alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
AEGIS SEF | 2829 Technology Forest Boulevard, Suite 260 | The Woodlands, Texas 77381

Chapter 1050

Natural Gas Basis Swap - TETCO STX - Platts Inside FERC

DESCRIPTION

A monthly cash settled swap based upon the mathematical result of subtracting the price of the 

NYMEX Henry Hub Natural Gas futures contract, as defined in Floating Price B, from the monthly 

price published by Platts Inside FERC for the location specified in Floating Price A.

FLOATING PRICE A

The Floating Price for each contract month will be equal to the Platts Inside FERC TETCO STX

published price for the corresponding contract month.

FLOATING PRICE B

The Floating Price for each contract month will be equal to the NYMEX Henry Hub Natural Gas 

futures contract final settlement price for the corresponding contract month on the last trading 

day for that contract month.

CONTRACT UNIT AND VALUE

The contract unit shall be MMBtus (million British thermal units). Each 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 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

Posting of transactions shall cease on the last business day prior to 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 10.10


<PAGE>




                                                                   Exhibit 10.10


October 16, 1998

Carl Berg
10050 Bandley Drive
Cupertino, CA 95014

BORROWER: Videonics, Inc.
LENDER:        Carl Berg

This letter is our promise to repay.................................. $1,000,000

cash  loaned to  Borrower.  This loan is due and  payable on October  16,  1999.
Interest will be due on the outstanding  balance for the actual days outstanding
at an annual interest rate of 8.0%.  Quarterly interest payments will be made on
January  16,  1999,  April 16,  1999,  July 16, 1999 and October 16, 1999 on the
outstanding balance.

DEFAULT.  Borrower  will be in  default  if any of the  following  happens:  (a)
Borrower  fails to make any payment when due. (b)  Borrower  defaults  under any
loan, extension of credit,  security agreement,  purchase or sales agreement, or
any  other  agreement,  in  favor  of any  other  creditor  or  person  that may
materially affect any of Borrower's property or Borrower's ability to repay this
loan or perform  Borrower's  obligations  under this loan. (c) Borrower  becomes
insolvent, a receiver is appointed for any part of Borrower's property, Borrower
makes an assignment for the benefit of creditors, or any proceeding is commenced
either by Borrower or against Borrower under any bankruptcy or insolvency laws.

LENDER'S  RIGHTS.  Upon default,  Lender may declare the entire unpaid principal
balance of this loan and all accrued unpaid interest  immediately  due,  without
notice, and then Borrower will immediately pay that amount.  Lender may delay or
forgo  enforcing  any of its rights or remedies  under this loan without  losing
them.

GENERAL.  This note has been  delivered  to Lender and accepted by Lender in the
State of  California.  If there is a  lawsuit,  Borrower  agrees  upon  Lender's
request to submit to the  jurisdiction of the courts of Santa Clara County,  the
State of California.  This loan shall be governed by and construed in accordance
with the laws of the State of California.



BORROWER: Videonics, Inc.

By: /s/ James McNeill               
      James A. McNeill, Vice President, CFO
H. Res. 1073 

In the House of Representatives, U. S., 

May 26, 2010. 

Whereas 1910 marks the first year of mass-produced, manufactured, motorized campers and camping trailers; 

Whereas 1 in 12 households in the United States owns a recreational vehicle, and over 30,000,000 recreational vehicle 

enthusiasts take part in this affordable and environmentally friendly form of vacationing; 

Whereas recreational vehicle vacations allow families in the 

United States to build stronger relationships, explore the 

great outdoors, and take part in healthy activities; 

Whereas this homegrown industry, including recreational vehicle manufacturers, suppliers, dealers, and campgrounds, employs hundreds of thousands of people in the 

Nation in good-paying jobs across all 50 States; 

Whereas recreational vehicles offer the freedom, comfort, and 

flexibility to see all parts of the United States, from historic landmarks and national parks to local campgrounds 

and sporting events; and 

Whereas the 100th anniversary of the introduction of the recreational vehicle into the United States marketplace will 

be celebrated June 7, 2010, at the RV/MH Hall of Fame 

and Museum in Elkhart, Indiana: Now, therefore, be it 

Resolved, That the House of Representatives— 
2 

•HRES 1073 EH 

(1) supports the goals and ideals of RV Centennial 

Celebration Month to recognize and honor 100 years of 

enjoyment of recreational vehicles in the United States; 

and 

(2) encourages the people of the United States to 

celebrate this anniversary by taking part in recreational 

vehicle vacations. 

Attest: 

Clerk.
| **-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------** |
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| DOCUMENT: | **CL** | **692** |
|-----------|--------|---------|

|  | **Bunge        Corporation** |
|--|-------------------------------|

| DATE: | 8/25/97 | FR        PAGE: | N/A | PAGES: | 4 |
|-------|---------|------------------|-----|--------|---|

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

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

| DOCUMENT: | **CL** | **693** |
|-----------|--------|---------|

|  | **ADM/Contrymark, LLC** |
|--|-------------------------|

| DATE: | 9/9/97 | FR        PAGE: | N/A | PAGES: | 2 |
|-------|--------|------------------|-----|--------|---|

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

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

| DOCUMENT: | **CL** | **694** |
|-----------|--------|---------|

|  | **Darling,        Douglas E.** |
|--|---------------------------------|

| DATE: | 9/12/97 | FR        PAGE: | N/A | PAGES: | 1 |
|-------|---------|------------------|-----|--------|---|

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

First
    Previous
Next
Last
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATE 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 IPC The Hospitalist Company, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended
September 30, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned, as Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certifies, 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 Company.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



/S/ DEVRA G. SHAPIRODevra G. Shapiro Chief Financial Officer


Date: November 2, 2009
## THE STATE OF TEXAS

MANDATE

TO THE 276TH DISTRIC T COURT OF CAMP COUN TY, GREETINGS:

Before the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Court of Appeals District of Texas, on the 30th

day of June, A.D. 2015, the cause upon appeal to revise or reverse your Judgment was determined;

and therein our said Court made its order in these words:

In re The Estate of Nobie Florence Parker, Deceased No. 06

- 14

- 00099

- CV

Trial Court No. CV11

- 1728

As stated in the Court’s opinion of this date, we find no error in the judgment of the court

below

. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

We further order that the appellant, Richard Parker , pay all costs of this appeal.

WHEREFORE, WE COMMAND YOU to observe the order of our said Court in this

behalf, and in all things to have it duly recognized, obeyed, and executed.

WITNESS, the Hon. Josh R. Morriss, III, Chief Justice of our said Court of Appeals, with

the seal thereof annexed, at the City of Texark ana, this the 21st day of July , A.D. 2015

.

DEBRA K. AUTREY , Clerk
UN PUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 17
- 6556

ROSS JENKINS , Petitioner

- Appellant ,

v. MARVIN PLUMLEY , Respondent

- Appellee

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia , at Wheeling

. Frederick P. Stamp, Jr. , Senior District Judge. ( 5:15

- cv - 00159

- FPS

- JES )

Submitted : October 31, 2017 Decided: November 3, 2017

Before WILKINSON, KING, and DUNCAN , Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion

. Ross Jenkins, Appellant Pro Se. Robert L. Hogan, Shannon Frederick Kiser, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Ross Jenkins seek s to appeal the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and granting in part and denying in part his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate o f appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2012). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller

- El v. Cockrell , 537 U. S. 322, 336

- 38 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional ri ght. Slack , 529 U.S. at 484

- 85. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Jenkins has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Jenkins’ motion for a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with or al argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
EXHIBIT 32.1

      CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
                                   PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Raul Getino, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant
to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge, Descanso
Agency Inc.'s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ended March
31, 2009 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such Quarterly
Report on Form 10-Q fairly presents in all material respects the financial
condition and results of operations of Descanso Agency Inc.


