alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Back to Contents

**Exhibit 21.1**

**(1) LIST OF SUBSIDIARIES OF FELDMAN MALL PROPERTIES, INC.**

| COMPANY                                    |   | JURISDICTION OF ORGANIZATION |
|--------------------------------------------|--------|------------------------------|
|                                       |   |                         |
| Feldman Holdings Business Trust I          |   | Maryland                     |
| Feldman Holdings Business Trust II         |   | Maryland                     |
| Feldman Equities General Partner Inc.      |   | Pennsylvania                 |
| Feldman Harrisburg General Partner Inc.    |   | Pennsylvania                 |
| Feldman Equities Operating Partnership, LP |   | Delaware                     |
| Feldman Equities Management, Inc.          |   | Delaware                     |
| Feldman Equities of Arizona, LLC           |   | Arizona                      |
| Feldman Mall Investors, LLC                |   | Arizona                      |
| Feldman Foothills Pads, LP                 |   | Arizona                      |
| Feldman Foothills Mall, LP                 |   | Arizona                      |
| Foothills Mall, LLC                        |   | Delaware                     |
| Feldman Pads Partner, Inc.                 |   | Arizona                      |
| Feldman Mall Partner, Inc.                 |   | Arizona                      |
| Feldman Equities Management, LLC           |   | Arizona                      |
| FMP Colonie Center LLC                     |   | Delaware                     |
| FMP Stratford LLC                          |   | Delaware                     |
| FMP Tallahassee LLC                        |   | Delaware                     |
| FMP Northgate LLC                          |   | Delaware                     |
| FMP Northgate Outparcel LLC                |   | Delaware                     |
|                                       |   |                         |

----
From: Christopher Bolduc To: Richard Parker Cc: rick.anderson@faypwc.com ; tballo@earthjustice.org ; ScottB@lvmetals.com ; john.caskey@nema.org ; jerry.corkran@cooperindustries.com ; john.cymbalsky@ee.doe.gov; adelaski@standardsasap.org ; Teckman@nwcouncil.org; gbf1@pge.com ; carlos.gaytan@ge.com ; rgreeson@federalpacific.com ; bruce.r.hirsch@bge.com ; jhodge@howard.com ; mhyland@appanet.org ; dave.millure@metglas.com ; snadel@aceee.org ; wes.patterson@us.abb.com ; Eric.Petersen@aksteel.com ; Raymond.Polinski@atimetals.com ; artrosenfeld@gmail.com ; srosenstock@eei.org ; rroy@nrdc.org ; robert.saint@nreca.coop ; chuck.simmons@pgnmail.com ; BermanEconomics@gmail.com ; Daniel.Cohen@hq.doe.gov; greg.coulter405@gmail.com ; Jim.creevy@nema.org ; ahofmann@publicpower.org; pkumar@publicpower.org ; jmauer@standardsasap.org ; Aaron.Meyers@cooperindustries.com; jrossetti@mlgw.org ; Paul.Ryan@hitmet.com ; jerry.schoen@aksteel.com ; bsmith@federalpacific.com ; mwaltner@nrdc.org ; kwinder@mleainc.com ; cabolduc@lbl.gov; brian.coffey@navigant.com ; kcoughlin@lbl.gov ; brenda.edwards@ee.doe.gov; jeremiah.freeman@ee.doe.gov; caitlin.johnson@navigant.com ; zhimei.luo@navigant.com ; emily.marchetti@ee.doe.gov; mrivest@navigant.com ; gjrosenquist@lbl.gov ; charlied@uus.org ; phopkinson@hvolt.com ; James.Lass@cleco.com ; maheshsampat@bellsouth.net; DYoung@energy-solution.com ; chad.kennedy@us.schneider-electric.com ; eduardorobles@eaton.com ; vijay.tendulkar@onyxpower.com ; thomas.patzner@us.schneider-electric.com ; carlosgsiqueiros@eaton.com ; Raba, Jim Subject: MVLI High and Low Price Sensitivity Date: Tuesday, November 08, 2011 10:09:00 AM Attachments: DT-MVLI - Price Sensitivities -110811.pdf



## Dear Committee Members,
Please find the MVLI results with high and low material price sensitivities (2006-25%, and 2008+25%).
Thank you, -- Chris

---- Chris Bolduc Energy Efficiency Standards Group Environmental Energy Technologies Division Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory t. 416-535-7546 c. 647-832-4021
Gary MOORE, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D17-4401

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

January 16, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
Burke SILAS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

CASE NO. 1D17-3923

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Opinion filed December 5, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

DISMISSED.
1 

### Kelly, Shaheerah

From: Kelly, Shaheerah

Sent: Friday, October 17, 2014 7:43 AM

To: dinetahdoo@yahoo.com

Cc: dmallory@ResoluteEnergy.com

Subject: MCU Project Description

Good Afternoon Rena,

Last week I said I would send you a project description for the federal permit action thatthe EPA is taking with respect to

the McElmo Creek Unit Oil Production Facility. It is provided below. I apologize for the delay in sending you this info.

