alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# L_2004293EN.01000501.xml

| 16.9.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 293/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.9.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 293/5

---

COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 1610/2004

of 15 September 2004

laying down the reduction coefficient to be applied under the tariff quota for corn opened by Regulation (EC) No 573/2003

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1784/2003 of 29 September 2003 on the common organisation of the market in cereals (1),

Having regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 573/2003 of 28 March 2003, laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Decision 2003/18/EC as regards the concessions in the form of Community tariff quotas on certain cereal products originating in Romania and amending Regulation (EC) No 2809/2000 (2), and in particular Article 2(3),

Whereas:

| (1) | Regulation (EC) No 573/2003 opens an annual tariff quota of 149 000 t of corn for the 2004/2005 marketing year. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

Regulation (EC) No 573/2003 opens an annual tariff quota of 149 000 t of corn for the 2004/2005 marketing year.

| (2) | The quantities applied for on 13 September 2004, in accordance with Article 2(1) of Regulation (EC) No 573/2003, exceed the quantities available. The extent to which licences may be issued should therefore be determined and a reduction coefficient laid down to be applied to the quantities applied for, |
| --- | --- |

(2)

The quantities applied for on 13 September 2004, in accordance with Article 2(1) of Regulation (EC) No 573/2003, exceed the quantities available. The extent to which licences may be issued should therefore be determined and a reduction coefficient laid down to be applied to the quantities applied for,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

Each application for an import licence for quota ‘Romania’ for corn lodged and forwarded to the Commission on 13 September 2004 in accordance with Article 2(1) and (2) of Regulation (EC) No 573/2003 shall be accepted at a rate of 0,0525388 of the quantity applied for.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on 16 September 2004.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 15 September 2004.

For the Commission

J. M. SILVA RODRÍGUEZ

Agriculture Director-General

---

(1)  
  OJ L 270, 21.10.2003, p. 78.

1

(2)  
  OJ L 82, 29.3.2003, p. 25.

2

---
IN THE MATTER OF 

THE MARRIAGE OF 

SUE KILGORE MOBLEY 

and 

JAMES A. MOBLEY 

CAUSE NO. 2009-773-DR 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

IN THE DISTRICT COURTS OF 

GREGG COUNTY, TEXAS 

307th JUDICIAL DISTRICT 

NOTICE OF APPEAL 

To the Honorable Judge of Said Court: 

Come now Sue Killgore Mobley, who makes and files this, her Notice of Appeal, and 

in support whereof would respectfully show unto the Honorable Court as follows: 

1. The appeal is in Cause No. 2009-773-DR; styled In the Matter of the Marriage of Sue 

Kilgore Mobley and James A. Mobley filed in the 307111 Judicial District of Gregg 

County, Texas. 

2. The Judgment being appealed was signed on July 15, 2015, but a 306a(5) Motion to 

Fix Date of Judgment was filed on August 21, 2015. 

3. This motion asks the trial court to find that notice of this judgment was not received 

until August 20, 2015, but this request has yet to be heard by the trial court. 

4. Sue Kilgore Mobley is the party that desires to appeal. 

5. Sue Killgore Mobley is appealing to the Sixth Court of Appeals located at Bi-State 

Justice Bldg, 100 N. State Line Ave., No. 20, Texarkana, TX 75501. 

Electronically Submitted

8/21/2015 3:06:23 PM

Gregg County District Clerk

By: Debbie Kinney ,deputy

 FILED IN 6th COURT OF APPEALS TEXARKANA, TEXAS 8/24/2015 10:40:19 AM DEBBIE AUTREY Clerk
6. Petitioner, Sue Killgore Mobley and her attorney of record are filing said notice. 

Respectfully submitted, 

ADKISON LAW FIRM 

300 West Main 

Henderson, Texas 75652 

Telephone: (903) 657-8545 

Telecopier: (903) 657-6108 

nancy@adkisonlawfirm.com 

Adkison 

State Bar No. 00921090 

Attorney for Sue 

Certificate of Service 

I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing Notice of Appeal has 

been served on R.L. Whitehead, Jr., counsel of record for the Defendant, 505 North Green 

Street, Longview, Texas 75606, through the Court's efiling system, on this, the day 

of August, 2015. 

, , 

Ron Adkison 

2
CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO


18
U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In
connection with the Quarterly Report of Sitestar Corporation, (the “Company”) on
Form 10-Q/A for the period ending June 30, 2009 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), we, Frank Erhartic,
Jr., Chief Executive Officer and President of the Company, and Daniel Judd,
Chief Financial Officer of the Company, respectively, certify to our knowledge
and in our capacity as officers of the Company, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as
adopted pursuant to §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 as of the dates
and for the periods expressed in the Report.





