alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
LOCK-UP AND RESALE RESTRICTION AGREEMENT

January 5, 2005

Gentlemen:

     In consideration of agreeing to register the Common Shares that you own,
and by signing this agreement the undersigned hereby agrees to the terms of this
Lock-Up Agreement. The undersigned represents and warrants to the Company that
the undersigned is (a) the record or beneficial holder of 700,000 shares
("Shares") of Wimax EU, Ltd common stock (the "Common Stock").

     The undersigned agrees that during the period from the date hereof until a
date 1 year after (the "Lock-Up Period"), the undersigned shall not (except as
permitted below), without the prior written consent of the Company, directly or
indirectly, offer, issue, sell, contract to sell (including, without limitation,
any short sale), grant any option for the sale of, pledge, or otherwise dispose
of or transfer any Shares or Underlying Shares in excess often percent (10%) of
the balanced direct or beneficial holdings of shares of the Company's Common
Stock in any one-month period; provided, however, that the foregoing agreement
and representation shall not apply to (i) dispositions by gift, will or by the
laws of descent and distribution, or otherwise to the undersigned's parents,
siblings, spouse, children, or grandchildren, (ii) a trust for the benefit of
the undersigned's parents, siblings, spouse, children, or grandchildren, (iii) a
partnership, the general partner of which is the undersigned or the
undersigned's parents, siblings, spouse, children, or grandchildren, or a
corporation or limited liability company, a majority of whose outstanding equity
securities is owned of record or beneficially by the undersigned or by any of
the foregoing, (iv) an Insider to the Company; provided that, in each case, such
transferee agrees in writing to be bound by the terms hereof.

     The undersigned acknowledges and agrees that the Company shall place
appropriate stop transfer instructions with the transfer agent of the Common
Stock to ensure compliance with this Agreement.

     The undersigned represents that he, she or it is duly authorized to enter
into this Agreement and that this Agreement is a valid and binding agreement of
the undersigned and the undersigned's respective successors, heirs, personal
representatives and assigns and is enforceable in accordance with the terms.

January 5, 2005

                                                 Very truly yours,

Marquis Investments                              Wimax EU, Ltd.

/s/  Laura Mouck                                 /s/  Christopher Miles
--------------------------------                -----------------------------
     Laura Mouck                                      Christopher Miles
     President                                        President
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Esteban IBARRA, Jr., also known as Taz, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 09-50627

Summary Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

May 4, 2010.

Joseph H. Gay, Jr., Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Western District of Texas, San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Reginald Van Wade, Del Rio, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before BENAVIDES, PRADO, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Esteban Ibarra, Jr., appeals the sentence imposed following his guilty plea to conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute marijuana. Ibarra argues that the district court clearly erred in determining the drug quantity for which he was responsible because that quantity was based on the uncorroborated statements of himself and his co-conspirators and, hence, was unreliable.

*359Ibarra’s post-arrest statements to law enforcement were detailed, were not “bal[d][or] conclusionary,” and were deemed credible by the district court. *See United States v. Narviz-Guerra,*148 F.3d 530, 537 (5th Cir.1998) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). The district court found that at least one marijuana load described by Ibarra had been corroborated by a co-conspirator that the court had previously sentenced and, additionally, that Ibarra’s post-arrest statements corroborated the statements his co-conspirators gave to law enforcement. Ibarra produced no evidence in rebuttal that the information he disclosed to law enforcement was “materially untrue, inaccurate or unreliable,” *United States v. Taylor,*277 F.3d 721, 724 (5th Cir.2001), and his objection to the drug quantity calculation was alone insufficient to serve as competent rebuttal evidence. *See United States v. Lowder,*148 F.3d 548, 553 (5th Cir.1998). In the absence of rebuttal evidence from Ibarra, the district court did not clearly err in relying on the presentence report in calculating the amount of marijuana involved. *See United States v. Gracia,*983 F.2d 625, 629-30 & n. 20 (5th Cir.1993).

AFFIRMED.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. 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 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
| **-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------** |
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| DOCUMENT: | **CL** | **4** |
|-----------|--------|-------|

|  | **Aubrey        G. Lanston & Co., Inc.** |
|--|-----------------------------------------------|

| DATE: | 5/10/90 | FR        PAGE: | N/A | PAGES: | 2 |
|-------|---------|------------------|-----|--------|---|

|  | **-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------** |
|--|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

First
Previous
Next
Last
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Reginald Todd BRIGGS, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 05-5095.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: May 26, 2006.

Decided: June 9, 2006.

