alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Second Amendment to Registration Rights Agreement



 Exhibit 10(xx) 

SECOND AMENDMENT 

TO 

REGISTRATION RIGHTS AGREEMENT 

This SECOND AMENDMENT TO REGISTRATION RIGHTS AGREEMENT (this “Amendment”) is made and entered into
this 23rd day of June, 2010, by and among Magellan
Petroleum Corporation, a Delaware corporation (the “Company”), Young Energy Prize S.A., a Luxembourg corporation (“YEP”), and ECP Fund, SICAV-FIS, a Luxembourg entity formerly known as YEP I, SICAV-FIS
(“Fund”). This Amendment amends the Registration Rights Agreement dated as of July 9, 2009, as amended on October 14, 2009 (the “Registration Rights Agreement”), among the Company, YEP and Fund.
Capitalized terms used but not otherwise defined in this Amendment shall have the meanings given to such terms in the Registration Rights Agreement. The Company, YEP and Fund are collectively the “Parties” hereunder, and each of
them individually is a “Party.” 
 WHEREAS, the Parties desire to amend the Registration Rights Agreement as
set forth herein; and 
 WHEREAS, Section 7(a) of the Registration Rights Agreement provides that the Registration Rights
Agreement may be amended only by a writing signed by the Company, YEP and Fund. 
 NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the
mutual covenants, agreements and for other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and adequacy of which is hereby acknowledged, the Parties hereby agree as follows: 

1. Amendment of Registration Rights Agreement. 

(a) The definition of “Warrant” in Section 1 of the Registration Rights Agreement shall be amended to read in its entirety
as follows: 
 “Warrant” means the warrant to purchase shares of Common Stock issued to the
Investor on July 9, 2009, as the same was amended on March 11, 2010 and as may be amended and restated from time to time. 
 2.
Effect of this Amendment. Except as specifically amended as set forth herein, each term and condition of the Registration Rights Agreement shall continue in full force and effect. 

3. Counterparts; Facsimile Signatures. This Amendment may be executed or consented to in counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original
and all of which taken together shall constitute one and the same instrument. This Amendment may be executed and delivered by facsimile or electronically and, upon such delivery, the facsimile or electronically transmitted signature will be deemed
to have the same effect as if the original signature had been delivered to the other party. 
 [REMAINDER OF PAGE INTENTIONALLY
LEFT BLANK] 







 The parties have caused this Amendment to be duly executed and delivered by their proper and
duly authorized officers as of the date and year first written above. 
  

			
	MAGELLAN PETROLEUM CORPORATION
		
	By:	 	 /s/ William H. Hastings

	Name:	 	William H. Hastings
	Title:	 	President and Chief Executive Officer
	
	YOUNG ENERGY PRIZE S.A.
		
	By:	 	 /s/ Nikolay V. Bogachev

	Name:	 	 Nikolay V. Bogachev

	Title:	 	 President & CEO

	
	ECP FUND, SICAV-FIS
		
	By:	 	 /s/ Kurt Reinertz

	Name:	 	 Kurt Reinertz

	Title:	 	 Director

		
	By:	 	 /s/ Patrick Hansen

	Name:	 	 Patrick Hansen

	Title:	 	 Director
AEGIS SEF | 2829 Technology Forest Boulevard, Suite 260 | The Woodlands, Texas 77381

Chapter 1314

Crude Oil Fixed Swap - Argus WTI Midland - Argus Media

DESCRIPTION

A monthly cash settled swap based upon the monthly price published by Argus Media for the 

location specified in Floating Price A.

FLOATING PRICE A

The Floating Price for each contract month is equal to the arithmetic average of the Argus Media

Argus WTI Midland price for each business day that it is determined during the contract month.

CONTRACT UNIT AND VALUE

The contract unit shall be in barrels. Each contract shall be valued as the contract quantity in 

barrels multiplied by the settlement price.

LISTING CYCLE

Up to 120 consecutive monthly contract periods

PRICING AND FLUCTUATIONS

Prices shall be quoted in U.S. dollars and cents per barrel. The minimum price fluctuation shall 

be $0.01 per barrel. The minimum price increment will be $0.001. There shall be no maximum 

price fluctuation.

TERMINATION OF TRADING

Posting of transactions shall cease on the last business day of the contract month.

FINAL SETTLEMENT

Delivery under the contract shall be by cash settlement. Final settlement, following termination 

of posting for a contract month, will be based on the Floating Price. The final settlement price 

will be the Floating Price calculated for each contract month.
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 103 (Tuesday, May 29, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Pages 29185-29186]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-13396]


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

NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION

Notice (01-062)


Notice of Prospective Patent License

AGENCY: National Aeronautics and Space Administration.

ACTION: Notice of prospective patent license.

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

[[Page 29186]]

SUMMARY: NASA hereby gives notice that Phoenix Systems International, 
Inc., of Ashtabula, OH, has applied for an exclusive patent license to 
practice the invention described in NASA Case No. KSC-12235-1, entitled 
High Temperature Decomposition of Hydrogen Peroxide,'' which is 
assigned to the United States of America as represented by the 
Administrator of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. 
Written objections to the prospective grant of a license should be sent 
to Randy Heald, Patent Counsel, John F. Kennedy Space Center, Kennedy 
Space Center, FL 32899.