IN
WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned have executed this certificate.





/s/ Frank Erhartic, Jr.
                
                /s/ Daniel JuddFrank
      Erhartic, Jr.
                
                Daniel
      JuddChief
      Executive Officer and President
                
                Chief
      Financial OfficerOctober
      8, 2009
                
                October
      8, 2009
exv10w22






Exhibit 10.22




AMENDMENT NO. 2

TO

MASTER REPURCHASE AGREEMENT




     Amendment No. 2 (this “Amendment”) dated as of February 28, 2012 to the Master
Repurchase Agreement dated as of April 12, 2011 (the “Agreement”) between Jefferies & Company,
Inc. (“Party A”) and Provident Mortgage Capital Associates, Inc. (“Party B”).



     In consideration of the mutual agreements contained in this Amendment, the parties hereto
hereby agree as follows:


1.      Amendments. Sections 4(a)(v) and (vi) of Annex I to the Agreement are hereby amended
and restated in their entirety as follows:





	 	(v)	 	Party B’s shareholders’ equity (as determined in accordance with international
accounting standards or generally accepted accounting principles in the United
States) is less than USD $70,000,000, or
	 
	 	(vi)	 	Party B fails to raise at least USD $70,000,000 in its initial public
offering of securities.




2.      Representations. Party B represents to Party A that all representations and
warranties with respect to Party B set forth in Paragraph 10 of the Agreement and Section 3 of Annex I to the
Agreement are true and accurate as of the date of this Amendment and that such representations are
deemed to be given or repeated, as the case may be, by Party B on the date of this Amendment.



3.      Miscellaneous. Except as expressly set forth herein, all terms and conditions of the
Agreement will continue in full force and effect. This Amendment may be signed in any number of
counterparts with the same effect as if the signatures to each counterpart were upon a single
instrument, and all such counterparts together shall be deemed an original of this Amendment.




     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Amendment as of the date hereof.



	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 

	JEFFERIES & COMPANY, INC.	 	 	 	PROVIDENT MORTGAGE CAPITAL
ASSOCIATES, INC.
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	By:

	 	/s/ John Stacconi
 

	 	 
	 	By:
	 	/s/ Michelle Blake
 

	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 

	 	Name: John Stacconi
	 	 	 	 	 	Name: Michelle Blake	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 

	 	Title: Global Treasurer
	 	 	 	 	 	Title: CAO
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 334 Referred in House (RFH)]

112th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 334

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            October 21, 2011

            Referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
 To reinstate and extend the deadline for commencement of construction 
   of a hydroelectric project involving the American Falls Reservoir.

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

SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF TIME FOR FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION 
              PROJECT INVOLVING AMERICAN FALLS RESERVOIR.

    Notwithstanding the time period specified in section 13 of the 
Federal Power Act (16 U.S.C. 806) that would otherwise apply to the 
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission project numbered 12423, the 
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission shall, at the request of the 
licensee for the project, and after reasonable notice and in accordance 
with the procedures of the Commission under that section, reinstate the 
license and extend the time period during which the licensee is 
required to commence the construction of project works to September 25, 
2013.

            Passed the Senate October 18, 2011.

            Attest:

