alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
ex10-8.htm


    Exhibit
10.8

     

    
       

       

       

      EXERCISE
OF OPTION TO EXTEND AND

      AMENDMENT
NO. 1

      TO

      CHARTER
PARTY

      DATED
OCTOBER 6, 2005

      (THE
“CHARTERPARTY”)

      BETWEEN

      SOPHIE
TANKER CORPORATION (THE “OWNERS”)

      AND

      DHT
SOPHIE AFRAMAX CORP. (THE “CHARTERERS”)

      FOR THE
VESSEL

      OVERSEAS
SOPHIE

       

      Pursuant
to clause 99 of the Charterparty, the Charterers hereby declare, as of November
26, 2008, the exercise of the first 12 months of the option period which shall
commence on 

      July 17,
2011 at 0001 hours GMT and end on July 16, 2012 at 2400 hours GMT (the “Option Period”).

       

      As of the
date of this agreement, the Owners and the Charterers hereby amend the terms of
the Charterparty as follows:

       

      (1)
Notwithstanding clause 99, the rate during the Option Period shall, at the
option of the Charterers, be:

      


      
        
          	 
      	
                  a)

                	
                  usd
      25,400 per day
      during the period from July 17, 2011 at 0001 hours GMT until October 16,
      2011 at 2400 hours GMT and usd 25,700 per day during
      the period from October 17, 2011 at 0001 hours GMT until July 16, 2012 at
      2400 hours; or

                
	 
      	 
      	 
      
	 
      	
                  b)

                	
                  the
      market rate as determined by the Association of Shipbrokers Agents and
      Agents Tanker Broker Panel plus five percent provided, however, that the rate
      payable during the Option Period shall never be less than usd 20,400 per
      day.

                


        

      

      


      (2)
Except as expressly amended by this agreement, the terms and conditions of the
Charterparty remain unchanged and in full force and effect including, without
limitation, the profit sharing arrangement between the Owners and the
Charterers.

      
 

    

    
      
        January
15, 2009

         

        
          
            
              	For
      Sophie Tanker Corporation	 	 	For
      DHT Sophie Aframax Corp.	 
	 	 	 	 	 
	
                      By: 
      /s/ Ole Jacob Diesen

                    	 	 	
                      By: 
      /s/ Mats Berglund

                    	 
	
                      Name: 
      Ole Jacob Diesen  

                    	 	 	
                      Name: 
      Mats Berglund

                    	 
	
                      Title:   
      Vice President

                    	 	 	
                      Title:   
      President
C.M.W., Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D18-1372

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed June 19, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from National
Property Investors 6 1996 Third Quarter 10-QSB and is qualified in its entirety
by reference to such 10-QSB filing.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0000708870
<NAME> NATIONAL PROPERTY INVESTORS 6
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                          16,663
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0<F1>
<PP&E>                                          77,741
<DEPRECIATION>                                  46,593
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  50,913
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0<F1>
<BONDS>                                         35,570
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                      14,451
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    50,913
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                10,518
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 9,598
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,800
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                   (355)
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       565
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     5.10<F2>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
<FN>
<F1>Registrant has an unclassified balance sheet.
<F2>Multiplier is 1.
</FN>
        


</TABLE>
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 85 (Wednesday, May 3, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 21830]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-10836]



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

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE


Information Collections Under Review

    The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has been sent the 
following collection(s) of information proposals for review under the 
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35) and 
the Paperwork Reduction Reauthorization Act since the last list was 
published. Entries are grouped into submission categories, with each 
entry containing the following information:
    (1) The title of the form/collection;
    (2) The agency form number, if any, and the applicable component of 
the Department sponsoring the collection;
    (3) Who will be asked or required to respond, as well as a brief 
abstract;
    (4) An estimate of the total number of respondents and the amount 
of time estimated for an average respondent to respond;
    (5) An estimate of the total public burden (in hours) associated 
with the collection; and,
    (6) An indication as to whether Section 3504(h) of Public Law 96-
511 applies.
    Comments and/or suggestions regarding the item(s) contained in this 
notice, especially regarding the estimated public burden and associated 
response time, should be directed to the OMB reviewer, Mr. Jeff Hill on 
(202) 395-7340 and to the Department of Justice's Clearance Officer, 
Mr. Robert B. Briggs, on (202) 514-4319. If you anticipate commenting 
on a form/collection, but find that time to prepare such comments will 
prevent you from prompt submission, you should notify the OMB reviewer 
and the Department of Justice Clearance Officer of your intent as soon 
as possible. Written comments regarding the burden estimate or any 
other aspect of the collection may be submitted to Office of 
Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 
Washington, DC 20503, and to Mr. Robert B. Briggs, Department of 
Justice Clearance Officer, Systems Policy Staff/Information Resources 
Management/Justice Management Division Suite 850, WCTR, Washington, DC 
20530.

