alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 10.7



Amendment No. 6 Dated July 17th, 2001
To The Agreement Between OCP and MPC
Dated September 15th, 1991



This Amendment No. 6 to the Agreement is effective as of July 1st, 2001, between:

OFFICE CHERIFIEN DES PHOSPHATES ("OCP")

Angle route d'El Jadida et Bd de

la Grande Ceinture - Casablanca

MOROCCO



on the one part,

and:

MISSISSIPPI PHOSPHATES CORPORATION (MPC)

P.O. Box 848

Pascagoula, Mississippi, USA 39568-0848



on the other part.



WHEREAS, OCP and MPC are parties to that certain Agreement with an Effective Date of September 15th, 1991, for the sale and purchase of all MPC's requirements of phosphate rock at its Pascagoula Plant ("Agreement"); and

WHEREAS, the Agreement has been amended by Amendment No. 1 effective as of July 1st, 1992, Amendment No. 2 effective as of July 1st, 1993, Amendment No. 3 effective as of January 1st, 1995, Amendment No. 4 effective as of January 1st, 1997, and Amendment No 5 effective as of July 1st, 2000, and,

WHEREAS, OCP and MPC desire to amend the Agreement as hereinafter set forth;

NOW, THEREFORE, MPC and OCP hereby agree as follows:

1.     Article IV of the Agreement is hereby further amended by changing the second, third, fourth and fifth sentences of the definition of "Sales, General and Administrative Expense" to read in their entirety as follows:

"Subject to the adjustments hereafter described, expenses shall include an annual payment of Two Million and 00/100 Dollars (US$ 2,000,000.00) to MCC for certain services to be provided by MCC to MPC.  The annual payment by MPC to MCC for services shall be reduced by Two Million and 00/100 Dollars (US$ 2,000,000.00) with respect the Contract Year commencing on July 1st, 2001.  Thereafter, with respect to subsequent Contract Year(s), the annual payment(s) may be increased by amounts not exceeding Two Million and 00/100 Dollars (US$ 2,000,000.00) in the aggregate.  Payment of any such increases in the annual payment(s) to MCC for services and payments to OCP of the "2002 Category 1 Deferred Portion" (as defined in Sale Contract Addendum No. 11) shall be made in the same amounts and at the same time."

2.     Except as specifically set forth in this Amendment, all of the terms and conditions of the Agreement shall continue in full force and effect.

3.     All capitalized terms used in this Amendment and not otherwise defined herein shall have the meanings set forth in the Agreement.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, MPC and OCP have caused this Amendment No. 6 to be duly executed in duplicate originals as of the date first hereinabove written.

MADE OUT IN DUPLICATE ON JULY 17TH,2001.

|MISSISSIPPI PHOSPHATES CORPORATIONBy:  /s/ Charles O. Dunn
            CHARLES O. DUNN
            PRESIDENT | OFFICE CHERIFIEN DES PHOSPHATESBy:  /s/ Idris Jettou
            IDRIS JETTOU
            DIRECTOR-GENERAL
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EXHIBIT 99.1

Certification of Chief Executive Officer Pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Milastar Corporation (the "Company")
on Form 10-Q for the period ended July 31, 2002 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, J. Russell
Duncan, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 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/ J. Russell Duncan
---------------------------
J. Russell Duncan
Chief Executive Officer

September 13, 2002
II

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 1438

To encourage States to enact and enforce laws ensuring that motor vehicles

yield the right-of-way to pedestrians, and for other purposes.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

AUGUST 6 (legislative day, JUNE 30), 1993

Mr. STEVENS introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred

to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation

A BILL

To encourage States to enact and enforce laws ensuring

that motor vehicles yield the right-of-way to pedestrians,

and for other purposes.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Safe Transit of Pedes5 trians Act of 1993’’.

6 SEC. 2. FINDINGS AND PURPOSES.

7 (a) FINDINGS.—Congress finds that—

8 (1) approximately 7,000 pedestrians are killed,

9 and 100,000 pedestrians are injured, annually in the

10 United States by motor vehicles;
2

•S 1438 IS

1 (2) accidents involving pedestrians cost the

2 economy of the United States more than

3 $10,000,000,000 per year because of injuries, vehi4 cle damage, insurance costs, and lost productivity;

5 (3) poor children, minority children, the elderly,

6 and people with disabilities are subject to the great7 est degree of risk of being involved in a pedestrian

8 accident; and

9 (4) even in States where motor vehicles must

10 yield the right-of-way to pedestrians, pedestrian

11 deaths and injuries continue because pedestrian

12 right-of-way laws are not effectively enforced.

13 (b) PURPOSES.—The purposes of this Act are—

14 (1) to stop the large number of pedestrian

15 deaths and injuries caused by motor vehicles;

16 (2) to save billions of dollars attributable to

17 damage caused by pedestrian accidents each year;

18 and

19 (3) to ensure that motor vehicle operators exer20 cise due care when driving near pedestrians.