Louis C. Allen, III, Federal Public Defender, William C. Ingram, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellant. Angela Hewlett Miller, Office of the United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

*302Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM:

Following a hearing at which Reginald Todd Briggs admitted to violating conditions of his supervised release, the district court revoked Briggs’ release and imposed an eight-month sentence, to be followed by a supervised release term of forty-seven months. Briggs appeals. His attorney has filed a brief in accordance with *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), stating that there are no meritorious grounds for appeal but asserting that the sentence is erroneous. Briggs was advised of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief, but did not file such a brief. We affirm.

In accordance with *United States v. Booker,*543 U.S. 220, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005), a sentencing court should determine the sentencing range under the sentencing guidelines, consider the factors set forth at 18 U.S.C.A. § 3553(a) (West 2000 & Supp.2005), and impose a reasonable sentence within the statutory maximum. *See United States v. Hughes,*401 F.3d 540, 546-47 (4th Cir.2005). “A sentence imposed within the properly calculated Guidelines range ... is presumptively reasonable.” *United States v. Green,*436 F.3d 449, 455-56 (4th Cir.2006) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Under these principles, we conclude that Briggs’ sentence, which falls below the statutory maximum and within the properly calculated guideline range, is reasonable.

In accordance with *Anders,*we have reviewed the entire record for any meritorious issues and have found none. Accordingly, we affirm. This court requires counsel to inform his client, in writing, of his right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If the client requests that a petition be filed, but counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then counsel may move this court for leave to withdraw from representation. Counsel’s motion must state that a copy of the motion was served on the client. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately set forth in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*AFFIRMED.*
Exhibit 12.1

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

I, Gérard Mestrallet, certify that:

1.

I
  have reviewed this annual report on Form 20-F/A of SUEZ;

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; and

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 company as of, and for,
  the periods presented in this report.



Date: February 1, 2007

| |  | /s/ Gérard Mestrallet                    
| |  | -----------------------------------------
| |  | Gérard Mestrallet
Chief Executive Officer
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Mujahid Muhammad, Appellant.

Submitted May 3, 2010;

decided June 8, 2010

*911Motion to vacate this Court’s April 15, 2010 preclusion order granted.
Exhibit 10.1


 


AMENDMENT
2005-1


 


TO THE OLD SECOND BANCORP, INC.


 


SUPPLEMENTAL
EXECUTIVE RETIREMENT PLAN


 


BY THIS AMENDMENT,
effective December 30, 2005, the Old Second Bancorp, Inc. Supplemental
Executive Retirement Plan (the “Plan”) is amended as follows:


 


1.                                      Section 3.2
of the Plan is amended by adding the following clause at the beginning of Section 3.2:


 


“Except as otherwise
provided in Article V,”


 


2.                                      Article V
is amended by adding the following provision to the end thereof:


 


“Notwithstanding any
other provision of the Plan to the contrary, upon the termination of the Plan: (a) with
respect to an Employee who has not received payment of any benefits under the
Plan, the present value of the Employee’s Accrued Benefit shall be determined
as of the termination effective date using an interest rate of 4.89% in such
determination; (b) with respect to an Employee who has begun receiving
payment of benefits under the Plan, the present value of all remaining payments
shall be determined as of the termination effective date using an interest rate
of 4.89% in such determination; and (c) all amounts determined under
subsections (a) and (b) shall be paid in one lump sum to the
Employees as soon as practicable at or following the termination effective
date.  The mortality table used to
determine the present value described in subsection (a) and (b) above
will be the mortality table based upon a fixed blend of 50% of the unloaded
male mortality rates and 50% of the unloaded female mortality rates underlying
the mortality rates in the 94 GAR, projected to 2002.”


 


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this
Amendment has been executed this 24th day of October 2005.


 


 


	
   

  	
  OLD SECOND BANCORP, INC.

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  /s/        William
  B. Skoglund

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  By:

  	
  William B. Skoglund

  
	
   

  	
  Its:

  	
  President and Chief
  Executive Officer
AEGIS SEF | 2829 Technology Forest Boulevard, Suite 260 | The Woodlands, Texas 77381

Chapter 1139

Natural Gas Basis Swap - AECO 7a Basis (USD)

DESCRIPTION

A monthly cash settled swap based upon the settlement price published by Canadian Gas Price 

Reporter for the location specified in the Floating Price A less the monthly settlement price 

published by NYMEX for natural gas Henry Hub.

FLOATING PRICE A

The Floating Price for each contract month is equal to the mathematical result of subtracting the 

monthly price published by NYMEX, as defined in Floating Price B, from the monthly price 

published by Canadian Gas Price Reporter as defined in Floating Price A.

FLOATING PRICE B

"NATURAL GAS-HENRY HUB-NYMEX" means that the price for a Pricing Date will be that day's 

Specified Price per MMBTU of natural gas on the NYMEX of the Henry Hub Natural Gas Futures 

Contract for the Delivery Date, stated in U.S. Dollars, as made public by the NYMEX on that 

Pricing Date. The Floating Price for each contract month is equal to that day's settlement price 

for the last scheduled trading day of the NYMEX Henry Hub Natural Gas Futures Contract for the 

Delivery Date.