New Collection

    (1) Troops to COPS Application Kit.
    (2) COPS 009. Office of Community Oriented Policing Services, 
United States Department of Justice.
    (3) Primary=State, Local or Tribal Government, Others=None. The 
Troops to COPS Application Kit will be used by law enforcement agencies 
seeking reimbursement of expenses for training a recently separated 
member of the armed forces hired by the applicant to participate in 
community policing.
    (4) 800 annual respondents at .5 hours per response.
    (5) 400 annual burden hours.
    (6) Not applicable under Section 3504(h) of Public Law 96-511.
    Public comment on this item is encouraged.

    Dated: April 27, 1995.
Robert B. Briggs,
Department Clearance Officer, Department of Justice.
[FR Doc. 95-10836 Filed 5-2-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-21-M
HUDSON PARKSIDE, LLP, a Florida limited liability partnership; and Real Estate Equity Partners Seven, LLC, Appellants, v. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, Appellee.

Case No. 2D18-2341

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed June 26, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
乳房X光造影

乳房X光造影是一种低剂量X射线的

乳房照片。

为什么我需要做这项

检查?

乳房X光造影有助于挽救生命。

目前它仍然是检查乳腺癌的最佳途径。在

乳房肿块太小以至于病人本身或医生都

不能通过触摸感觉到之 前, 乳房X光检查

可以发现这些肿块。

乳房X光造影并不能查出所有问题。所以,

女士们应该和医生一起来检查自己的乳

房。如果您在乳房部位发现任何下列变化

的话,请与您的医生或诊所联系:

• 肿块

• 增厚

• 液体从乳头溢出或乳头外生变化

如何做乳房X光照片检查?

• 您需要脱掉衬衫和胸罩。

• 您需要站在X光机前。

• 将乳房放在一个小平台上。

• 一块透明塑料板会持续压在乳房上几秒钟。有

些女士说这种压力令人感到不舒服,但大多数

人都不觉得疼痛。

• 技师将拍摄几张乳房照片。

• 然后,专家会来看这些X光照片,查看乳房内是

否有任何病变。

我如何拿到检查结果?

在乳房X光造影之后30天之内,您和您的医生应

该可以拿到书面检查结果。

• 如果您没有拿到检查结果的话,请致电查询。千

万不要假定一切正常。

• 您可以要求获取乳房X光照片。照片保存在一张

CD上,您可以用它来和以后的乳房X光照片作

比较。

美国食品和药物管理局做

什么?

美国食品和药物管理局(以下简称

为“FDA”)为全美提供乳房X光照片服务的机构

颁发专业合格证书。与此相关的法律叫做《乳房X

光造影术质量标准法》(英文缩写“MQSA”)。

FDA 对这些服务机构和其中的工作人员进行检

查。

FDA 妇女健康办公室

www.fda.gov/womens
 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH & HUMAN SERVICES 

PubllC Heahh Se lce

Food and gAd mini ,r

CERTIFIED MAMMOGRAPHY FACILITY 

二二(l' `、-~-、』 1H

乳房X光造影

我如何知道我要去的

地方已经通过认证?

FDA有一份经过认证可以做乳房X光造影的

机构名单,譬如:

• 医生办公室

• 诊所

• 医 院

• X光检查中心

• 流动服务车

欲查找您居住地附近的认证检查服务机

构,请访问FDA网站并输入您的邮政编码:

www.fda.gov/findmammography

您还应该向您去的检查机构询问FDA

的MQSA认证书。

什么是数字乳房X光造

影?