Please let me know if you need anything else from me.

Description:

The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is amending the Clean Air Act Prevention of Significant

Deterioration (PSD) permit for the McElmo Creek Unit Oil Production Facility (MCU Facility) to incorporate pollution

limits, terms, and conditions of a federal Consent Decree that applies to the Main Flare at the facility. The MCU Facility

is an existing oil and gas production operation located with in the Four Corners Area on the Navajo Nation Indian

Reservation near the city of Aneth, San Juan County, Ut ah. The MCU Facility is on the McElmo Creek Unit oilfield,

which includes field operations and a gas compression plant. It is owned, in partnership w ith the Navajo Nation Oil and

Gas Company, and operated by the R esolute Natural Resources Company.

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

Shaheerah Kelly

Permits Office, Air Division (AIR-3)

U.S. Environmental Protec tion Agency, Region 9

San Francisco, CA 94105

Phone: 415-947-4156

Fax: 415-947-3579

Email: kelly.shaheerah@epa.gov
**Final Listing of Questionnaire Files for Steam Electric Rulemaking Record**

**Plant ID 06726**  **Removed from Public**  **(Non-CBI) Docket**  **1 Copyright** 

**Flag 2**  **File Name 3**  **Description** x 

### 06726\06726_Checklist.xls EPA Technical Review Checklist Workbook x 

### 06726\06726_PartA.xls Plant submitted survey file x 

### 06726\06726_PartB.xls Plant submitted survey file x 

### 06726\06726_PartC.xls Plant submitted survey file x 

### 06726\06726_PartD.xls Plant submitted survey file x 

### 06726\06726_PartE.xls Plant submitted survey file x 

### 06726\06726_PartH.xls Plant submitted survey file



### 06726\Certification Statement Plant ID_06726.pdf Plant certification statement 

### 06726\Supporting Documentation\06726_MAP-1 Schuylkill Part A.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey x 

### 06726\Supporting Documentation\06726_WB-1 Schuylkill Part A.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

06726\06726_Completeness Checklist.xls EPA Completeness Checklist Workbook

1Final reviewed survey responses are located in the Steam Electric Technical Questionnaire Database

. 2Copyright documents are available from the docket. 3No hardcopy log is included for this plant as no hardcopy materials were received.
Filed by Automated Filing Services Inc. (604) 609-0244 - MegaWest Energy Corp. - Exhibit 10.34






AMENDMENT TO WARRANT ISSUANCE AGREEMENT

This AMENDMENT TO WARRANT ISSUANCE AGREEMENT (this
“Amendment”), dated as of September 18, 2007 is entered into by and
between MegaWest Energy Corp. (the “Company”) and Gladrock Energy LLC
(“Holder”) and amends the Warrant Issuance Agreement dated December 20,
2006 between the Company and Holder (the “Warrant Agreement”).
Capitalized terms used in this Amendment and not defined herein shall have the
meanings ascribed to them in the Warrant Agreement.

WHEREAS, the parties to the Warrant Agreement desire to amend
the Warrant Agreement to extend the expiration date of the Warrants.

NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing premises and
the representations, warranties and agreements contained herein and for other
good and valuable consideration, the receipt and adequacy of which are hereby
acknowledged, the parties hereto, intending to be legally bound, agree as
follows:

	 	1. 	
      Expiration Date. Section 3.8 of the Warrant
      Agreement is hereby deleted and replaced with the following:

	 	 	 
	 		
      “The Warrants shall expire on the close of business on
      January 2, 2009 (the “Expiration Date”) and shall be void
      thereafter.”

	 	 	 
	 	2. 	
      Miscellaneous. This Amendment shall be governed in
      all respects by the laws of the Province of British Columbia. This
      Amendment may be executed in two or more counterparts which together shall
      constitute a single agreement. Except as amended hereby, the Warrant
      Agreement shall remain in full force and effect; provided, in the event of
      any inconsistency between this Amendment and the Warrant Agreement, the
      provisions of this Amendment shall prevail.



     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company
and Holder have signed this Amendment or caused this Amendment to be signed by
their respective officers thereunto duly authorized all as of the date first
written above.

