.
    Interested parties can review or obtain copies of agreements at the 
Washington, DC offices of the Commission, 800 North Capitol Street, 
NW., Room 962. Interested parties may submit comments on an agreement 
to the Secretary, Federal Maritime Commission, Washington, DC 20573, 
within 10 days of the date this notice appears in the Federal Register.

Agreement No.: 224-200974-002
Title: Tampa Port Authority/Tampa Bay International Terminals Wharfage 
Incentive Agreement
Parties:
    Tampa Port Authority
    Tampa Bay International Terminals Inc.
Synopsis: The proposed modification extends the parties' current 
wharfage Incentive Agreement through February 25, 1998.

Agreement No.: 224-201018
Title: DRS/PRPA Terminal Agreement
Parties:
    Delaware River Stevedores, Inc. (DRS)
    Philadelphia Regional Port Authority (PRPA)
Synopsis: Under the proposed agreement, PRPA will provide certain 
berthing rights as well as storage space at the Tioga Marine Terminal 
to DRS for a period of sixty (60) days.

    Dated: March 3, 1997.

    By Order of the Federal Maritime Commission.
Ronald D. Murphy,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 97-5662 Filed 3-6-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6730-01-M
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                      13,385,336
<SECURITIES>                                 5,806,263
<RECEIVABLES>                                3,010,331
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                  3,573,231
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            25,881,645
<PP&E>                                      19,007,940
<DEPRECIATION>                               3,582,924
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              43,049,335
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,814,878
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         2,047
<OTHER-SE>                                  35,305,892
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                43,049,335
<SALES>                                      9,307,544
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            11,821,348
<CGS>                                        4,009,432
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                4,009,432
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             6,659,611
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (4,792,854)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (4,792,854)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (4,792,854)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.24)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.24)
        

</TABLE>
# Certification
of the Chief Executive Officer and Vice President  Finance

Solely for the purpose of complying
with 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, we, the undersigned Chairman and Chief Executive Officer and Vice President 
Finance of Northland Cranberries, Inc. (the Company), hereby certify, based on
our knowledge, that the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the three months
ended February 28, 2005 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in the
Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
operations of the Company.

|                               |  |                              
|------------------------------ |  | -----------------------------
|/s/  John Swendrowski          |  | /s/  Nigel J. Cooper         
|John SwendrowskiApril 14, 2005 |  | Nigel J. CooperApril 14, 2005
# C_2023261EN.01003002.xml

| 24.7.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 261/30 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.7.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 261/30

---

Judgment of the General Court of 7 June 2023 — Vallegre v EUIPO — Joseph Phelps Vineyards (PORTO INSÍGNIA)

(Case T-33/22) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the EU word mark PORTO INSÍGNIA - Earlier EU word mark INSIGNIA - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))

(2023/C 261/42)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Vallegre, Vinhos do Porto, SA (Sabrosa, Portugal) (represented by: E. Armero Lavie, G. Marín Raigal and J. Oria Sousa-Montes, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: E. Nicolás Gómez, M. Eberl and V. Ruzek, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Joseph Phelps Vineyards LLC (Saint Helena, California, United States) (represented by: S. Reinhard, lawyer)

Re:

By its action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks annulment of the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 26 October 2021 (Case R 894/2021-5).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Vallegre, Vinhos do Porto, SA to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Vallegre, Vinhos do Porto, SA to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 119, 14.3.2022.

---
#### Atlas Rock Company v. Ethel Wilson, *et vir.*

153 So. 914.

Opinion Filed March *7,*1934.

*204
      *Miller, McKay, Dixon & DeJarnette,*for Plaintiff in Error;

S. *J. Barco,*for Defendant in Error.

Per Curiam.

— Ethel Wilson, the defendant in error, recovered a verdict and judgment against the plaintiff in error in a common law action for personal injuries received in a collision with an automobile in which she was riding as a passenger, and- a truck which was at the time owned and operated by plaintiff in error.

