alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>
EXHIBIT 3.1.11

                          CERTIFICATE OF AMENDMENT OF
                          ARTICLES OF INCORPORATION OF
                             YLD/CLEAN FUELS, INC.


LAURA L. PARKER and DOUG PARKER, being respectively the President and Treasurer
of YLD/CLEAN FUELS, INC., certify that:

     1. Laura L. Parker has been and continues to be the President of the
corporation. Doug Parker has been and continues to be the Treasurer of the
corporation.

     2. At a meeting of the Board of Directors of the corporation duly held at
Huntington Beach, California, on May 27, 1997, the board unanimously approved
and adapted the following amendment of ARTICLE ONE of the Articles of
Incorporation of this corporation.

               "ARTICLE ONE: The name of this corporation shall be ADVANCED FUEL
               FILTRATION SYSTEMS, INC."

     3. The shareholders of all of the 167 oLrtstanding shares of common stock
of the corporation, have unanimously adopted and approved the same on May 27,
1997, both by written consent and written resolution, both of which have been
duly filed with the Secretary of the corporation.

     In witness whereof, the undersigned have executed this Certificate of
Amendment on September 27, 1997.

     We declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the state of
California that the foregoing is true and correct.


/s/ Laura L. Parker
-------------------------------
LAURA L. PARKER, PRESIDENT


/s/ Doug Parker
-------------------------------
DOUG PARKER, TREASURER
# Box2_Table 2 HepB
No. 11-542.

#### Oliver Addison Parker, Petitioner v. Motors Liquidation Company, fka General Motors Company, et al.

565 U.S. 1113, 132 S. Ct. 1023,

181 L. Ed. 2d 738,

2012 U.S. LEXIS 239.

January 9, 2012.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit denied.
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 148 (Monday, August 3, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Pages 41299-41300]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-20529]


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

NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION AGENCY

[Notice 98-102]


Information Collection: Submission for OMB Review, Comment 
Request

AGENCY: National Aeronautics and Space Administration(NASA).

ACTION: Notice of agency report forms under OMB review.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The National Aeronautics and Space Administration has 
submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) the following 
proposal for the collection of information under the provisions of the 
Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35).

DATES: Comments on this proposal should be received on or before 
September 2, 1998.

ADDRESSES: All comments should be addressed to Mr. Richard Kall, Office 
of Aeronautics & Space Transportation Technology, Code HK, National 
Aeronautics and Space Administration, Washington, DC 20546-0001.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Carmela Simonson, Office of the 
Chief Information Officer, (202) 358-1223.
    Reports: None.
    Title: Grant programs, intergovernmental relations.
    OMB Number: 2700-0093.
    Type of review: Extension.
    Need and Uses: Recordkeeping and reporting is required to ensure 
proper accounting of Federal funds and property provided under grants 
and

[[Page 41300]]

cooperative agreements to state and local governments.
    Affected Public: State, Local or Tribal Government.
    Number of Respondents: 16.
    Responses Per Respondent: 6.
    Annual Responses: 95.
    Hours Per Request: 5 hrs.
    Annual Burden Hours: 485.
    Frequency of Report: On occasion.
Donald J. Andreotta,
Deputy Chief Information Officer (Operations), Office of the 
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 98-20529 Filed 7-31-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7510-01-P
<PAGE>


                        AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT


         This AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT (this "Amendment"), effective as
of August 3, 2001, is made by and among Insignia Financial Group, Inc., a
Delaware Corporation (the "Company"), and James A. Aston ("Executive").

         WHEREAS, Executive is presently employed by the Company pursuant to an
Employment Agreement, entered into as of August 3, 1998, by and between
Executive and Insignia/ESG Holdings, Inc. (the Company's predecessor in
interest) (the "Agreement"); and

         WHEREAS, Executive and the Company desire to amend the Agreement as
hereinafter set forth.

         NOW, THEREFORE, for good and valuable consideration, Executive and the
Company agree as follows:

         1. DEFINED TERMS. All capitalized terms used but not otherwise defined
herein shall have the meanings ascribed thereto in the Agreement.

         2. AMENDMENT TO SECTION 1. Section 1 of the Agreement is amended to
replace the phrase "three years from the Commencement Date" with the phrase "on
December 31, 2003", thereby causing the term of the Agreement to end on December
31, 2003, subject to earlier termination as set forth in the Agreement.

         3. AMENDMENT TO SECTION 4(a). As of January 1, 2002, Section 4(a) of
the Agreement is amended to replace "$400,000" with "$550,000", thereby setting
the Base Salary at the rate of $550,000 per annum.