MEGAWEST ENERGY CORP.

	Per: 	/s/ George Stapleton, II 	 
	  	Authorized Signatory 	 


GLADROCK ENERGY LLC

	Per: 	/s/ signed 	 
	  	Authorized Signatory
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 Annual Report on Form 10-K of
Zentric, Inc. (the Company) for the period ended December 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Jeff
Mak, the President, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial 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 present, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.





Date: April
15, 2011



By:

/s/ Jeff Mak

Name:

Jeff Mak

Title:

President, Chief Executive Officer, Chief Financial Officer (Principal Executive Financial
and Accounting Officer)











---
Stephen KRUEGER, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D15-4191

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed October 13, 2017.

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
CHIEF JUSTICE

 ROGELIO VALDEZ

JUSTICES

 NELDA V. RODRIGUEZ

 DORI CONTRERAS GARZA

 GINA M. BENAVIDES

 GREGORY T. PERKES

 NORA L. LONGORIA

CLERK

 DORIAN E. RAMIREZ

NUECES COUNTY COURTHOUSE

901 LEOPARD, 10TH FLOOR

CORPUS CHRISTI, TEXAS 78401

361-888-0416 (TEL)

361-888-0794 (FAX)

HIDALGO COUNTY

ADMINISTRATION BLDG.

100 E. CANO, 5TH FLOOR

EDINBURG, TEXAS 78539

956-318-2405 (TEL)

956-318-2403 (FAX)

www.txcourts.gov/13thcoa

Court of Appeals 

Thirteenth District of Texas 

May 7, 2015

Hon. David W. Medack

Heard & Medack, P. C.

9494 Southwest Freeway, Suite 700

Houston, TX 77074

* DELIVERED VIA E-MAIL *

Hon. David P. Hansen

Eichelbaum Wardell

4201 West Parmer Lane, Suite A-100

Austin, TX 78727

* DELIVERED VIA E-MAIL *

Hon. Michele B. Heller

Heard & Medack, P.C.

9494 Southwest Freeway, Ste. 700

Houston, TX 77074

* DELIVERED VIA E-MAIL *

Hon. Annalyn G. Smith

Bracewell & Patterson

2000 One Shoreline Plaza-South Tower

800 North Shoreline Blvd.

CORPUS CHRISTI, TX 78401-3700

* DELIVERED VIA E-MAIL *

Hon. Gregg R. Brown

Attorney at Law

301 Congress Ave.

Austin, TX 78701

* DELIVERED VIA E-MAIL *

Re: Cause No. 13-15-00016-CV

Tr.Ct.No. 14-09-2274

Style: Refugio Independent School District v. Ram-Bro Contracting, Inc., 

Professional Services Industries, Inc., and D. S. A., Inc.

Appellant’s motion to continue abatement in the above cause was this day 

GRANTED by this Court.

Very truly yours,

Dorian E. Ramirez, Clerk

DER:ch
September 4. 1975 

The Honorable Everett L. Anschutz 

Executive Secretary 

Opinion No. H- 682 

Employees Retirement System of Texas 

Box 12337, Capitol Station 

Austin, Texas 78711 

Dear Mr. Anschutz: 

Re: Whether the Employees 

Retirement System can 

grant credit for service 

as a county attorney. 

You have asked whether the provision of article 6228a. section 4H, 

V. T. C. S., authorizing the Employees Retirement System (hereafter ERS) 

to grant credit for service as a county attorney so long as such service 

is not “simultaneously credited by any other retirement system or 

program” is valid in light of the recently enacted article 16, section 67 

of the Texas Constitution. . 

Attorney General Opinion M-941 (1971) was decided under the constitutional provisions existing at that time and upheld the constitutionality of 

similar statutes authorizing credit for service as a county attorney. 

Article 16. section 67(a)(4) provides that general laws establishing retirement systems shall remain in effect subject to the general powers of the 

legislature. Thus, article 6228a, section 4H, remains effective unless 

it clearly violates a provision of the Constitution. 

In our view the only pertinent provision of’article 16, section 67, is 

subsection (a)(2) which provides in part that: 

a person may not receive benefits from more than 

one system for the same service . . . 

However, article 6228a, section 4H does not authorize such a dual receipt 

of benefits, for service may not be credited by the ERS if it is simultaneously 

credited by another system. Furthermore, service credited by the ERS “may 

not thereafter be simultaneously credited by any other system. ” Art. 6228a. 

sec. 4H. Thus, a person could not receive benefits from more than one 

system for the same service. Since we are aware of no other constitutional 

provision which might prohibit the crediting of service as a county attorney, 

in our opinion the ERS~may do SO. 

p. 2969 
L 

. - 

The Honorable Everett L. Anschutz. page 2 (H-682) 

SUMMARY 

The Employees Retirement System may grant 

credit for service as a county attorney to a qualified 

member of the System. 