It is contended here that the trial court erred in striking a plea of contributory negligence tendered by the defendant, that he erred in giving certain charges to the jury and that on the showing made the judgment was excessive.

Under the facts of this case the plea of contributory negligence was properly stricken. It did not contain allegations sufficient to meet the requirements of good pleading for a plea of that kind. *We*have read the record carefully and fail to see that the charges complained of were erroneous.

The evidence discloses that as a result of the collision the arm of the defendant in error, a negro woman, was broken and her shoulder was badly damaged, that she was an ordinary laborer, that she was laid up for three or four months before she could work at all and that now she works with pain and her doctor testifies that she will always do so. She incurred doctor bills and hospitals of about $200.00.

In view of such injury and discomfort and the fact that there is an entire absence of showing that the jury *205was influenced by considerations outside the record,' we see no reason to disturb the judgment, so it is affirmed. Affirmed.

Davis, C. J., and Whitfield, Ellis, Terrell and Buford, J. J., concur.
#### BESKO OUTDOOR MEDIA v. PENNDOT

316 MD 2017

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania.

10/19/2017

Department of Transportation, 145 A.D. 2015

Preliminary Objections Sustained
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 19-1446

WILLIAM LEE GRANT, II,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

GREGORY K. HARRIS, AUSA; JOINT CHIEFS OF STAFF,

Defendants - Appellees.

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

Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, District Judge. (1:19-cv-00327-LMB-TCB)

Submitted: August 20, 2019 Decided: August 22, 2019

Before FLOYD and RUSHING, Circuit Judges, and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

William Lee Grant, II, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

William Lee Grant, II, appeals the district court’s order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. 

§ 1983 (2012) complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) (2012). We have reviewed the 

record and find that this appeal is frivolous. Accordingly, we deny leave to proceed in 

forma pauperis and dismiss the appeal for the reasons stated by the district court. Grant 

v. Harris, No. 1:19-cv-00327-LMB-TCB (ED. Va. Apr. 2, 2019). 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
pedo_ex1058.htm


EXHIBIT 10.58


 



AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT







This Amendment No. 1 to Employment Agreement (“Amendment”), effective as of January 11, 2013, is entered into by and between PEDEVCO Corp., as successor-in-interest to Pacific Energy Development Corp. (herein referred to as the “Company”), and Clark R. Moore.







WITNESSETH:







WHEREAS, the Company and you have entered into an employment agreement, dated June 10, 2011 (the “Agreement”), concerning the employment of you as Executive Vice President and General Counsel of the Company; and







WHEREAS, the parties wish to amend the Agreement to revise the termination and severance terms as set forth therein;







NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants and agreements hereinafter set forth, the parties hereto agree as follows:








	
1.  

	
Section 5(c)(2) of the Agreement is amended and restated in full to read as follows:












“5(c)(2) If my employment terminates under this Section 5(c), the Company shall pay me or, if I die, my estate, all compensation and benefits with respect to my employment, which have accrued due and those which may be provided to me pursuant to a group disability and insurance policies or the Company’s 401(k), profit sharing plan and pension plan will be paid, and I or, if I die, my estate, shall receive all the compensation and benefits set forth under Section 8(a) as if my employment had been terminated other than for Cause.”








	
2.  

	
Except to the extent modified hereby, the Agreement shall remain in full force and effect.













	
3.  

	
This Amendment shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the parties and their successors and assigns.






















[Signature Page Follows]




 


 




  





1











  






 





	“The Company” 	PEDEVCO Corp.	 
	 	 	 	 
	
Date: January 11, 2013

	
By: 

	/s/ Frank C. Ingriselli	 
	 	 	
Frank C. Ingriselli

	 
	 	 	
President and Chief Executive Officer

	 
	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 
	Date:  January 11, 2013	 	/s/ Clark R. Moore	 
	 	 	
Clark R. Moore

	 
	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 







 


2
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, 2004, 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
--------------------------
Chief Executive Officer
November 22, 2004
* Local Rule 47.5 provides: "The publication of opinions that

have no precedential value and merely decide particular cases on

the basis of well-settled principles of law imposes needless

expense on the public and burdens on the legal profession." 

Pursuant to that Rule, the Court has determined that this opinion

should not be published.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

__________________

No. 95-30647

Summary Calendar

__________________

Israel Bryan Harris; Angela Marie Harris; and Athena Maria

Harris, for and on behalf of her minor child, Crystal Lynn Harris,

Plaintiffs-Appellants,

versus

United States Air Force and United States Department of the

Navy,

Defendants-Appellees.

______________________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the

Eastern District of Louisiana

(94-CV-3965)

______________________________________________

December 21, 1995

 

Before KING, SMITH and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

This is an appeal from the district court's order dismissing

plaintiffs-appellants' Federal Tort Claims Act suit for lack of

subject matter jurisdiction. We have reviewed the record and find
2

that the district court correctly found that the Feres doctrine

barred appellants' claim. The judgment of the district court is

affirmed for the reasons carefully and correctly set out in its

order granting the defendants-appellees' motion to dismiss. See

also Schoemer v. United States, 59 F.3d 26 (5th Cir. 1995), cert.

denied, 1995 WL 588294 (U.S. Nov. 27, 1995). 

AFFIRMED.
#### IN the INTEREST OF: Z.J.L., a Minor

739 EDA 2017

Superior Court of Pennsylvania.

09/27/2017

CP-51-AP-0001305-2016

CP-51-DP-0002629-2014

(Philadelphia)

Affirmed
No. 11-10915.

#### Murphy *v.*United States.

C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Cedrick BROWN, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 17-12409 Non-Argument Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.

(January 19, 2018)

David Charles Waterman, U.S. Attorney Service — Middle District of Florida, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Tampa, FL, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Cedrick Brown, Pro Se

Before WILSON, JORDAN and JILL PRYOR, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Thomas John Butler, appointed counsel for Cedrick Brown in this direct criminal appeal, has moved to withdraw from further representation of Mr. Brown and prepared 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 record reveals that counsel’s assessment of the relative merit of the *676appeal is correct. Because independent examination of the entire record reveals no arguable issues of merit, counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED, and Mr. Brown’s convictions and total sentence are AFFIRMED.1

1

. We acknowledge that Mr. Brown has expressed dissatisfaction with trial counsel’s performance in failing to object to certain sentence enhancements. A claim of ineffective assistance of counsel is best reserved for post-conviction proceedings rather than direct review, which we undertake in this appeal. *United States v. Tyndale,*209 F.3d 1292, 1294 (11th Cir. 2000); *see Massaro v. United States,*538 U.S. 500, 504-05, 123 S.Ct. 1690, 155 L.Ed.2d 714 (2003).
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>         5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains a summary of financial information extracted from the
Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheet and Condensed Consolidated Statement of
Operations and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial
statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          AUG-02-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               NOV-02-1996
<CASH>                                          24,100
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  225,376
<ALLOWANCES>                                     6,800
<INVENTORY>                                    533,901
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               842,656
<PP&E>                                         716,664
<DEPRECIATION>                                 260,516
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,663,946
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          395,121
<BONDS>                                        390,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          416,426
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           460
<OTHER-SE>                                     358,896
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,663,946
<SALES>                                        544,103
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               544,103
<CGS>                                          350,579
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  484,878
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 5,487
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               6,848
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 52,377
<INCOME-TAX>                                    21,475
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             30,902
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    30,902
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.06
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.06
        

</TABLE>
Submitted April 7,

reversed June 1, 2017

#### In the Matter of L. L. P., a Person Alleged to have a Mental Illness. STATE OF OREGON, *Respondent, v.*L. L. P., *Appellant.*

Marion County Circuit Court

16CC05343; A163018

395 P3d 82

Joseph DeBin and Multnomah Defenders, Inc., filed the brief for appellant.

Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, Benjamin Gutman, Solicitor General, and Peenesh Shah, Assistant Attorney General, filed the brief for respondent.

Before Sercombe, Presiding Judge, and Hadlock, Chief Judge, and DeHoog, Judge.

*885PER CURIAM

Appellant in this civil commitment case appeals an order committing her to the custody of the Oregon Health Authority for a period not to exceed 180 days. ORS 426.130. On appeal, appellant contends that the trial court erred in concluding that, as a result of a mental disorder, she is dangerous to others. *See*ORS 426.005(1)(f). The state concedes that the record does not contain legally sufficient evidence to support the involuntary commitment and that the trial court’s order should be reversed. We agree and accept the state’s concession.

Reversed.
#### COM. v. MILLER, O.

29 EDA 2017

Superior Court of Pennsylvania.

09/28/2017

CP-46-CR-0004797-2013

(Montgomery)

Vacated/Remanded
# C_2022198EN.01002501.xml

| 16.5.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 198/25 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.5.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 198/25

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d’appel de Paris (France) lodged on 14 February 2022 — Eurelec Trading SCRL v Ministre de l’Économie et des Finances, Scabel SA, Groupement d’Achat des Centres Édouard Leclerc (GALEC), Association des Centres distributeurs Édouard Leclerc (ACDLEC)

(Case C-98/22)

(2022/C 198/36)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour d’appel de Paris

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Eurelec Trading SCRL

Respondents: Ministre de l’Économie et des Finances, Scabel SA, Groupement d’Achat des Centres Édouard Leclerc (GALEC), Association des Centres distributeurs Édouard Leclerc (ACDLEC)

Question referred

Are ‘civil and commercial’ matters, as defined in Article 1(1) of Regulation No 1215/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters, (1) to be interpreted as including in the scope of that regulation an action — and the judicial decision rendered at the end of the proceedings — (i) brought by the French Minister for Economic Affairs and Finances pursuant to (former) Article L 442-6, I, 2o of the French Commercial Code against a Belgian company, (ii) seeking a declaration of the existence of restrictive practices, an order that they cease and an order that the alleged perpetrator of those practices pay a civil fine, (iii) on the basis of evidence obtained in the exercise of his specific powers of investigation?

---

(1)  OJ 2012 L 351, p. 1.

---
# C_2023321EN.01000801.xml

| 11.9.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 321/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.9.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 321/8

---

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 13 July 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Audiencia Provincial de Málaga — Spain) — CAJASUR Banco SA v JO, IM

(Case C-35/22, (1) CAJASUR Banco)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 93/13/EEC - Unfair terms in consumer contracts - Article 6(1) - General conditions of a mortgage loan agreement declared null and void by national courts - Legal action - Admission prior to any dispute - National legislation requiring a consumer to take steps prior to bringing proceedings against the seller or supplier concerned in order to guarantee the award of the costs of legal proceedings - Principle of sound administration of justice - Right to effective judicial protection)

(2023/C 321/09)

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Audiencia Provincial de Málaga

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: CAJASUR Banco SA

Defendant: JO, IM

Operative part of the judgment

Article 6(1) of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts, read in the light of the principle of effectiveness,

must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation under which, where a consumer has not taken any steps prior to bringing proceedings against a seller or supplier with whom he or she has concluded a contract containing an unfair term, that consumer must bear his or her own costs relating to the legal proceedings which he or she has instituted against that seller or supplier in order to assert the rights conferred on him or her by Directive 93/13 where that seller or supplier has admitted the claim of that consumer before any dispute, even if that term has been found to be unfair, provided that the competent national court is able to take account of the existence of settled national case-law finding similar terms and the conduct of the seller or supplier to be unfair in order to conclude that that seller or supplier acted in bad faith and, if appropriate, order him or her to pay those costs.

---

(1)  
  OJ C 171, 25.4.2022.

---
#### VITAL SUPPORT HOME HEALTH v. UCBR

1598 CD 2016

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania.

10/20/2017

Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, B-591964

Reversed