21 SEC. 3. SPEED LIMITS.

22 Section 154 of title 23, United States Code, is

23 amended—
3

•S 1438 IS

1 (1) in subsection (a), by striking ‘‘The Sec2 retary’’ and inserting the following: ‘‘Subject to sub3 section (j), the Secretary’’; and

4 (2) by adding at the end the following new sub5 section:

6 ‘‘(j) ADJUSTMENT OF SPEED LIMITS.—Notwith7 standing any other provision of law, after September 30,

8 1995, if a State does not have in effect, and is not enforc9 ing to the maximum extent practicable, a State law that

10 ensures that the driver of a motor vehicle yields the right11 of-way to, and stops for, a pedestrian who is legally in

12 the roadway and is exercising due care—

13 ‘‘(1) paragraph (1) of subsection (a) shall be

14 applied with respect to the State by substituting ‘50’

15 for ‘fifty-five’; and

16 ‘‘(2) paragraphs (2) and (3) of subsection (a)

17 shall be applied with respect to the State by sub18 stituting ‘50’ for ‘65’.’’.

19 SEC. 4. REGULATIONS.

20 Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment

21 of this Act the Secretary of Transportation shall, after

22 providing public notice and opportunity for comment,

23 issue regulations to carry out this Act and the amend24 ments made by this Act.

Æ
No. 12-6269.

No. 12-6314.

No. 12-6322.

No. 12-6398.

No. 12-6554.

#### In re Muthukumar; Borg *v.*Minnesota. Parham *v.*HSBC Mortgage Corp. et al. Conti *v.*Texas. Emerson et vir *v.*Aly et al.

Sup. Ct. Minn.;

C. A. 4th Cir.;

Ct. App. Tex., 14th Dist.; and

Sup. Ct. Iowa. Motions of petitioners for leave to proceed *in forma pauperis*denied. Petitioners are allowed until December 17, 2012, within which to pay the docketing fees required by Rule 38(a) and to submit petitions in compliance with Rule 33.1 of the Rules of this Court.
No. 12-7911.

#### De Oleo *v.*United States.

C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 11-10865.

#### Mercer *v.*United States.

C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.
#### Grand Imperial, LLC, Matter of, v New York City Bd. of Stds. & Appeals

1st Dept: 137 AD3d 579

denied
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                                        <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                              3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                          21,982
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    3,521
<ALLOWANCES>                                        50
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                25,986
<PP&E>                                         104,473
<DEPRECIATION>                                  50,870
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  79,589
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           11,068
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           489
<OTHER-SE>                                      50,678
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    79,589
<SALES>                                          7,769
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 8,044
<CGS>                                            2,452
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    4,895
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 352
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  3,149
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,035
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              2,114
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     2,114
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.43
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.43
        

</TABLE>
No. 12-5496.

#### Motta *v.*United States.

C. A. 9th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains year-to-date summary financial information extracted from
Mississippi Chemical Corporation fiscal 2000 second quarter Form 10-Q and is
qualified in its entirety by reference to such Form 10-Q filing.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0000066895
<NAME> MISSISSIPPI CHEMICAL CORPORATION
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                           1,734
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   57,040
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,973
<INVENTORY>                                     88,902
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               170,316
<PP&E>                                         840,506
<DEPRECIATION>                                 381,889
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 894,442
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           54,750
<BONDS>                                        214,500
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           280
<OTHER-SE>                                     400,989
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   894,442
<SALES>                                        204,310
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               204,310
<CGS>                                          203,024
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  222,508
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               (1,281)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                  (70)
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              12,656
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (29,573)
<INCOME-TAX>                                  (14,012)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (15,561)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (15,561)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.60)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.06)


</TABLE>
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 97 (Wednesday, May 20, 1998)]
[Presidential Documents]
[Page 27665]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-13601]




                        Presidential Documents 



Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 97 / Wednesday, May 20, 1998 / 
Presidential Documents

[[Page 27665]]


                Presidential Determination No. 98-22 of May 13, 1998

                
Sanctions Against India for Detonation of a 
                Nuclear Explosive Device

                Memorandum for the Secretary of State

                In accordance with section 102(b)(1) of the Arms Export 
                Control Act, I hereby determine that India, a non-
                nuclear-weapon state, detonated a nuclear explosive 
                device on May 11, 1998. The relevant agencies and 
                instrumentalities of the United States Government are 
                hereby directed to take the necessary actions to impose 
                the sanctions described in section 102(b)(2) of that 
                Act.

                You are hereby authorized and directed to transmit this 
                determination to the appropriate committees of the 
                Congress and to arrange for its publication in the 
                Federal Register.

                    (Presidential Sig.)<Clinton1><Clinton2>

                THE WHITE HOUSE,

                    Washington, May 13, 1998.

[FR Doc. 98-13601
Filed 5-19-98; 8:45 am]
Billing code 4710-10-M
No. 12-7638.

