alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 10.71


 


Addendum to Macadamia Nut Purchase Agreement


Between Mauna Loa Macadamia Nut Corporation and ML Macadamia Orchards,
L.P.

Dated January 1, 2006


 


This
Addendum to the Macadamia Nut Purchase Agreement (Agreement) is entered into on
the date set forth below by and between Mauna Loa Macadamia Nut Corporation
(MLMNC-Buyer) and ML Macadamia Orchards, L.P. (MLP-Seller).  This Addendum will supersede all other nut
purchase contracts between the two parties.


 


1.               Term.  This Addendum to the Agreement shall be
deemed to have commenced for all purposes as of January 1, 2010 and shall
continue in full force and effect until December 31, 2011 unless
terminated earlier as provided in the Agreement.


 


2.               Purchase and Sale.  Under this Addendum MLP agrees to sell and
MLMNC agrees to purchase 100% of MLP’s macadamia nut in shell estimated to be
between 19 to 21 million pounds wet in shell.


 


3.               Purchase Price.  The Purchase Price for the Macadamia Wet in
Shell covered under this addendum will be determined on a 20% moisture and 30%
Saleable Kernel recovery to Dry in Shell (SK/DIS) basis.  The price per pound will be $0.73/lb adjusted
to 20% moisture and 30% SK/DIS for the term of this contract.


 


4.               Payment Terms.  Payment shall be made according to Hershey
standard policies for vendor payments.


 


5.               All other terms regarding
Adherence to Specifications, Sampling, Testing, Accounting and Reports,
Termination, Notice, Force Majeure, Waiver, Assignment, Entire Agreement,
Voluntary Mediation and Governing Law under the Agreement will remain the same.


 


	
  Mauna
  Loa Macadamia Nut Corp (MLMNC-Buyer)

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
  By:

  	
  /s/ Charles Young

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  Its Plant Manager

  	
   

  
	
  Date

  	
  12/22/2009

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  ML
  Macadamia Orchards, L.P. (MLP-Seller)

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  By:

  	
  /s/ Dennis J. Simonis

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  Its President

  	
   

  
	
  Date

  	
  12/22/09
#### SUE CHAI ZHENG, a.k.a. Xue Chai Zheng, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 08-72776.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted July 12, 2011.*

Filed July 19, 2011.

Gary J. Yerman, Esquire, Law Office of Gary J. Yerman, New York, NY, for Petitioner.

*146John Hogan, Senior Litigation Counsel, Rosanne Perry, Regan Hildebrand, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, CAS-District Counsel, Esquire, Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Diego, CA, for Respondent.

Before: SCHROEDER, ALARCÓN, and LEAVY, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Sue Chai Zheng, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying her second motion to reopen removal proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for an abuse of discretion the BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen. *Lin v. Holder,*588 F.3d 981, 984 (9th Cir.2009). We deny the petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion by denying Zheng’s motion to reopen as untimely and numerically barred, *see*8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and Zheng failed to demonstrate that there has been a material change in circumstances in China with respect to the enforcement of the family planning policy in order to qualify for the regulatory exception to these rules, *see Lin,*588 F.3d at 988-89; *see also He v. Gonzales,*501 F.3d 1128, 1132 (9th Cir.2007) (a change in personal circumstances does not establish changed country conditions). We reject Zheng’s contention that the BIA failed to consider all the evidence because she has not overcome the presumption the BIA reviewed the record. *See Fernandez v. Gonzales,*439 F.3d 592, 603 (9th Cir.2006); *Lin,*588 F.3d at 987 (the BIA does not need to refute every piece of evidence submitted).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**Exhibit 31.1**

** **

**CERTIFICATION**

 

I, Joseph R. Tomkinson, certify that:

 

1.              I have reviewed this report on Form 10-K/A of Impac Mortgage Holdings, Inc.; and

 

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.

 
| /s/   JOSEPH R. TOMKINSON |   |
|---------------------------|--------|
| Joseph   R. Tomkinson     |   |
| Chief   Executive Officer |   |
|                      |   |
| April 22,   2016     |   |

 

----
# L_2008314EN.01S00301.xml

| 25.11.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 314/s3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.11.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 314/s3

---

NOTE TO THE READER

The institutions have decided no longer to quote in their texts the last amendment to cited acts.