Date: May 1, 2009                     By: /s/ Raul Getino
                                         ---------------------------------------
                                      Name:  Raul Getino
                                      Title: Chief Executive & Financial Officer

This certification accompanies the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not be deemed filed for
purposes of Section 18 of the Exchange Act, or otherwise subject to the
liability of that section. This certification shall not be deemed to be
incorporated by reference into any filing under the Securities Act or the
Exchange Act, except to the extent that Descanso Agency, Inc. specifically
incorporates it by reference.
#### In the Matter of John Wayman et al., Respondents, v Kelly Ramos, Appellant, et al., Respondent.

Submitted November 14, 2011;

decided January 5, 2012

Reported below, 88 AD3d 1237.

Motion for leave to appeal dismissed upon the ground that the order sought to be appealed from does not finally determine the proceeding within the meaning of the Constitution.
#### SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Frederick George CELANI, aka Sidney F. Levine, Defendant—Appellant, and Rainmaker Managed Living LLC, a New York limited liability company; et al., Defendants. John Cotton, Permanent Receiver of Rainmaker Managed Living, LLC, a New York limited liability company, Rainmaker Managed Living, LLC, a California limited liability company, and their subsidiaries and affiliates, Receiver.

No. 10-56172.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Dec. 19, 2011.*

Filed Jan. 10, 2012.

Catherine O’Riordan, Molly Margaret White, SEC-Securities and Exchange Commission, Los Angeles, CA, Christopher Paik, SEC-Securities & Exchange Commission, Washington, DC, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Frederick George Celani, Brooklyn, NY, pro se.

Daniel J. Cheren, Esquire, Cheren and Associates, Encino, CA, John W. Cotton, Esquire, Aaron C. Gundzik, Esquire, Cotton *&*Gundzik LLP, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendants.

Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Frederick George Celani appeals pro se from the district court’s order denying his motion to set aside the default judgment in the Securities and Exchange Commission’s (“SEC”) civil law enforcement action against him. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion. *Brandt v. Am. Bankers Ins. Co. of Fla.,*658 F.3d 1108, 1110 (9th Cir. 2011). We affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Celani’s motion to set aside the default judgment because Celani failed to present a meritorious defense to the SEC’s action. *See Am. Ass’n of Naturopathic Physicians v. Hayhurst,*227 F.3d 1104, 1108 (9th Cir.2000) (a district court may deny a motion to set aside a default judgment if the defendant lacks a meritorious defense). We are not persuaded by Celani’s contention that he was prejudiced by the district court’s failure to await his opposition to the SEC’s motion to amend the judgment to reflect Celani’s true identity given that Celani does not dispute the accuracy of the amendment.

Celani’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
#### In the Matter of Mark LaBorde, Appellant-Respondent, v Catherine Pennington, Respondent-Appellant. (Proceeding *951No. 1.) In the Matter of Mark LaBorde, Appellant, v Denise Pennington, Respondent. (Proceeding No. 2.) In the Matter of Denise Pennington, Respondent, v Mark LaBorde, Appellant. (Proceeding No. 3.) In the Matter of Denise Pennington, Respondent, v Catherine Pennington, Appellant. (Proceeding No. 4.) In the Matter of Catherine Pennington, Respondent-Appellant, v Mark LaBorde, Appellant-Respondent. (Proceeding No. 5.) In the Matter of Catherine Pennington, Respondent-Appellant, v Mark LaBorde, Appellant-Respondent. (Proceeding No. 6.) In the Matter of Catherine Pennington, Appellant, v Denise Pennington, Respondent. (Proceeding No. 7.)