                                                NANCY ERICKSON,

                                                             Secretary.
```
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JAMES CHAVEZ,

Petitioner-Appellant,

 v.

ROBERT LEGRAND, Warden and

ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR THE

STATE OF NEVADA,

Respondents-Appellees.

No. 17-15541

D.C. No. 

3:13-cv-00548-MMD-WGC

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Nevada

Miranda M. Du, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted June 15, 2018** 

San Francisco, California

Before: MURPHY,*** PAEZ, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges. 

FILED

JUN 19 2018

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

*** The Honorable Michael R. Murphy, United States Circuit Judge for

the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, sitting by designation.
James Chavez petitions for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254

after he was convicted on four counts of sexual assault of his minor child, D.C., in

violation of Nevada Revised Statute section 200.366. We have jurisdiction under

28 U.S.C. §§ 1291 and 2253 and we affirm.

Habeas relief is precluded because the Nevada Supreme Court’s decision

was neither contrary to, nor an unreasonable application of, Crawford v.

Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004).1 See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d). Crawford suggested

that “a preliminary hearing at which the defendant had examined the witness” may

provide a meaningful opportunity for cross-examination. 541 U.S. at 58. At a

minimum, “fairminded jurists could disagree,” Harrington v. Richter, 562 U.S. 86,

101 (2011) (quoting Yarborough v. Alvarado, 541 U.S. 652, 664 (2004)), as to

whether the preliminary hearing in this case satisfied the Confrontation Clause

pursuant to Crawford because Chavez’s attorney had an opportunity to crossexamine D.C. and took advantage of that opportunity.

AFFIRMED.

1

 Chavez does not argue that the Nevada Supreme Court’s decision was

based on an unreasonable determination of fact. 

2
AMENDMENT NO.5 TO THE EL PASO CORPORATION STRATEGIC STOCK PLAN



 EXHIBIT 10.J.1 
 AMENDMENT NO. 5 TO THE 
 EL PASO CORPORATION 

STRATEGIC STOCK PLAN 
 WHEREAS, El Paso Corporation (the “Company”) maintains the El Paso Corporation Strategic Stock Plan, amended and restated effective as of December 3, 1999, as amended (the
“Plan”); 
 WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 14.1 of the Plan, the Board of Directors or the “Plan
Administrator” (as defined in the Plan) may from time to time make such amendments to the Plan as either of them may deem proper and in the best interests of the Company; 
 WHEREAS, the Company desires to clarify provisions of the Plan to reflect the intent of the Board of Directors and the Compensation Committee with respect to adjustments in the number of authorized shares
under the Plan. 
 NOW THEREFORE, the following amendment shall be made to the Plan: 

Section 5.2 shall be deleted in its entirety and replaced with the following: 

“In the event of a recapitalization, stock split, stock dividend, exchange of shares, merger, reorganization, change
in corporate structure or shares of the Company or similar event, the Board of Directors or the Plan Administrator shall make such adjustments, if any, as it determines are appropriate and equitable to (i) the number of shares authorized for
issuance under the Plan and (ii) the number of shares and the Option Price with respect to outstanding options, limited stock appreciation rights, stock appreciation rights, and Restricted Stock. Any such adjustment shall be final, binding and
conclusive on all persons claiming any right or interest under the Plan.” 
 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this amendment has been
executed by the undersigned, thereunto duly authorized, effective as of October 26, 2006. 
  

			
	EL PASO CORPORATION
		
	By:	 	 /s/ Susan B. Ortenstone

	Susan B. Ortenstone
	Its Senior Vice President, Human Resources and Administration


  

	
	 Attest:

	
	
            /s/
David L. Siddall            

	             Corporate Secretary
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-7035

WALTER LEE WRIGHT,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

BISHOP L. ROBINSON, Secretary of Maryland Department of Public Safety and Correctional

Services; THOMAS R. CORCORAN, Warden sued in

his individual and official capacities; GARY

HORNBAKER, Assistant Warden sued in his individual and official capacities; JAMES MURPHY,

Chief of Security sued in his individual and

official capacities; MICHAEL MILLER, Classification Counsel sued in his individual and

official capacities,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

Maryland, at Greenbelt. Alexander Williams, Jr., District Judge.

(CA-96-3748-AW, CA-96-3749-AW)

Submitted: June 18, 1998 Decided: July 2, 1998

Before MURNAGHAN and WILKINS, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
2

Walter Lee Wright, Appellant Pro Se. John Joseph Curran, Jr., Attorney General, Glenn William Bell, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying

relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1994) complaint. We have reviewed

the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible

error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district

court. Wright v. Robinson, Nos. CA-96-3748-AW; CA-96-3749-AW, (D.

Md. July 3, 1997). 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.

AFFIRMED
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 3617 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

112th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 3617

   To ensure sufficient sizing of the civilian and contract services 
                workforces of the Department of Defense.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           September 21, 2012

 Mr. Cardin (for himself, Ms. Mikulski, Mr. Harkin, Mr. Brown of Ohio, 
 Mr. Begich, Mr. Durbin, and Mr. Akaka) introduced the following bill; 
  which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Armed Services

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To ensure sufficient sizing of the civilian and contract services 
                workforces of the Department of Defense.

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

SECTION 1. CIVILIAN AND CONTRACT SERVICES WORKFORCE BALANCE.

    (a) In General.--The Secretary of Defense shall, consistent with 
the requirements of sections 129 and 129a of title 10, United States 
Code, ensure that the civilian and contract services workforces of the 
Department of Defense are sufficiently sized, taking into account 
military strategy requirements and military end-strength.
    (b) Comptroller General Report.--Not later than 180 days after the 
date of the enactment of this Act, and annually thereafter, the 
Comptroller General of the United States shall submit to the 
congressional defense committees a report assessing the sufficiency of 
sizing of the civilian and contract services workforces of the 
Department of Defense. The report shall assess whether the sizing is 
consistent with workforce management and sourcing laws, including 
sections 129 and 129a of title 10, United States Code.
    (c) Congressional Defense Committees Defined.--In this Act, the 
term ``congressional defense committees'' has the meaning given the 
term in section 101(a)(16) of title 10, United States Code.
                                 <all>
```
Certificate of Increase of Series G Preferred Stock