         4. AFFIRMATION. Except as amended hereby, the Agreement shall remain in
full force and effect.

         5. COUNTERPARTS. This Amendment may be executed in any number of
counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original, but all of which
together shall constitute one and the same instrument.

    IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned have executed this Amendment as of the
date first above written.


                                            INSIGNIA FINANCIAL GROUP, INC.


                                            By:      /s/ Adam B. Gilbert
                                                  ---------------------------
                                            Name:    Adam B. Gilbert
                                                  ---------------------------
                                            Its:     Executive Vice President
                                                  ---------------------------



                                                     /s/ James A. Aston
                                            ---------------------------------
                                                         JAMES A. ASTON
No. 11-593.

#### TI Pneumotive, Inc., aka Thomas Industries, Petitioner v. Yasunaga Corporation.

565 U.S. 1158, 132 S. Ct. 1101,

181 L. Ed. 2d 979,

2012 U.S. LEXIS 733.

January 17, 2012.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Second Circuit, denied.
********************************* 

* MONOGRAPH NO.: MCW/LRP 63 

 ********************************* 

ITEM: Peanut Butter, Smooth, Stabilized, Fortified, 1.5 oz Flex pg, Style I, Class A, 

Texture 1, Type A, Fortification B 

NSN: 8930-00-149-1054 (PBS) ITEM SPECIFICATION: CID A A 20328 

APPROXIMATE CALORIC VALUE: 258-275 Kilocalories (PRIMARY) 

CHARACTERISTICS OF ITEM: 

APPEARANCE: Tan to reddish brown, smooth, glossy, thin consistency. 

ODOR: Fresh roasted peanuts. 

FLAVOR: Fresh roasted peanuts; balanced sweet/salty peanut flavor, no bitterness. 

TEXTURE: Very slightly grainy to smooth, sticky mouth feel. 

DEFECTS LIKELY TO OCCUR: 

APPEARANCE: Darkening of color, moderately oily/oiled off. 

ODOR: Musty, rancid, stale. 

FLAVOR: Moderately bitter, rancid, stale. 

TEXTURE: Moderate oiling off (separation of the emulsion); hard and dry core, or 

product surrounded by extreme oiling off (product cannot be kneaded back into 

emulsion). 

UNIQUE EXAMINATION/TEST PROCEDURES: For open package inspection, 

evaluate half of the samples from the same producer without kneading and the 

other half after kneading the contents IAW package instructions. This will assist the 

inspector in assessing the effect oil separation has on the product before and after 

kneading. 

SPECIAL NOTES: Peanut butter packages have a history of being abused during 

the filling process. Packages should be kneaded and observed for leakage/bursting. 

Leaks, if they occur, should be identified as to location (e.g., body of pouch; side 

seal, end seal at interface between product edge of the seal of the body of the pouch). 

Due to the nature of the product and processing methodology used, the product may 

exhibit a slight bumt/over-cooked, or slightly oily odor or flavor. This product often 

has oily films on the surface of the package. If oily, observe package closely for 

tears, cuts or holes. If package integrity has not been compromised, note the oily 

package in the remarks but do not score it as a defect unless it significantly effects 

the package or packaging of other components.
ID Descriptor L* a* b* c h dL* da* db* dEcmc*

Standard 04-02 STANDARD 76.24 -0.13 -3.19

Tolerance

1 1 THIN YELLOW 

LIMIT 78.86 -0.21 -2.85 2.62 -0.08 0.34 1.07

2 2 BLUE LIMIT 76.30 -0.54 -4.31 0.06 -0.41 -1.12 1.44

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

Shade Number ASH GREY 1634 Piece/Roll Number 04-2

DLA/AIR FORCE SHADE TOLERANCE PROJECT December 29, 2017

Fabric Nomenclature CLOTH, KNIT POLYESTER, PTU, T-SHIRT PD-04-09

COMMENTS: NUMBERS ARE FOR REFERENCE ONLY 

Equipment Type HUNTER ULTRA SCAN PRO Setting Mode: Specular Included - 

Reflectance

UV Filter – OUT UV Lamp OFF
No. 11-5398.

#### In re Kevin D. Loggins, Petitioner.

565 U.S. 1102, 132 S. Ct. 870,

181 L. Ed. 2d 567,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 8916.

December 12, 2011.

Petition for rehearing denied.

Former decision, 565 U.S. 813, 132 S. Ct. 395, 181 L. Ed. 2d 249, 2011 U.S. LEXIS 6405.
No. 10-10900.

#### Juan Pantoja, Petitioner v. Florida.

565 U.S. 1009, 132 S. Ct. 496,

181 L. Ed. 2d 389,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 7688.

October 31, 2011.

Motion of Florida Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers for leave to file a brief as amicus curiae granted. Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Florida denied.

Same case below, 59 So. 3d 1092.
No. 11-7203.

#### Jeffery L. Walker, Petitioner v. Kenneth S. Tucker, Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections, et al.

565 U.S. 1126, 132 S. Ct. 1034,

181 L. Ed. 2d 762,

2012 U.S. LEXIS 298.

January 9, 2012.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit denied.
DEFENSE LOGISTICS AGENCY

TROOP SUPPORT

700 ROBBINS AVENUE

PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA 19111-5092

How to enter into a National Allowance & Pricing Agreement (NAPA) 

Point of Contact: Kimberly.Barnes @dla.mil and Margaret.Conforto@dla.mil

 

 DATED: August 8, 2021

Mailing address: 

DLA Troop Support Subsistence 

Attn: FTGB 

700 Robbins Ave. 

Philadelphia, PA 19111 

Thank you for your interest in the DLA Troop Support, National Allowance Pricing Agreement 

(NAPA) Program. The NAPA Program is an agreement between the DLA Troop Support and a 

food manufacturer. The manufacturer offers a discount allowance on products purchased by 

military installations for appropriated funded troop feeding. Each manufacturer product is 

assigned a unique DLA Troop Support 13-digit stock number that identifies the company’s 

product, and that stock number is assigned only to that company’s product. The NAPA program 

does not require a military installation to order any manufacturer’s product nor a DLA 

Subsistence Prime Vendor contractor to carry any NAPA product in inventory. 

On this web page is a copy of the “DLA Troop Support NAPA Agreement” that must be signed 

by a company Officer and mailed to the address above. The submission must contain submit a 

“NATIONAL ALLOWANCE (NAPA) LOCAL STOCK NUMBER REQUEST FORM” 

(available on web page) accompanied by copies of the product spec sheets, and product case 

labels for each product. It is required that a company submitting for a NAPA 

Agreement have established a demand for their products from the military customers and/or a 

firm commitment by a military installation and Subsistence Prime Vendor to order the product. 

There is an initial 10 number limit for new requests. The submission must contain a list of point 

of contact (POC), military installation(s) and Prime Vendor(s) requesting the product. 

Documentation from the POC with the information would be ideal. 

Available on this web page is a sample letter of the “NAPA certification letter” that must be 

submitted with the NAPA Agreement certifying the company entering into the NAPA 

Agreement with the United States government manufactures the brands and products represented 

under agreement and are the sole property of the company. 

To be a NAPA Agreement Holder it is suggested for the company to be a member of 

One2OneUS.com which tracks DLA Troop Support Subsistence sales to assure the negotiated 

NAPA discounts are rebated to DLA Troop Support. The NAPA Agreement Holder may sign an 

agreement with One2OneUS.com and charged a fee which is paid directly to 

One2OneUS.com. You can contact One2OneUS.com at Team@one2one.com or at (856) 

505-6870 for the various reporting benefits the Agreement Holder is provided once they are a

member.
Xtra_gold Resources Corp.: Exhibit 10.65 - Filed by newsfilecorp.com






Exhibit 10.65 

	TO: 	VICTOR NKANSA (“Victor”) 
	FROM: 	XTRA-GOLD RESOURCES CORP. (“Xtra-Gold”)
    
	RE: 	CONSULTING AGREEMENT DATED JUNE 1, 2010
    


RENEWAL AGREEMENT 

WHEREAS Victor and Xtra-Gold entered into
a consulting agreement dated June 1, 2010 (the “Victor Agreement”) to
secure the services of Victor Nkansa as the Vice-President, Ghana Operations in
connection with his services provided to Xtra-Gold’s Ghanaian subsidiaries;
Xtra-Gold Mining Limited (“XG Mining”) and Xtra-Gold Exploration Limited
(“XGEL”); 

AND WHEREAS a renewal of the term
of the Victor Agreement must be entered into on or before May 1, 2011; 

AND WHEREAS Xtra-Gold and
Victor wish to renew the Victor Agreement for a term of one year (the
“Renewal Period”); 

THE UNDERSIGNED PARTIES hereby agree that the Renewal Period for the Victor Agreement shall expire
on May 31, 2012 (the “Expiry Date”); 

THE UNDERSIGNED PARTIES hereby agree that a further renewal of the Victor Agreement must be entered
into on or before April 30, 2012, failing which the Victor Agreement will
immediately terminate and be of no further force and effect; 

THE UNDERSIGNED PARTIES hereby agree that, except for the Renewal Period, all other terms and
conditions of the Victor Agreement, will remain in full force and effect,
subject to any amendment that may be made during the Renewal Period; 

THE UNDERSIGNED PARTIES agree that this Agreement may be signed by the Parties hereto in as many
counterparts as may be necessary, each of which so signed counterpart shall be
deemed to be an original, and such counterparts together shall constitute one
and the same instrument and notwithstanding the date of execution shall be
deemed to bear the execution date as set forth in this Agreement. This Agreement
may be executed by facsimile and such facsimiles shall be deemed original
documents. 

DATED this 30th day of April, 2011.


	SIGNED, SEALED AND
      DELIVERED 	) 	XTRA-GOLD
      RESOURCES CORP. 
	  	) 	 
	in the presence of 	) 	 
	  	) Per: 	/s/ Paul
      Zyla                            
       
	  	) 	Paul Zyla President and CEO

	  	) 	 
	/s/ Elizabeth Amaatgkai
      Armar                        
       	) 	 
	Signature of Witness 	) 	 
	  	) 	 
	Elizabeth Amaatgkai
      Armar                              
       	) 	/s/ Victor
      Nkansa                     
       
	Print Name of Witness 	) 	VICTOR NKANSA
Opinion issued March 10, 2015

In The

Court of Appeals 

For The 

First District of Texas 

————————————

NO. 01-14-00771-CR

———————————

DASHONN LEONARDO DAVIS, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 339th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Case No. 1431248

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Pursuant to an agreement with the State, appellant, Dashonn Leonardo 

Davis, pleaded guilty to the offense of violation of a protective order.

1

The trial 

 

1

See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 25.07(a) (West Supp. 2014).
2

court accepted the plea agreement, assessed appellant’s punishment at confinement 

for three years, and certified that this is a plea-bargained case and he has no right 

of appeal. Appellant filed a pro se notice of appeal. We dismiss the appeal.

In a plea-bargained case, a defendant may appeal only those matters that 

were raised by written motion and ruled on before trial or after obtaining the trial 

court’s permission to appeal. TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 44.02 (West 2006);

TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(a)(2); see also Griffin v. State, 145 S.W.3d 645, 645–49 (Tex. 

Crim. App. 2004) (concluding neither article 44.02 nor rule 25(a)(2) expressly or 

impliedly make exception for appeals of jurisdictional issues); Cooper v. State, 45 

S.W.3d 77, 77–82 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001) (holding voluntariness of guilty plea 

may not be contested on direct appeal following plea bargain agreement). An 

appeal must be dismissed if a certification showing that the defendant has a right of 

appeal has not been made part of the record. TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(d).

Here, the trial court’s certification is included in the record and states that 

this is a plea-bargained case and appellant has no right of appeal. See TEX. R. APP. 

P. 25.2(a)(2). The record supports the trial court’s certification. See Dears v. State, 

154 S.W.3d 610, 615 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). Because appellant has no right of 

appeal, we must dismiss this appeal. See Chavez v. State, 183 S.W.3d 675, 680 

(Tex. Crim. App. 2006) (“A court of appeals, while having jurisdiction to ascertain 

whether an appellant who plea-bargained is permitted to appeal by Rule 25.2(a)(2), 
3

must dismiss a prohibited appeal without further action, regardless of the basis for 

the appeal.”).

Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction. We dismiss 

appellant’s motion to withdraw the appeal as moot.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Chief Justice Radack and Justices Brown and Lloyd.

Do not publish. TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).
No. 11-558.

#### Bud Lee, et al., Petitioners v. Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County, Tennessee, et al.

565 U.S. 1157, 132 S. Ct. 1135,

181 L. Ed. 2d 978,

2012 U.S. LEXIS 816.

January 17, 2012.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit denied.

Same case below, 432 Fed. Appx. 435.
No. 11-6373.

#### Damon Hudson, Petitioner v. Blaine Lafler, Warden.

565 U.S. 1152, 132 S. Ct. 1085,

181 L. Ed. 2d 803,

2012 U.S. LEXIS 527.

January 9, 2012.

Petition for rehearing denied.

Former decision, 565 U.S. 988, 132 S. Ct. 524, 181 L. Ed. 2d 368, 2011 U.S. LEXIS 7822.
I 

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 3450 

To prohibit the Secretary of Veterans Affairs from transmitting certain information to the Department of Justice for use by the national instant 

criminal background check system. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JUNE 24, 2019 

Mr. ROY (for himself and Mr. BOST) introduced the following bill; which was 

referred to the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs 

A BILL 

To prohibit the Secretary of Veterans Affairs from transmitting certain information to the Department of Justice 

for use by the national instant criminal background 

check system. 

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


pamtmann on DSKBFK8HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 3450 IH

1 SECTION 1. PROHIBITION ON SECRETARY OF VETERANS 

2 AFFAIRS TRANSMITTAL OF CERTAIN INFOR3 MATION TO THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

4 FOR USE BY THE NATIONAL INSTANT CRIMI5 NAL BACKGROUND CHECK SYSTEM. 

6 The Secretary of Veterans Affairs may not transmit 

7 to any entity in the Department of Justice, for use by the 

8 national instant criminal background check system estab9 lished under section 103 of the Brady Handgun Violence 

10 Prevention Act, personally identifying information on vet11 erans and other beneficiaries, solely on the basis of a de12 termination by the Secretary under chapter 11 of title 38, 

13 United States Code, that a person has a service-connected 

14 disability. 

Æ 


pamtmann on DSKBFK8HB2PROD with BILLS
(1) Adjusting Price

Base Skim Milk Price for Class I $5.38 CWT 0.965 $5.1917

Advanced Butterfat Pricing Factor $2.3334 LB 3.5 $8.1669

Class I Price $13.3586

(2) Base Price

Base Skim Milk Price for Class I $5.71 CWT 0.965 $5.5102

Advanced Butterfat Pricing Factor $2.4976 LB 3.5 $8.7416

Class I Price $14.2518

(3) Change from Base Price per CWT ($0.8932)

(4) Price change per gallon ($0.0768)

(Line (3) divide by 11.63 gallons/cwt)

(5) Price change per half gallon ($0.0384)

Price change per quart ($0.0192)

Price change per pint ($0.0096)

Price change per 12-oz pg. ($0.0069)

Price change per 1/3 qt. (10-oz) ($0.0058)

Price change per half pint ($0.0048)

(6) Price adjustment per gallon ($0.08)

Price adjustment per half gallon ($0.04)

Price adjustment per quart ($0.02)

Price adjustment per pint ($0.01)

Price change per 12-oz pg. ($0.01)

Price adjustment per 1/3 qt. (10-oz) ($0.01)

Price adjustment per half pint ($0.00)

**No price adjustment is required if the price change per-gallon, in either direction,

is not equal to or greater than +/-$0.0100 (See paragraph (f)(1) of the clause). 

NOTE: Numbers in brackets are negative or decreases, all others are positives or increases. 

Monthly EPA Calculation for Class I Milk (Clause 52.216-9032)

Based on USDA Announcement of Advanced Prices and Pricing Factors

Effective Date: March 4, 2018
No. 11-5047.

#### Vincent Mark Castillo, Petitioner v. Louisiana.

565 U.S. 1080, 132 S. Ct. 813,

181 L. Ed. 2d 527,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 8740.

December 5, 2011.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Louisiana denied.

*528Same case below, 57 So. 3d 1012.
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.1


PEN HOLDINGS TO RETAIN ASSETS


June 30, 2000, Nashville, Tennessee

Pen Holdings, Inc. announced today that it has decided not to sell The Elk Horn
Coal Corporation leasing operation or the mineral rights at its Fork Creek
project at this time.

The Chairman of the company, William E. Beckner, stated "after evaluating the
various bids received for each of these properties, we feel that it is in the
best interest of the company to continue to hold and operate these assets."

Management believes the company has sufficient liquidity to fund the completion
of its Fork Creek project and the company's operations for the remainder of the
calendar year. As previously disclosed, the company's liquidity will be
adversely impacted in the event the company is required to pay the current
judgment in the Cheyenne litigation.

The statements contained in this press release that are not historical facts are
"forward-looking statements" (as such term is defined in the Private Securities
Litigation Reform Act of 1995). Management cautions the reader that these
forward-looking statements are only predictions. No assurance can be given that
future results will be achieved; actual events or results may differ materially
as a result of risks facing the Company. Such risks include those described
under the captions "Risk Factors" and "Legal Proceedings" in the company's Form
10-K for the year ended December 31, 1999 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission. Such risks include, but are not limited to, the ultimate
resolution of the Cheyenne litigation and such risks could cause actual results
to vary materially from the future results indicated, expressed or implied, in
such forward-looking statements.

Pen Holdings, Inc. is primarily engaged in the mining and sale of coal, selling
predominantly to utility companies. The company also receives royalty income
from coal reserves leased to other companies. The company's coal reserve and
mining operations are in Kentucky and West Virginia.

For further information, contact Mark A. Oldham, Senior Vice President and Chief
Financial Officer at (615) 371-7352 or fax (615) 371-7388 or e-mail
mark_oldham@pencoal.com.