Unless otherwise indicated, references to acts in the texts published here are to the version of those acts currently in force.

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-mos
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                           AUG-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                              MAR-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                MAY-31-1999
<CASH>                                            1,243
<SECURITIES>                                          0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    29,239
<ALLOWANCES>                                      1,385
<INVENTORY>                                           0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                238,932
<PP&E>                                           15,875
<DEPRECIATION>                                    2,994
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  254,857
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           224,868
<BONDS>                                               0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                 0
<PREFERRED>                                           0
<COMMON>                                          5,788
<OTHER-SE>                                            0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    254,857
<SALES>                                          22,243
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 22,243
<CGS>                                            13,866
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                         0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                199,933
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                      0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                1,245
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                       0
<INCOME-TAX>                                          0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                   0
<DISCONTINUED>                                        0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                       0
<CHANGES>                                             0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (191,556)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.14)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                         0



</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 23.1


            CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM


REPORT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM


To the Board of Directors of:
NetWorth Technologies, Inc. and Subsidiaries

We have audited the accompanying consolidated balance sheet of NetWorth
Technologies, Inc. and subsidiaries as of December 31, 2004, and the related
consolidated statements of operations and comprehensive income, changes in
stockholders' deficiency and cash flows for the years ended December 31, 2004
and 2003. These financial statements are the responsibility of the Company's
management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on these financial
statements based on our audits.

We conducted our audits in accordance with the standards of the Public Company
Accounting Oversight Board (United States). Those standards require that we plan
and perform the audits to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the
financial statements are free of material misstatement. An audit includes
examining, on a test basis, evidence supporting the amounts and disclosures in
the financial statements. An audit also includes assessing the accounting
principles used and significant estimates made by management, as well as
evaluating the overall financial statement presentation. We believe that our
audits provide a reasonable basis for our opinion.

In our opinion, the consolidated financial statements referred to above present
fairly in all material respects, the consolidated financial position of NetWorth
Technologies, Inc. and subsidiaries as of December 31, 2004 and the results of
its operations and its cash flows for the years ended December 31, 2004 and 2003
in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States
of America.

The accompanying consolidated financial statements have been prepared assuming
that the Company will continue as a going concern. As discussed in Note 12 to
the consolidated financial statements, the Company had a net loss of $735,791,
an accumulated deficit of $916,153, a stockholders' deficiency of $574,055, a
working capital deficiency of $600,379 and used cash in operations of $292,078.
This raises substantial doubt about its ability to continue as a going concern.
Management's plans concerning this matter are also described in Note 12. The
accompanying consolidated financial statements do not include any adjustments
that might result from the outcome of this uncertainty.


WEBB & COMPANY, P.A.

Boynton Beach, Florida
March 28, 2005
Case: 1:02-cv-08486 Document #: 1 Filed: 11/21/02 Page 1 of 19 PageID #:1
Case: 1:02-cv-08486 Document #: 1 Filed: 11/21/02 Page 2 of 19 PageID #:2
Case: 1:02-cv-08486 Document #: 1 Filed: 11/21/02 Page 3 of 19 PageID #:3
Case: 1:02-cv-08486 Document #: 1 Filed: 11/21/02 Page 4 of 19 PageID #:4
Case: 1:02-cv-08486 Document #: 1 Filed: 11/21/02 Page 5 of 19 PageID #:5
Case: 1:02-cv-08486 Document #: 1 Filed: 11/21/02 Page 6 of 19 PageID #:6
Case: 1:02-cv-08486 Document #: 1 Filed: 11/21/02 Page 7 of 19 PageID #:7
Case: 1:02-cv-08486 Document #: 1 Filed: 11/21/02 Page 8 of 19 PageID #:8
Case: 1:02-cv-08486 Document #: 1 Filed: 11/21/02 Page 9 of 19 PageID #:9
Case: 1:02-cv-08486 Document #: 1 Filed: 11/21/02 Page 10 of 19 PageID #:10
Case: 1:02-cv-08486 Document #: 1 Filed: 11/21/02 Page 11 of 19 PageID #:11
Case: 1:02-cv-08486 Document #: 1 Filed: 11/21/02 Page 12 of 19 PageID #:12
Case: 1:02-cv-08486 Document #: 1 Filed: 11/21/02 Page 13 of 19 PageID #:13
Case: 1:02-cv-08486 Document #: 1 Filed: 11/21/02 Page 14 of 19 PageID #:14
Case: 1:02-cv-08486 Document #: 1 Filed: 11/21/02 Page 15 of 19 PageID #:15
Case: 1:02-cv-08486 Document #: 1 Filed: 11/21/02 Page 16 of 19 PageID #:16
Case: 1:02-cv-08486 Document #: 1 Filed: 11/21/02 Page 17 of 19 PageID #:17
Case: 1:02-cv-08486 Document #: 1 Filed: 11/21/02 Page 18 of 19 PageID #:18
Case: 1:02-cv-08486 Document #: 1 Filed: 11/21/02 Page 19 of 19 PageID #:19
# C_2019139EN.01010201.xml