[876 NYS2d 87]—

In related child custody proceedings pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, the father appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Family Court, Westchester County (Duffy, J.), entered May 8, 2007, as, after a hearing, denied his petitions to award him sole custody of the subject child and granted the petitions of the maternal grandmother to modify a prior custody order of the same court entered February 28, 2006, awarding her and the mother joint custody of the child, so as to award her sole custody of the child, and the mother cross-appeals, inter alia, from stated portions of the order dated May 8, 2007.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed and cross-appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

In a custody proceeding between a parent and a nonparent, “the parent has the superior right to custody that cannot be denied unless the nonparent establishes that the parent had relinquished that right due to surrender, abandonment, persistent neglect, unfitness, or other like extraordinary circumstances” *(Matter of Wilson v Smith,*24 AD3d 562, 563 [2005]). This rule applies even when, as here, there is a prior order granting custody of a child to a nonparent which was issued on consent of the parties *(see Matter of Cockrell v Burke,*50 AD3d 895 [2008]). Once there is a finding of extraordinary circumstances, custody will be determined by considering the child’s best interests *(see Matter of Bennett v Jeffreys,*40 NY2d 543, 548 [1976]).

The Family Court properly determined that the maternal grandmother, who has had physical custody of the child for an extended period of time, sustained her burden of demonstrating extraordinary circumstances in this case *(see Matter of Bevins v Witherbee,*20 AD 3d 718, 719 [2005]). Moreover, the Family *952Court’s determination that an award of custody to the maternal grandmother would be in the best interests of the subject child is supported by a sound and substantial basis in the record, and we discern no basis to disturb it *(see Matter of Bennett v Jeffreys,*40 NY2d 543 [1976]).

The father’s and the mother’s remaining contentions are without merit. Spolzino, J.P., Dillon, Florio and Angiolillo, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 32.1





CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO


18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT 0F 2002





In connection with the Quarterly Report of ECO BUILDING PRODUCTS, INC. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2012, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, STEVE CONBOY, President of the Company, 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 result of operations of the Company.





/s/ Steve Conboy


Steve Conboy


President


Principal Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer





November 19, 2012
Exhibit 10.2

AMENDMENT

In accordance
with paragraph 11.0 of the Employment Agreement entered into on the 1st day of December, 2007, by and betweenAVAX Technologies, Inc., a Delaware corporation with its principal place
of business at 2000 Hamilton Street, Suite 204, Philadelphia, PA (the Company), andFrancois
Martelet, M.D. (Employee), the parties hereby agree to delete paragraph 3.4 of subject
agreement and replace it as follows:



3.4
        Equity Compensation. As additional compensation for services rendered, the Company shall grant to the Employee the right and option to purchase shares of the Companys common stock as set forth below in this Section 3.4 and in the future may grant additional equity to purchase shares of the Companys common stock to the Employee in accordance with the terms of the Companys equity plan then in effect.




(a)  The Company shall grant to the Employee (i) stock options to purchase 1,000,000 shares of common stock of the Company pursuant to the terms and conditions of the Companys 2006 Equity Incentive Plan (the Plan) and standard form stock option agreement, plus (ii) inducement stock options to purchase 6,130,288 shares of common stock of the Company, which inducement stock options are granted outside the Plan, but otherwise will be on the same terms and subject to the same conditions as the foregoing Plan options (Equity Grant A). The stock options shall be incentive stock options to the extent allowed pursuant to Section 422 of the Code and the remainder of the stock options shall be non-qualified stock options. The stock options shall be granted on the Commencement Date with an exercise price equal to the fair market value
of the common stock on the last business day prior to the Commencement Date, and shall vest in four equal annual installments over the four (4) years following the Commencement Date and, except as otherwise provided in this Agreement, subject to such other terms and conditions as set forth in the Companys standard form of option agreement. The inducement stock options shall be represented by a stock option agreement that includes all material terms of the Plan and otherwise conforms to the standard form of stock option agreement under the Plan.





This Amendment shall be effective as of the  1st  day of December, 2007, and is entered into with the intent to be legally bound, by the authorized representatives of:





AVAX TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
        
        
        EMPLOYEE/s/
        John K.A. Prendergast
        
        
        /s/
        Francois Martelet, M.D.Name:
        John K.A. Prendergast, Ph.D.
        
        
        
        Francois Martelet, M.D.Title:
        Chairman of the Board of Directors






---