DATE(S): Responses to this notice must be received by July 30, 2001.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Melanie Chan, Licensing 
Commercialization Manager, John F. Kennedy Space Center, Mail Code YA-
C1, Kennedy Space Center, FL 32899, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#c3aea6afa2adaaa6eda0aba2adeef283a8b0a0edada2b0a2eda4acb5"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="a1ccc4cdc0cfc8c48fc2c9c0cf8c90e1cad2c28fcfc0d2c08fc6ced7">[email protected]</span></a>, 
telephone (321) 867-6367.

    Dated: May 22, 2001.
Edward A. Frankle,
General Counsel.
[FR Doc. 01-13396 Filed 5-25-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7510-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Ryan Edwin HEADDEN, Defendant—Appellant.

No. 09-6952.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: March 22, 2010.

Decided: May 6, 2010.

Ryan Edwin Headden, Appellant Pro Se. George Edward Bell Holding, United States Attorney, Steve R. Matheny, Ethan A. Ontjes, Rudolf A. Renfer, Jr., Assistant *291United States Attorneys, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Before MICHAEL,* MOTZ, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.

*

 Judge Michael was a member of the original panel but did not participate in this decision. This opinion is filed by a quorum of the panel pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 46(d).

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Ryan Edwin Headden seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp.2009) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006). A certificate of appeal-ability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. *Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003); *Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); *Rose v. Lee,*252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir.2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Head-den has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of ap-pealability and dismiss the appeal. 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.

*DISMISSED.*
Exhibit 32.2

Section 1350 Certification



In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Bremer Financial Corporation (the Company) for the period ended June 30, 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 11, 2006 (the Periodic Report), I, Robert B. Buck, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby 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 Periodic Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and
| | -- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 2. | The information contained in the Periodic Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| | -- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------





|Dated: | August 11, 2006 |  | /s/ Robert B. Buck                                                 
|------ | --------------- |  | -------------------------------------------------------------------
|       |                 |  | Robert B. Buck
Chief Financial Officer
Bremer Financial Corporation

---
EXHIBIT 32

CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER

OF

CAPITOL ACQUISITION CORP.

This certification is
provided pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and accompanies the quarterly report on Form 10-Q (the Form 10-Q) for the quarter ended March 31, 2008, of Capitol Acquisition Corp. (the Issuer).

I, Mark D. Ein, the Principal Executive Officer and Principal Financial and Accounting Officer of the Issuer, certify that to the best of
my knowledge:



| | (i) | the Form 10-Q fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m(a) or 78o(d)); and
| | --- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (ii) | the information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Issuer.
| | ---- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                    |  |  |  |                                                                           
|------------------- |  |  |  | --------------------------------------------------------------------------
|Dated: May 15, 2008 |  |  |  | /s/ Mark D. Ein                                                           
|                    |  |  |  | Mark D. Ein                                                               
|                    |  |  |  | Principal Executive Officer and Principal Financial and Accounting Officer
# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04

- 14

- 00082

- CR

IN RE James LEGATE

Original Mandamus Proceeding 1

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Karen Angelini, Justice

Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice

Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

Delivered and Filed: March 5, 2014

PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS DENIED AS MOOT

On February 3, 2014 , relator filed a petition for writ of mandamus, complaining of the trial

court’s failure to rule on a motion pending in his underlying criminal proceeding . However, on

February 26, 2014 , the trial court signed an order d ismissing relator’s motion for lack of

jurisdiction

. Because the trial court has issued a ruling and re lator has obtained the relief requested

by his petition for writ of mandamus, the petition is denied as moot. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 52.8(a).

PER CURIAM

DO NOT PUBLISH

1 This proceeding arises out of Cause No. 1998CR6480, styled The State of Texas v. James Legate , pending in the

290th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas, the Honorable Melisa Skinner presiding.
#### In the Matter of Parminder Kaur et al., Respondents, v New York State Urban Development Corporation, Doing Business as Empire State Development Corporation, Appellant. In the Matter of Tuck-It-Away, Inc., et al., Respondents, v New York State Urban Development Corporation, Doing Business as Empire State Development Corporation, Appellant.

Submitted May 3, 2010;

decided May 6, 2010

Motion by Institute for Justice for leave to file a brief amicus curiae on the appeal herein granted and the proposed brief is accepted as filed. Two copies of the brief must be served and 24 copies filed within seven days.
AEGIS SEF | 2829 Technology Forest Boulevard, Suite 260 | The Woodlands, Texas 77381

Chapter 1301

Crude Oil Basis Swap - Argus LLS (1st month) - Argus Media TMA

DESCRIPTION

A monthly cash settled swap based upon the mathematical result of Argus LLS (1st month) for a 

specific set of dates.

FLOATING PRICE A

The Floating Price for each contract month is equal to the arithmetic average of the Argus Media

Argus LLS (1st month) differential weighted average (Diff weighted average) index price from 

Argus Media, which is based on the weighted average index price of Argus LLS (1st month)

minus the "WTI Formula Basis" price from Argus Media, for the trade month period beginning 

with the first business day after the 25th calendar day two months prior to the contract month 

through the last business day that falls on or before the 25th calendar day of the month prior to 

the contract month. If the 25th calendar day is a weekend or holiday, the Trade month period 

shall end on the first business day prior to the 25th calendar day.

CONTRACT UNIT AND VALUE

The contract unit shall be in U.S. barrels. Each contract shall be valued as the contract quantity 

multiplied by the settlement price.

LISTING CYCLE

Up to 120 consecutive monthly contract periods

PRICES AND FLUCTUATIONS

Prices shall be quoted in U.S. dollars and cents per barrel. The minimum price fluctuation shall 

be $0.01 per barrel. The minimum price increment will be $0.001. There shall be no maximum 

price fluctuation.

TERMINATION OF TRADING

Posting of transactions shall cease on the last business day of the contract month.

FINAL SETTLEMENT

Delivery under the contract shall be by cash settlement. Final settlement, following termination 

of posting for a contract month, will be based on the Floating Price. The final settlement price 

will be the Floating Price calculated for each contract month.
EXHIBIT 32



CERTIFICATION UNDER Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

Each of the undersigned, being the Chief Executive Officer and the Vice President of Finance, respectively, of Professionals Direct, Inc., a Michigan corporation (the "Company"), hereby certify, in their capacities as officers of the Company, that the Company's Annual Report on Form 10-KSB for the year ended December 31, 2003, (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and that the information in such report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition at December 31, 2003, and results of operations of the Company for the periods then ended.

This certification accompanies this Report pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and for no other purpose and shall not be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

|/s/ Stephen M. Tuuk                                                          |  | /s/ Stephen M. Westfield                                             
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------- |  | ---------------------------------------------------------------------
|Stephen M. Tuuk
President and Chief Executive Officer
Dated:  March 26, 2004 |  | Stephen M. Westfield
Vice President of Finance
Dated:  March 26, 2004

A signed original of this written statement has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 USC, SECTION 1350,
 AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906
 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
 
 
 In connection with the Annual Report of M-GAB Development Corporation (the "Company") on Form 10-KSB/A for the year ended December 31, 2003, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on or about the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Carl M. Berg, President of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Sec. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:
 
 (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Sections 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
 
 (2) Information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
 
  
 Dated: March 10, 2004By: Carl M. BergIts: President 
 
 A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to M-GAB Development Corporation and will be retained by M-GAB Development Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
**Exhibit
      32.2**


**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 North Shore Acquisition Corp. (the
      “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2008 (the “Report”), as
      filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I Marc
      H.
      Klee, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
      Sec.
      1350, as adopted pursuant to Sec. 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, as amended; and





2.
      The
      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
      the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.




Date:
                May 13, 2008
            /s/
                Marc H. KleeName:
            Mark
                H. KleeTitle:
            President,
                Chief Financial Officer and Secretary(Principal
                Financial and Accounting
                Officer)
Exhibit 31.2

I,
David G. Gaw, certify that:

1.     I
have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K/A of Heritage Property Investment Trust, Inc.;

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 period presented in this report;

4.     The
registrant's other certifying officer 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) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for
the registrant, and we have:



6.     The
registrant's other certifying officer 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 registrant's board of directors;



|Date: November 9, 2005 |  | /s/DAVID G. GAWDavid G. Gaw
Senior Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer
(Principal Financial Officer)
|---------------------- |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

---
# C_2019230EN.01001501.xml

| 8.7.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 230/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.7.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 230/15

---

Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 8 May 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landesverwaltungsgericht Tirol — Austria) — PI v Landespolizeidirektion Tirol

(Case C-230/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 49 TFEU - Article 15(2) and Article 16 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Freedom of establishment and freedom to provide services - Restriction - Decision to immediately close a commercial enterprise - No statement of reasons - Overriding reasons in the public interest - Prevention of criminal offences against persons engaged in prostitution - Protection of public health - Proportionality of the restriction on the freedom of establishment - Articles 47 and 48 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights - Effectiveness of judicial review - Rights of defence - General principle of the right to good administration)

(2019/C 230/17)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landesverwaltungsgericht Tirol

Parties to the main proceedings

Complainant: PI

Defendant authority: Landespolizeidirektion Tirol

Operative part of the judgment

Article 49 TFEU, Article 15(2) and Articles 16, 47 and 52 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and the general principle of the right to good administration must be interpreted, in circumstances such as those at issue in the main proceedings, as precluding national legislation providing that an administrative authority may decide to close a commercial establishment with immediate effect, on the ground that it suspects that prostitution is practised in that establishment without the authorisation required under that legislation, in so far as that legislation, first, does not require reasons, in fact and in law, to be given in writing for such a decision and to be communicated to its addressee, and second, requires that any application brought by that addressee and seeking annulment of that decision must be reasoned.

---

(1)  OJ C 249, 16.7.2018.

---