#### Compton *v.*United States.

C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 12**  **- 7184** 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,
v. JAMES EDWARD BLACKMON , Defendant

- Appellant
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina , at Rock Hill
. Margaret B. Seymour , Chief District Judge. ( 0:03

- cr - 01004

- MBS

- 1 )

Submitted : November 20, 2012 Decided: November 27, 2012

Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, and SHEDD and FLOYD , Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion
. Jeffrey Michael Brandt, ROBINSON & BRANDT, PSC, Covington, Kentucky, for Appellant. William Kenneth Witherspoon, Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not bind ing precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM:
James Edward Blackmon seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his self

- styled 28 U.S.C. § 1651 (2006) motion, which Blackmon concedes the district court correctly treated as a 28 U .S.C. A. § 2 255 ( West Supp. 2012 ) motion . Blackmon also seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion
. * The order s are not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)( 1) (B) (200 6 ). 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) (200 6 ). 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 (2000); see Miller

- El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336

- 38 (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 motion states a debatable

* Although Blackmon styled his motion a Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(1) motion, because the motion was filed within twenty

eight days of the district court’s dismissal order and sought reconsideration of that order, we treat the motion as a Rule 59(e) motion.3 claim of the denial of a constitutio nal right. Slack , 529 U.S. at 484

- 85. After confining our review to the issues raised in Blackmon’s informal brief , see 4th Cir. R. 34(b) , we conclude that Blackmon has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. 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
|                                                        
|--------------------------------------------------------
|                                                        
|View History:  Monthly  Annual Download Data (XLS File)
|View History:  Monthly  Annual                          
|View History:  Monthly  Annual                          
|View History:                                           
|                                                        
|Idaho Dry Production of Natural Gas (Million Cubic Feet)
|                                                        
|                                                        
|Idaho Dry Production of Natural Gas (Million Cubic Feet)
|                                                        

|Decade                                                                                                                            | Year-0 | Year-1 | Year-2 | Year-3 | Year-4 | Year-5 | Year-6 | Year-7 | Year-8 | Year-9
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------
|2010's                                                                                                                            |        |        |        |        |        | 1,030  | 4,400  | 3,645  | 1,746  | 986   
|2020's                                                                                                                            | 107    | 1,355  | 2,528  |        |        |        |        |        |        |       
|- = No Data Reported;  -- = Not Applicable;  NA = Not Available;  W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data.
|                                                                                                                                 
|Release Date: 3/29/2024                                                                                                          
|Next Release Date: 4/30/2024
#### Aviva Klein et al., Appellants, v Robert S. Lombardi et al., Respondents.

[769 NYS2d 407]

— In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Held, J.), entered May 2, 2002, which, upon a jury verdict on the issue of liability, is in favor of the defendants and against them, dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

Contrary to the plaintiffs’ argument, it cannot be said that the jury could not have reached its verdict on any fair interpretation of the evidence. Thus, we conclude that the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence *(see Lolik v Big v Supermarkets,*86 NY2d 744, 746 [1995]; *Cohen v Hallmark Cards,*45 NY2d 493, 498 [1978]; *Zavos v White,*234 AD2d 363 [1996]; *Rice v Massalone,*160 AD2d 861, 862 [1990]; *Nicastro v Park,*113 AD2d 129, 133 [1985]).

The plaintiffs’ remaining contentions either are unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. Smith, J.P., Luciano, H. Miller and Townes, JJ., concur.
cc: Hon. Patrick Flanagan, District Judge Mark L. Mausert Tiffany & Bosco, P. A. Washoe District Court Clerk

2
|                                                                                   
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                                   
|View History:  Monthly  Annual Download Data (XLS File)                           
|View History:  Monthly  Annual                                                     
|View History:  Monthly  Annual                                                     
|View History:                                                                      
|                                                                                   
|Fort Lauderdale, FL Liquefied Natural Gas Exports to Nicaragua (Million Cubic Feet)
|                                                                                   
|                                                                                   
|Fort Lauderdale, FL Liquefied Natural Gas Exports to Nicaragua (Million Cubic Feet)
|                                                                                   

|Decade                                                                                                                            | Year-0 | Year-1 | Year-2 | Year-3 | Year-4 | Year-5 | Year-6 | Year-7 | Year-8 | Year-9
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------
|2020's                                                                                                                            | 0      | 1      | 0      |        |        |        |        |        |        |       
|- = No Data Reported;  -- = Not Applicable;  NA = Not Available;  W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data.
|                                                                                                                                 
|Release Date: 7/31/2024                                                                                                          
|Next Release Date: 8/30/2024
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.A

                            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 on Form 10-Q for the period
ending June 30, 2002, of ANR Pipeline Company (the "Company") as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, John W.
Somerhalder II, Chairman of the Board (Principal Executive Officer), certify (i)
that the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and (ii) that the
information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.


                                     /s/ John W. Somerhalder II
                                     -------------------------------------------
                                     John W. Somerhalder II
                                     Chairman of the Board
                                     (Principal Executive Officer)

                                     August 13, 2002