 Exhibit 4.1 
 CERTIFICATE OF INCREASE 
 OF 

SERIES G PREFERRED STOCK 
 OF 
 LIGHTING SCIENCE GROUP CORPORATION 

 
  

Pursuant to Section 151(g) of the 
 General Corporation Law of the State of Delaware 
  

 
 Lighting
Science Group Corporation, a corporation organized and existing under the Delaware General Corporation Law (the “Corporation”) DOES HEREBY CERTIFY: 
 That pursuant to the authority expressly granted and vested in the Board of Directors of the Corporation (the “Board”) by the Certificate of Incorporation of the Corporation, the
Board has adopted the following resolutions increasing the number of authorized shares of Series G Preferred Stock of the Corporation: 
 RESOLVED, that pursuant to the Certificate of Designation of Series G Preferred Stock of the Corporation (the “Certificate of Designation”), filed with the Secretary of
State of the State of Delaware on December 1, 2011 pursuant to Section 151 of the Delaware General Corporation Law, the Corporation was authorized to issue 40,000 shares of Series G Preferred Stock, as a series of the Corporation’s
authorized Preferred Stock, par value $0.001 per share; and, be it further 
 RESOLVED, that pursuant to the authority
expressly granted and vested in the Board in accordance with the provisions of the Certificate of Incorporation of the Corporation and the consent of the holders of a majority of the outstanding shares of Series G Preferred Stock, as required by the
Certificate of Designation, the number of shares of the series of Preferred Stock of the Corporation designated as Series G Preferred Stock be, and hereby is, increased from 40,000 shares to 80,000 shares; and, be it further 

RESOLVED, that each of the Chief Executive Officer, the Chief Financial Officer and the Secretary of the Corporation be and hereby
are authorized and directed in the name and on behalf of the Corporation to execute and file a Certificate (the “Certificate of Increase”) with the Secretary of State of the State of Delaware increasing the number of shares
constituting the Series G Preferred Stock from 40,000 shares to 80,000 shares and to take any and all other actions deemed necessary or appropriate to effectuate this resolution; and, be it further 

RESOLVED, that any officer of the Corporation be, and each hereby is, authorized and directed in the name and on behalf of the
Corporation to prepare, file and deliver any and all notices or other filings that may be required by applicable law as determined by such officer(s), the Certificate of Designation or the Certificate of Increase. 

*        *        *      
  *        * 







 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Corporation has caused this Certificate of Increase to be duly
executed on its behalf by its undersigned Chief Financial Officer as of February 24, 2012. 

			
		
	By:	 	Gregory T. Kaiser
	 Name:
 Title:
	 	 Gregory T. Kaiser
 Chief
Financial Officer
UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

MIAMI DIVISION

www.flsb.uscourts.gov

In re:

Mario L Sorroche Moreno Case No. 19-17620-RAM

Debtor. Chapter 13

____________________________________________/

NOTICE OF SETTLEMENT

The Debtor, Mario L. Sorroche Moreno (herein “Debtor”), and the Creditor, Senna 

Lenders, Corp. (herein “Creditor”) represented by its counsel, have reached a settlement in all 

matters relating to Motion for Partial Reconsideration of (Partial Relief from) Order Granting 

Debtor’s Expedited Motion for Contempt, for Sanctions Against Senna Lenders Corp., for 

Determination that the Matters Embraced in the Evidentiary Hearing Order and Other 

Designated Facts be Taken as Established as the Debtor Claims, and for Final Summary 

Judgment [ECF#58] and from the Final Judgment Against Creditor Senna Lending Corp. 

[ECF#64], and Motion to Set Aside Findings or Amend Findings in Said Order, and/or Make 

Additional Findings [ECF#65]. The parties are finalizing the settlement documents and will file 

the appropriate documents in the near future.

Respectfully Submitted By: 

ROBERT SANCHEZ, P.A.

Attorney for Debtor 

355 W 49th Street

Hialeah, FL 33012

Tel. (305) 687-8008

By:/s/Jose A. Blanco _________________

Jose A. Blanco, Esq., FBN#062449

Case 19-17620-RAM Doc 77 Filed 11/05/19 Page 1 of 1