| 15.4.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 139/102 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.4.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 139/102

---

Action brought on 20 February 2019 — Ilunga Luyoyo v Council

(Case T-124/19)

(2019/C 139/104)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Ferdinand Ilunga Luyoyo (Kinshasa, Democratic Republic of the Congo) (represented by: T. Bontinck, P. De Wolf, M. Forgeois, and A. Guillerme, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul Council Decision (CFSP) 2018/1940 of 10 December 2018, in so far as the applicant remains at No 3 in Annex II to Decision 2010/788/CFSP; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Council Decision (CFSP) 2018/1940 of 10 December 2018, in so far as the applicant remains at No 3 in Annex II to Decision 2010/788/CFSP;

| — | annul Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/1931 of 10 December 2018, in so far as the applicant remains at No 3 in Annex Ia to Regulation (EC) No 1183/2005; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/1931 of 10 December 2018, in so far as the applicant remains at No 3 in Annex Ia to Regulation (EC) No 1183/2005;

| — | rule that the provisions of Article 3(2)(b) of Decision 2010/788/CFSP and Article 2b(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) 1183/2005/EC are unlawful; |
| --- | --- |

—

rule that the provisions of Article 3(2)(b) of Decision 2010/788/CFSP and Article 2b(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) 1183/2005/EC are unlawful;

| — | order the Council to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Council to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on four pleas in law which are in essence identical or similar to those raised in Case T-103/19, Mende Omalanga v Council.

---
#### HEWETT, Respondent, v. CENTURY HISTORY CO., Appellant.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

November 8, 1907.)

Action by Waterman T. Hewett *1*against the Century History Company. C. F. Moody, for appellant. J. E. Freeman, for respondent.

No opinion. Order affirmed, with ' $10 costs and disbursements. Order filed.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of State

          - [Public Notice: 11473]

# SUMMARY:

                        Notice is hereby given of the following determinations: I hereby determine that one object being imported from abroad pursuant to an agreement with its foreign owner or custodian for temporary display in the exhibition “Great Hall Installation: Maya Art” at The Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York, New York, and at possible additional exhibitions or venues yet to be determined, is of cultural significance, and, further, that its temporary exhibition or display within the United States as aforementioned is in the national interest. I have ordered that Public Notice of these determinations be published in the                         **Federal Register**                        .                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

                        Chi D. Tran, Program Administrator, Office of the Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of State (telephone: 202-632-6471; email:                         *section2459@state.gov*). The mailing address is U.S. Department of State, L/PD, 2200 C Street NW (SA-5), Suite 5H03, Washington, DC 20522-0505.                    

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    The foregoing determinations were made pursuant to the authority vested in me by the Act of October 19, 1965 (79 Stat. 985; 22 U.S.C. 2459), Executive Order 12047 of March 27, 1978, the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 (112 Stat. 2681,                     *et seq.;*22 U.S.C. 6501 note,                     *et seq.*), Delegation of Authority No. 234 of October 1, 1999, and Delegation of Authority No. 236-3 of August 28, 2000.                

Matthew R. Lussenhop,

Acting Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs, Department of State.

[FR Doc. 2021-15960 Filed 7-26-21; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4710-05-P
# C_2020027EN.01001002.xml

| 27.1.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 27/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.1.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 27/10

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof (Germany) lodged on 13 May 2019 — Finanzamt München III v Dubrovin & Tröger GbR — Aquatics

(Case C-373/19)

(2020/C 27/13)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesfinanzhof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Finanzamt München III

Defendant: Dubrovin & Tröger GbR — Aquatics

Questions referred

| 1. | Does the concept of school or university education within the meaning of Article 132(1)(i) and (j) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC (1)of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax also include swimming tuition? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Does the concept of school or university education within the meaning of Article 132(1)(i) and (j) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC (1)of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax also include swimming tuition?

| 2. | Can the recognition of an organisation within the meaning of Article 132(1)(i) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax as an organisation having objects similar to those of bodies governed by public law that have as their aim the provision of children’s or young people’s education, school or university education, vocational training or retraining result from the fact that the tuition provided by that organisation enables participants to learn a fundamental ability (in this case: swimming)? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Can the recognition of an organisation within the meaning of Article 132(1)(i) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax as an organisation having objects similar to those of bodies governed by public law that have as their aim the provision of children’s or young people’s education, school or university education, vocational training or retraining result from the fact that the tuition provided by that organisation enables participants to learn a fundamental ability (in this case: swimming)?

| 3. | If the second question is answered in the negative: Does the tax exemption pursuant to Article 132(1)(j) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax require that the taxable person be an individual trader? |
| --- | --- |

3.

If the second question is answered in the negative: Does the tax exemption pursuant to Article 132(1)(j) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax require that the taxable person be an individual trader?

---

(1)  OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1.

---
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

## FILED August 20, 2003 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 02-41794 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus JESUS JORGE MELHAN, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. C-97-CR-106-2

-------------------- Before JONES, WIENER, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges
PER CURIAM: * Jesus Jorge Melhan’s supervised release was revoked, and he appeals the denial of his motion to dismiss the revocation petition. Melhan argues that the almost five-year delay in executing the violator’s warrant violated his Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial. The Sixth Amendment provides an accused the right to a speedy trial “[i]n all criminal prosecutions[.]” The revocation of supervised release is not a criminal proceeding. UnitedNo. 02-41794 -2- States v. Marmolejo , 915 F.2d 981, 983 (5th Cir. 1990). Thus, “the execution of a warrant for violation of supervised release is not subject to the Sixth Amendment's speedy trial requirement.” United States v. Tippens , 39 F.3d 88, 89-90 (5th Cir. 1994).
AFFIRMED.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-6015

ALVIN O. WASHINGTON,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

CENTRAL VIRGINIA REGIONAL JAIL; APRIL RYDOR;

LIEUTENANT HARDERSON; LIEUTENANT SHOULDER;

LIEUTENANT WRIGHT; TONY GRIMS; OFFICER

DARNELL; J. LLOYD, Captain; CAPTAIN GRAMM;

JOHN DOES, and other unknown defendants,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western

District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Samuel G. Wilson, Chief District

Judge. (CA-02-495-7)

Submitted: March 25, 2004 Decided: April 1, 2004

Before TRAXLER, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed as modified by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Alvin O. Washington, Appellant Pro Se. Helen Eckert Phillips,

Stanardsville, Virginia, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Alvin O. Washington appeals the district court’s order

dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint for failure to

exhaust administrative remedies. The district court properly

required exhaustion of administrative remedies under 42 U.S.C.

§ 1997e(a) (2000). Because Washington did not demonstrate to the

district court that he had exhausted administrative remedies or

that such remedies were not available, the court’s dismissal of the

action was not an abuse of discretion. Washington may refile his

action after exhaustion; therefore, we modify the dismissal to be

without prejudice. See 28 U.S.C. § 2106 (2000). Accordingly, we

affirm the district court’s order as modified. 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 AS MODIFIED