数字化乳房X线造影称为二维(2D)或三维

(3D)立体照片。数字化乳房X光照片使用电

脑和X射线来制作和显示乳房图像。这些照

片与普通乳房X光照片是用相同的方式拍摄

完成的。欲了解更多信息,请询问您的服务

机构。

在进行乳房X光照片检

查之前,我还应该知道

什么?

• 在检查当天,不要在腋下或乳房部位使用

除臭剂、香水、护肤液、护肤霜或粉剂。这

些可能会在X光照片上显现。

• 您有乳房植入物,请在预约时告诉诊所。

他们可能需要拍摄比普通乳房X光照片更

多的照片。

• 如您有肢体残障,可能有困难坐起来、举

起手臂或穿衣,请告诉诊所。另外,让他们

知道您是否使用轮椅或电动车。

• 如出于宗教原因您有羞怯顾虑的话,请询

问员工他们将如何处理这种情况。

本资料由FDA妇女健康办公室提供。欲获得其他的妇女健康资源,请访问

www.fda.gov/womens 

乳房X光造影 (CHINESE) 2017
Steven K. SCHWARTZ, P.A., Petitioner, v. Miriam BANKS, Respondent.

No. 3D19-839

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Opinion filed May 22, 2019

Steven K. Schwartz, P.A., and Steven K. Schwartz, for petitioner.

Miriam Banks, in proper person.

Before LOGUE, SCALES and HENDON, JJ.

SCALES, J.

In the guardianship proceedings below, petitioner Steven K. Schwartz, P.A. ("Schwartz") has been representing respondent Miriam Banks in her capacity as plenary guardian of Gerald Banks since June of 2018. On February 18, 2019, Schwartz filed a motion in the lower court seeking to withdraw as counsel for Ms. Banks, citing irreconcilable differences between them. The limited record before us reflects that Ms. Banks consented to the withdrawal. Schwartz set the withdrawal motion for hearing, but, according to Schwartz's petition, the trial court's judicial assistant cancelled the hearing. The trial court has not entered an order either cancelling the hearing or adjudicating Schwartz's withdrawal motion.

Schwartz now seeks in this Court, via certiorari petition, some type of order "remand[ing] the case with directions to the trial court to enter the order of withdrawal."

*243A district court may exercise certiorari jurisdiction only when the trial court causes a party irreparable harm by entering an order that departs from the essential requirements of law. *Walgreen Co. v. Rubin*, 229 So.3d 418, 420-21 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017). Indeed, when a district court grants a certiorari petition, the only relief available is a quashing of the lower court's order. *See**Broward Cty. v. G.B.V. Int'l, Ltd.*, 787 So.2d 838, 843-44 (Fla. 2001). In this instance, absent an order entered below, we lack certiorari jurisdiction to adjudicate Schwartz's petition.

Nonetheless, pursuant to Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.040(c), we exercise our discretion and treat Schwartz's certiorari petition as a petition for a writ of mandamus. We grant the petition, but trusting that the trial court, in a timely manner, will adjudicate Schwartz's motion to withdraw,1 we withhold issuance of the writ.

Petition for writ of certiorari treated as petition for writ of mandamus, and granted; issuance of formal writ withheld.

1

We express no opinion as to the merits of Schwartz's motion to withdraw.
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Con. Res. 104 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  2d Session
H. CON. RES. 104

  Authorizing the use of the rotunda of the Capitol for the lying in 
  state of the remains of Ralph Puckett, Jr., the last Medal of Honor 
        recipient for acts performed during the Korean conflict.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 16, 2024

   Mr. Bishop of Georgia (for himself, Mr. Womack, Mr. Cuellar, Mr. 
Khanna, Mr. Ryan, Mr. Alford, and Ms. Granger) submitted the following 
  concurrent resolution; which was referred to the Committee on House 
                             Administration

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

 
  Authorizing the use of the rotunda of the Capitol for the lying in 
  state of the remains of Ralph Puckett, Jr., the last Medal of Honor 
        recipient for acts performed during the Korean conflict.

    Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring),

SECTION 1. HONORING THE LAST MEDAL OF HONOR RECIPIENT OF THE KOREAN 
              CONFLICT.

    (a) Use of Rotunda.--In recognition of Army Colonel Ralph Puckett, 
Jr., the last recipient of the Medal of Honor for acts performed during 
the Korean conflict, his remains shall be permitted to lie in state in 
the rotunda of the Capitol on April 29, 2024, in order to honor the 
Silent Generation and the more than 5,700,000 men and women who served 
in the Armed Forces of the United States during the ``Forgotten War'' 
from 1950 to 1953.
    (b) Implementation.--The Architect of the Capitol, under the 
direction of the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the 
President pro tempore of the Senate, shall take all necessary steps to 
carry out this section.
                                 <all>
```
**Exhibit
      14.4**


**ARCH
      MANAGEMENT SERVICES INC.**





**WHISTLEBLOWER
      PROCEDURES POLICY**





In
      accordance with the requirements of Section 301 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
      2002, the Audit Committee of the Board of Directors of Arch Management Services
      Inc. (the “Company”) has adopted this Whistleblower Procedures Policy, stating
      that all employees of the Company and its subsidiaries are strongly encouraged
      to report any evidence of financial irregularities which they may become aware
      of, including those with respect to internal controls, accounting or auditing
      matters. Under this Whistleblower Procedures Policy, the management of the
      Company shall promptly and periodically communicate to all employees with access
      to accounting, payroll and financial information the means by which they may
      report any such irregularities. In the event an employee is uncomfortable for
      any reason reporting irregularities to his or her supervisor or other management
      of the Company, employees may report directly to any member of the Audit
      Committee of the Company. The identity of any employee reporting under these
      procedures shall be maintained as confidential at the request of the employee,
      or may be made on an anonymous basis. Notice shall be provided to all of the
      Company’s employees with access to accounting, payroll and financial information
      in respect of these procedures as follows:





**NOTICE
      TO EMPLOYEES**





In
      accordance with requirements under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, Arch
      Management Services Inc. (the “Company”) has adopted a whistleblower policy
      applicable to the Company and all of its subsidiaries. Under the policy, the
      Company has established a procedure for you to report any financial
      irregularities of which you may become aware, including those with respect
      to
      internal controls, accounting or auditing matters. All of the Company’s
      employees are urged to immediately report any and all instances of financial
      irregularity of which you become aware or which you may suspect. You are
      encouraged to report any irregularities to your supervisor or another manager
      with appropriate authority at your location. If, however, you feel uncomfortable
      doing so for any reason, you may contact any of the persons listed below who
      are
      members of the Company’s Audit Committee. Please note that at your request, your
      identity will be maintained as strictly confidential. Alternatively, you may
      submit any information concerning irregularities on an anonymous basis.







By
      mail
      at:


Audit
      Committee — CONFIDENTIAL


ARCH
      MANAGEMENT SERVICES INC.


6600
      Trans-Canada, suite 519, Point-Claire, Quebec, H89R 4S2





or
      direct
      phone call to one of the members of the committee:


Arthur
      Rawl : 201-281-0689





Dr.
      Nancy
      W. Y. Ho: 765-494-7046





Guy
      Chevrette: 514-246-4392


#  #  #
1

Beijing Hotgen Biotech Co., Ltd.: Hotgen COVID-19 Antigen Home Test

6-month to 10-month shelf-life extension granted by the FDA on April 13, 2023

Lot Number

Tests with this printed

expiration date

(Year-month-day)

Now have this extended

expiration date

(Year-month-day)

W2022120100 2023-05-31 2023-09-31

W2022120200 2023-06-01 2023-10-01
Introducing FaceTime video calling. Smile.

© 2010 Apple Inc. All rights reserved. 1-800-MY-APPLE or www.apple.com. Wireless service plan required. FaceTime requires iPhone 4 and Wi-Fi.

CONFIDENTIAL APL-GRACE_00000942

Case 5:17-cv-00551-LHK Document 285-5 Filed 10/18/18 Page 1 of 1
STATE of Louisiana v. Willard ANTHONY

No. 2019-K-0476

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

June 26, 2019

**ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF APPEAL, FIFTH CIRCUIT, PARISH OF JEFFERSON**

PER CURIAM:

Writ granted in part. While we presently express no opinion on whether the testimony of the screening prosecutor contained errors, we find that any such defects were not structural in nature and would instead constitute trial errors subject to a harmless error analysis. *See* *Weaver v. Massachusetts* , 582 U.S. ----, 137 S.Ct. 1899, 1907, 198 L.Ed.2d 420 (2017) ("[T]he defining feature of a structural error is that it 'affect[s] the framework within which the trial proceeds,' rather than being 'simply an error in the trial process itself.' "); *see also* *State v. Langley* , 06-1041, p. 11 (La. 5/22/07), 958 So.2d 1160, 1167, *cert. denied* , 552 U.S. 1007, 128 S.Ct. 493, 169 L.Ed.2d 368 (2007) (setting forth the limited classes of recognized structural errors). The ruling below is vacated and the matter remanded to the court of appeal for a determination of whether guilty verdicts actually rendered in this trial were surely unattributable to the alleged errors in Mr. Block's testimony. *See* *Sullivan v. Louisiana* , 508 U.S. 275, 279, 113 S.Ct. 2078, 2081, 124 L.Ed.2d 182 (1993). If *870necessary, the court of appeal also should address the pretermitted assignments of error. The application is otherwise denied.

**VACATED AND REMANDED**
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 15**  **- 1847** 

In re: SABRINA D. DAVIS , Petitioner

.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus

. ( 6:08

- cv - 01937

- RBH )

Submitted : October 20 , 2015 Decided: October 22, 2015

Before MOTZ , KEENAN , and THACKER , Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by un published per curiam opinion

.
Sabrina D. Davis, Petitioner Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Sabrina D. Davis petitions for a writ of mandamus seeking an order vacating the district court’s order dismissing her civil suit for lack of subject matter jurisdiction

. ∗ We conclude
that Davis is not entitled to mandamus relief. Mandamus relief is a drastic remedy and sh ould be used only in extraordinary circumstances. Kerr v. U .S. Dist. Court , 426 U.S. 394, 402 (1976) ; United States v. Moussaoui , 333 F.3d 509, 516

- 17 (4th Cir. 2003) . Further, mandamus relief is available only when the petitioner has a clear right to the relief sought. In re First Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass ’ n , 860 F.2d 135, 138 (4th Cir. 1988)
. Mandamus may not be used as a substitute for appeal. In re Lockheed Martin C orp. , 503 F.3d 351, 353 (4th Cir. 2007). The relief sought by Davis is not available by way of mandamus. Accordingly, although we grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis, we deny the petition for writ of mandamus. We dispense with oral argument beca use the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before th is court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
PETITION DENIED

∗ We previously affirmed the district court’s order. Davis v. Kia Motors Am., Inc. , 408 F. App’x 731 (4th Cir 2011) (No. 09

- 2296).
Motion Granted; Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed July 11, 2013.

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14

- 13

- 00427

- CR

THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellant

V.

DALE GILBERT MOORE , Appellee

On Appeal from the 10th District Court Galveston County, Texa s Trial Court Cause No. 12CR0993



### M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N
The State filed a notice of appeal from the trial court’s order signed April 26, 2013, granting appellee’s motion to suppress evidence. On June 27, 2013, the State filed a motion to dismiss its appeal. S ee Tex. R. App. P. 42.2(a).

We grant the State’s motion and order the appeal dismissed. The court’s mandate shall issue immediately.

PER CURIAM Panel consists of Chief Justice Hedges and Justices Frost and Donovan.
<PAGE>
S/M REAL ESTATE FUND VII, LTD.

                                                                   EXHIBIT 99.8



                            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 S/M Real Estate Fund VII, Ltd. (the
"Partnership") on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2002, as filed
with Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Sandy Robison, Chief Financial Officer of the general partner of the
Partnership, 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 Partnership.


                                         S/M REAL ESTATE FUND VII, LTD.

                                    BY:  SM7 APARTMENT INVESTORS INC.
                                         General Partner


Date:  November 12, 2002                 BY:    /s/ Sandy Robison
                                                -------------------------------
                                         Name:  Sandy Robison
                                         Title: Chief Financial Officer,
                                                Vice President,
                                                Secretary and Controller
Frank Darell VAUGHN, petitioner, v. Jeffrey BEARD, Secretary, California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, et al.

No. 12-9453.

Supreme Court of the United States

May 28, 2013.

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