CONTRACT UNIT AND VALUE

The contract quantity shall be in MMBTU. Each contract shall be valued as the contract quantity 

in MMBTU, multiplied by the settlement price.

LISTING CYCLE

Up to 156 consecutive monthly contract periods.

PRICES AND FLUCTUATIONS

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

be $0.001 per MMBtu. The minimum price increment will be $0.0001. There shall be no 

maximum price fluctuation.

TERMINATION OF TRADING

Trading shall cease three Business Days prior to the first calendar day of the Contract Period.

FINAL SETTLEMENT

Delivery under the contract shall be by cash settlement in U.S. Dollars. Final settlement, 

following termination of posting for a contract month, will be based on Floating Price A.
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the Quarterly Report of Baylake Corp. (the Company) on Form 10-Q as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on or about the date hereof (the Report), I, Robert J. Cera, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:



(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.




/s/Robert J. CeraRobert J. CeraPresident and Chief Executive Officer




August 8, 2008



A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to Baylake Corp. and will be retained by Baylake Corp. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.



---
IIB 

116TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 2490 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

FEBRUARY 27, 2020 

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural 

Resources 

AN ACT 

To amend the National Trails System Act to direct the 

Secretary of the Interior to conduct a study on the 

feasibility of designating the Chief Standing Bear National Historic Trail, and for other purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

HR 2490 RFS

1 SECTION 1. CHIEF STANDING BEAR NATIONAL HISTORIC 

2 TRAIL FEASIBILITY STUDY. 

3 Section 5(c) of the National Trails System Act (16 

4 U.S.C. 1244(c)) is amended by adding at the end the fol5 lowing: 

6 ‘‘(xx) CHIEF STANDING BEAR NATIONAL HIS7 TORIC TRAIL.—The Chief Standing Bear Trail, ex8 tending approximately 550 miles from Niobrara, Ne9 braska, to Ponca City, Oklahoma, which follows the 

10 route taken by Chief Standing Bear and the Ponca 

11 people during Federal Indian removal, and approxi12 mately 550 miles from Ponca City, Oklahoma, 

13 through Omaha, Nebraska, to Niobrara, Nebraska, 

14 which follows the return route taken by Chief Stand15 ing Bear and the Ponca people.’’. 

Passed the House of Representatives February 26, 

2020. 

Attest: CHERYL L. JOHNSON, 

Clerk. 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
Clerk jSIU( AtosK 

## CO*/i/fit U-/r~DD2J6( /?# 0/Y7-/T CoM fai*, Mc+ fthhrtof; L*<^ rwtj h &b#j[l«r Pets** l/l*<'^ 3&*r- /^hVfifi'f *ti>

tf/O 

### Jpar -kt*'< CdHtz ? ty*r y*i*~ M W/i Wfar j foe«se/£ 

# ^rfS^pmLs 1 32015 

### 2.b6i f-W-pstf 7, <.
North American Derivatives Exchange, Inc., 200 West Jackson Blvd., Suite 1400, Chicago, IL 60606

US Toll-Free +1 (877) 77 NADEX info@nadex.com www.nadex.com 20220909(1)

September 9, 2022

Via CFTC Portal Submissions

Mr. Christopher Kirkpatrick

Secretary of the Commission

Office of the Secretariat

Commodity Futures Trading Commission

3 Lafayette Centre 

1155 21st Street, N.W. 

Washington D.C. 20581

RE: Weekly Notification of Rule Amendments: Nadex Amends Strike Widths - Submission Pursuant to 

Commission Reg. §40.6(d)

Dear Mr. Kirkpatrick:

Pursuant to Section 5c(c)(1) of the Commodity Exchange Act, as amended (“Act”), and Section 40.6(d) of 

the regulations promulgated by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (the “Commission”) under the Act 

(the “Regulations”), North American Derivatives Exchange, Inc. (“Nadex”, the “Exchange”) hereby provides notice 

that it amended the strike widths of various contracts during the week of September 5, 2022 due to increased or 

decreased volatility, as the case may be, in the underlying markets upon which the Nadex contracts are based. 

Amended strike widths are reflected in Exhibit A.

Nadex hereby certifies that the additions and amendments contained herein comply with the Act, as 

amended, and the Commission Regulations adopted thereunder. No substantive opposing views were expressed to 

Nadex with respect to these additions. Nadex hereby certifies that notice of these events was posted on its website 

at the time of this filing.

Should you have any questions regarding the above, please do not hesitate to contact me by telephone at 

(312) 884-0927 or by email at jaime.walsh@nadex.com.

 Sincerely, 

Jaime M. Walsh

Head of Legal
North American Derivatives Exchange, Inc., 200 West Jackson Blvd., Suite 1400, Chicago, IL 60606

US Toll-Free +1 (877) 77 NADEX info@nadex.com www.nadex.com 20220909(1)

EXHIBIT A

Week of September 5, 2022

Contract Trade Date of Change Strike Width Adjusted 

From

Strike Width Adjusted To

20-Minute Wall Street 30 (Wide) 

Binary

September 6, 2022 8 16

20-Minute Wall Street 30 (Narrow) 

Binary

September 6, 2022 6 12

2-Hour Wall Street 30 Binary September 6, 2022 24 48

20-Minute US 500 (Wide) Binary September 6, 2022 1.5 3

20-Minute US 500 (Narrow) Binary September 6, 2022 1 2

2-Hour US 500 (Wide) Binary September 6, 2022 3 6

20-Minute US Tech 100 (Wide) Binary September 6, 2022 4 8

20-Minute US Tech 100 (Narrow) 

Binary

September 6, 2022 3 6

2-Hour US Tech 100 (Wide) Binary September 6, 2022 12 24

20-Minute US SmallCap 2000 (Wide) 

Binary

September 6, 2022 1.4 2.8

20-Minute US SmallCap 2000 

(Narrow) Binary

September 6, 2022 1.2 2.4

2-Hour US SmallCap 2000 (Wide) 

Binary

September 6, 2022 2.8 5.6

Daily Wall Street 30 Binary September 6, 2022 40 80

Daily US 500 Binary September 6, 2022 6 12

Daily US Tech 100 Binary September 6, 2022 24 48

Daily US SmallCap 2000 Binary September 6, 2022 4 8

Daily Crude Oil Binary September 6, 2022 0.4 0.8

Daily Gold Binary September 6, 2022 3 6
| (1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934; and |
|-----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

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

|                    | PREMIER ENERGY CORP. |                                                                                                              |
|-------------------------|----------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                    |                 |                                                                                                              |   |
| Date: December 22, 2010 | By:                  | /s/ Dr. Anton Prodanovic                                                                                     |   |
|                    |                 | Dr. Anton Prodanovic, Chief Executive Officer  and Director                                             |   |
|                    |                 | (Principal Executive Officer) and Chief Financial Officer (Principal Financial  and Accounting Officer) |   |
|                    |                 |                                                                                                              |   |
# C_2010318EN.01000601.xml

| 23.11.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 318/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.11.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 318/6

---

Information communicated by Member States regarding closure of fisheries

2010/C 318/05

In accordance with Article 35(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009 of 20 November 2009 establishing a Community control system for ensuring compliance with the rules of the common fisheries policy (1), a decision has been taken to close the fishery as set down in the following table:

1

| Date and time of closure | 21.10.2010 |
| --- | --- |
| Duration | 21.10.2010-31.12.2010 |
| Member State | Lithuania |
| Stock or Group of stocks | PRA/N3L. |
| Species | Northern prawn (Pandalus borealis) |
| Zone | NAFO 3L |
| Type(s) of fishing vessels | — |
| Reference number | 739005 |

Date and time of closure

21.10.2010

Duration

21.10.2010-31.12.2010

Member State

Lithuania

Stock or Group of stocks

PRA/N3L.

Species

Northern prawn (Pandalus borealis)

Pandalus borealis

Zone

NAFO 3L

Type(s) of fishing vessels

—

Reference number

739005

Web link to the decision of the Member State:

http://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/cfp/fishing_rules/tacs/index_en.htm

---

(1)  OJ L 343, 22.12.2009, p. 1.

1

---
#### In re: PERRY HARRINGTON, Employee v. ADAMS-ROBINSON ENTERPRISES, Employer, WAUSAU INSURANCE COMPANY, Carrier

No. 75A98

(Filed 9 October 1998)

Appeal by defendants pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 7A-30(2) of the decision of a divided panel of the Court of Appeals, 128 N.C. App. 496, 495 S.E.2d 377 (1998), reversing an opinion and award entered by the North Carolina Industrial Commission on 29 October 1996. Heard in the Supreme Court on 28 September 1998.

*Brenton D. Adams for plaintiff-appellee.*

*Teague, Campbell, Dennis & Gorham, L.L.P., by Linda Stephens and Gregory M. Willis, for defendant-appellants.*

*Delaney and Sellars, P.A., by Mark T. Sumwalt; and Law Offices of Robin E. Hudson, by Robin E. Hudson and Anna Harris Stein, on behalf of North Carolina Academy of Trial Lawyers, amicus curiae.*

PER CURIAM.

For the reasons stated in the dissenting opinion of Judge Walker in the Court of Appeals, the decision of the Court of Appeals is reversed.

REVERSED.

Justice Wynn did not participate in the consideration or decision of this case.