Very truly yours, 

Attorney General of Texas 

APPROVED: 

Opinion Committee 

p. 2970
Michael G. LILJA, Appellant, v. MAYO CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION OFFICIALS, Appellee.

CASE NO. 1D16-5402

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Opinion filed December 11, 2017.

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
##### 



Exhibit 31.2
 CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
PURSUANT TO RULES 13a-14a AND 15d-14a
OF THE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  1.
    
    I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of TRM Corporation;
 2.
    
    Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a
material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in
light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with
respect to the period covered by this report;
 3.
    
    Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information
included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition,
results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods
presented in this report;
 4.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing
and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules
13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:
 (a)
    
    Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure
controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material
information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is
made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in
which this report is being prepared;
 (b)
    
    Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and
procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the
disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report
based on such evaluation; and
 (c)
    
    Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over
financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter
(the registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has
materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants
internal control over financial reporting; and
 5.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our
most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants
auditors and the audit committee of the registrants board of directors (or persons
performing the equivalent functions):
 58




---



##### 



(a)
    
    All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation
of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely
affect the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial
information; and
 (b)
    
    Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees
who have a significant role in the registrants internal control over financial
reporting.
 Date:  August 12, 2005
    By:
    /s/ Daniel E. OBrienDaniel E. OBrienChief Financial Officer 59
Exhibit 4.6.2


 


 


 


	
    Additional Agreement No. 2

    to the LOAN AGREEMENT No. 1 

    dated 22 April 2021 

     

    30 November 2021

     

	
    Arras Minerals Corp., company established in
    accordance with the laws of the Province of British Columbia, Canada, entity No. BC1287773, located at: Suite 1610, 777 Dunsmuir Street,
    Vancouver, Canada, V7Y 1K4, represented by CFO Mr. Christopher Richards, acting on basis of the Articles, hereinafter referred to as the
    “Creditor”, on one part, and

     

	Ekidos Minerals LLP, a limited liability partnership established in accordance with the laws of the Republic of Kazakhstan, BIN 191040035309, located at: Republic of Kazakhstan, Almaty, 050000, Almaly district, Panfilov Street 158, Office 1, represented by Confidant, Mrs. Vlada Nam, acting on the basis of the Power of Attorney dated 26.11.2021, hereinafter referred to as the “Debtor”, on the other part,   hereinafter collectively referred to as the “Parties” and individually as “Party”, have concluded this Additional Agreement No. 2 to the Loan Agreement No. 1 dated 22 April 2021 (hereinafter – the “Agreement”) as follows:

                                                         

	
    1. Clause 3.1 of Section 3 of the Agreement to be
    revised as follows:

    “The Debtor shall repay the Loan in full on
    or before 30 June 2022 to the bank account of the Creditor as specified in this Agreement”.

     

	
    2. In all other matters that are not regulated by
    the terms of this Additional Agreement No.2, the Parties are guided by the provisions of the Agreement.

     

	3. This Additional Agreement No.2 enters into force on the date of its signing.

                                                                                 

	SIGNATURES AND REQUISITES OF THE PARTIES:

                                                                                 

	
    On behalf of the Creditor

    Arras Minerals Corp.

     

    /s/ Christopher Richards  

    Christopher Richards

    CFO

     

	
    On behalf of the Debtor

    Ekidos Minerals LLP

     

     

    /s/ Vlada Nam  

    Vlada Nam

    Confidant
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 11**  **- 7326** 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,
v. KELLY EDWARD WADFORD, JR. , Defendant

- Appellant
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the D istrict of South Carolina , at Charleston
. Patrick Michael Duffy , Senior District Judge. ( 2:06

- cr - 01294

- PMD

- 1 ; 2:11

- cv - 70012

- PMD )

Submitted : March 20, 2012 Decided: March 28, 2012

Before WILKINSON, SHEDD, and DIAZ , Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion
. Kelly Edward Wadford, Jr. , Appellant Pro Se. Eric John Klumb , Nathan S. Williams , Assistant United States Attorneys, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circ uit.2 PER CURIAM: Kelly Edward Wadford, Jr. , seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. A. § 2255 ( West Supp. 2011 ) motion. The order is 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 sat isfies 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 claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack , 529 U.S. at 484

- 85. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Wadford 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 leg al3 contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED