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

Chapter 1158

Natural Gas Fixed Swap - Tenn 800L - Platts Gas Daily

DESCRIPTION

A monthly cash settled swap based upon the average price published by Platts Gas Daily for the 

location specified in Floating Price A.

FLOATING PRICE A

The Floating Price for each contract month will be equal to the arithmetic average of the Platts 

Gas Daily Tenn 800L published price for each calendar day of the corresponding contract month.

CONTRACT UNIT AND VALUE

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

as the contract quantity in MMBtus 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 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.
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 1030 Introduced in House (IH)]

111th CONGRESS
  2d Session
H. RES. 1030

   Congratulating Messiah College men's and women's soccer teams on 
       winning the 2009 NCAA Division III national championships.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 21, 2010

 Mr. Platts submitted the following resolution; which was referred to 
                  the Committee on Education and Labor

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
   Congratulating Messiah College men's and women's soccer teams on 
       winning the 2009 NCAA Division III national championships.

Whereas Messiah College men's and women's soccer teams won the 2009 NCAA 
        Division III championships on December 5, 2009, against Calvin College 
        and Washington University-St. Louis;
Whereas the 2009 championship was the seventh national championship for Messiah 
        College men's soccer team since 2000 and the third national championship 
        for the women's team since 2000;
Whereas Messiah College is the only college in the NCAA to win both the men's 
        and women's soccer national championship in the same year;
Whereas Messiah College is a Christian liberal arts college that was founded in 
        1909 and is located in Grantham, Pennsylvania;
Whereas Messiah College has 22 intercollegiate athletic teams that have won 11 
        NCAA national championships; and
Whereas Messiah College encourages athletes to develop their athletic excellence 
        and to develop character: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved, That the House of Representatives--
            (1) congratulates Messiah College men's and women's soccer 
        teams on winning the 2009 NCAA Division III national 
        championships; and
            (2) recognizes Messiah College for excellence in academics, 
        athletics, and character.
                                 <all>
```
```

[Federal Register: March 20, 1997 (Volume 62, Number 54)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 13301]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr20mr97-6]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION

17 CFR Parts 15, 18 and 19


Reports by Large Traders; Cash Position Reports in Grains
(Including Soybeans) and Cotton

AGENCY: Commodity Futures Trading Commission.

ACTION: Final rulemaking; correction.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: CFTC is correcting an error in reports by large traders
previously published in the Federal Register on February 11, 1997, (62
FR 6112). The original document contained an erroneous word and
inconsistent wording.

EFFECTIVE DATE: April 14, 1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Lamont Reese, Commodity Futures Trading Commission, Division of
Economic Analysis, Three Lafayette Centre, 1155 21st St., N.W.,
Washington, D.C. 20581.

Correction

    In the final rule FR Doc. 97-3395, beginning on page 6112 in the
Federal Register issue of February 11, 1997, make the following
correction:


Sec. 15.01  [Corrected]

    On page 6113, in the third column, in paragraph (d)(1) of
Sec. 15.01, the reference to ``futures and option and positions'' is
corrected to read ``futures and option positions.''


Sec. 18.04  [Corrected]

    On 6114, in the first column, in Sec. 18.04, in the second line,
the reference to ``options or futures position'' is corrected to read
``futures and option position.''


Sec. 19.00  [Corrected]

    On page 6114, in the second column, in Sec. 19.00, in paragraph
(a)(1), the reference to ``options or futures positions'' is corrected
to read ``futures and option positions.''

Jean A. Webb,
Secretary of the Commission.
[FR Doc. 97-6972 Filed 3-19-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6351-01-M
```

----

**======== RETURN TO    INDEX ========**

----
Exhibit
        4.6

      


      


      


      


      


      October
        27, 2005

      


      Omicron
        Master Trust

      650
        Fifth
        Avenue

      24th
        Floor

      New
        York,
        New York

      USA
        10019

      Attention: Brian
        Daly

      


      


      Dear
        Sirs:

      


      
        	Re:	 	
                Generex
                  Biotechnology Corporation

                -
                  Amendment to Jun 17 05 Additional Investment
                  Right

              


      

       

      We
        make
        reference to the additional investment right issued by Generex Biotechnology
        Corporation (the “Company”)
        to
        Omicron Master Trust (“Omicron”)
        on
        June 17, 2005 pursuant to which the Company, inter
        alia,
        granted
        to Omicron the right to purchase a $500,000 principal amount debenture (the
        “AIR”).

      


      The
        Initial Exercise Date (as that term is defined in the AIR) of the AIR is
        expressed therein as the 181st
        day
        after the date thereof. The Company hereby confirms that, in consideration
        of
        the exercise of the AIR by Omicron and the delivery to the Company of a Notice
        of Exercise in respect thereof on or before the close of business on October
        27,
        2005, the Company has agreed to abridge the Initial Exercise Date and to
        honor
        the aforementioned Notice of Exercise.

      


      Yours
        truly,

      


      Generex
        Biotechnology Corporation

      


      


      /s/
        Mark A. Fletcher

      


      Mark
        A.
        Fletcher

      Executive
        Vice-President, General Counsel

      maf:hs
# United States Court **of Appeals**  **f or the Fifth Circuit** 

**_____________** No. 23 - 50339 **consolidated with** No. 23 - 50365 Summary Calendar

**_____________ United States of America,**  Plaintiff
— Appellee **,** versus **Margarito Cruz -**  **Ramirez,** Defendant
— Appellant **.**

**______________________________** Appeal s from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC Nos. 2:21 - CR - 1116 - 1, 2:21 - CR - 635 - 1

**______________________________** Before **Smith, Higginson,** and **Engelhardt,** Circuit Judges **. Per Curiam**  **:** ***** Margarito Cruz - Ramirez appeals his conviction and sentence for illegal reentry after removal, as well as the order revo king the term of supervised release he was serving at the time of the offense. Regarding the illegal reentry offense , he argues that 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) is unconstitutional

**_____________________** * This opinion is not designated for publication. See **5th Cir .**  **R .**  47.5. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED January 4, 2024

Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 23-50339 Document: 00517021494 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/04/2024No. 23 - 5 0339 c/w No. 23 - 5 0365

2 because it all ows a sentence above the otherwise applicable statutory maximum established by § 1326(a) based on facts that are neither alleged in the indictment nor found by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt. Because Cruz Ramirez does not address the revocation or the r evocation sentence, he has abandoned any challenge to them. See Yohey v. Collins , 985 F.2d 222, 224 - 25 (5th Cir. 1993). C ruz - Ramirez has filed an unopposed motion for summary disposition and a letter brief correctly conceding that the only issue he raises is foreclosed by Almendarez - Torres v. United States , 523 U.S. 224 (1998). See United States v. Pervis , 937 F.3d 546, 553 - 54 (5th Cir . 2019). He explains that he has raised the issue to preserve it for possible further review. Accordingly, because summary disposition is appropriate, see Groendyke Transp., Inc. v. Davis , 406 F.2d 1158, 1162 (5th Cir. 1969), C ruz - Ramirez ’s motion is **GRA NTED**  , and the district court’s judgments are **AFFIRMED** . Case: 23-50339 Document: 00517021494 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/04/2024
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              SEP-30-1998  
<PERIOD-END>                                   SEP-30-1998  
<CASH>                                                 834  
<SECURITIES>                                             0  
<RECEIVABLES>                                       10,999  
<ALLOWANCES>                                           248  
<INVENTORY>                                          8,090  
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                    20,513  
<PP&E>                                               3,080  
<DEPRECIATION>                                       1,322  
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                      22,583  
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                9,496  
<BONDS>                                                  0  
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                    0  
<PREFERRED>                                              0  
<COMMON>                                                56  
<OTHER-SE>                                          13,031  
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                        22,583  
<SALES>                                             39,388  
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                    39,388  
<CGS>                                               23,013  
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                       33,996  
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                         0  
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                       123  
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                     102  
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      5,500  
<INCOME-TAX>                                         2,144  
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  3,356  
<DISCONTINUED>                                           0  
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                          0  
<CHANGES>                                                0  
<NET-INCOME>                                         3,356  
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                          .61  
<EPS-DILUTED>                                          .56  
                                               


</TABLE>
Exhibit 32.2



CERTIFICATION PURUSANT TO 18 U.S.C. 1350

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the Quarterly Report of MicroChannel Technologies Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ending November 30, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on January 7, 2010 (the Report), I, David Gamache, Chief Financial Officer 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 results of operations of the Company.





****

|Date:  January 7, 2010 | /s/ David GamacheDavid Gamache
Chief Financial Officer
|---------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------





---
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 10**  **- 7356** 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,
v. JOHN HENRY STACKS, JR. , Defendant

- Appellant
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the West ern District of North Carolina , at Charlotte
. Martin K. Reidinger , District Judge. ( 3:01

- cr - 00135

- MR

- 1; 3:07

- cv - 00164

- MR )

Submitted : January 13, 2011 Decided: January 20, 2011

Before MOTZ, KING, and WYNN , Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by un publish ed per curiam opinion
. John Henry Stacks, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Amy Elizabeth Ray, Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: John Henry St acks, Jr., seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. A. § 2255 ( West Supp. 2010 ) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (200 6 ). 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) (200 6 ). 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 denie s relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack , 529 U.S. at 484

- 85. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Stacks has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials3 before the court and argument would not aid the decisional
process. DISMISSED
Exhibit 10.53


CORPORATE
PROMISSORY NOTE




$30,000
              San
      Diego, California
              November
      30, 2009




For
value received, receipt of which is acknowledged, DotVN, Inc., a Delaware
corporation, (“Maker”) promises to pay to Thomas Johnson, San Diego, California,
(“Payee”), or order, at such place as Payee may designate, the sum of THIRTY
THOUSAND DOLLARS AND NO CENTS ($30,000.00), plus interest at the rate of ten
percent (10%) per annum, on February 28, 2010 (the “Due Date”).




If action
be instituted on this note, Maker promises to pay such sum as the Court may fix
as attorneys fees.




This note
will inure to the benefit of and be binding upon the respective heirs,
executors, administrators, successors and assigns of the Maker and
Payee.




IN
WITNESS THERETO, Maker has affixed its signature by a duly authorized officer
under the seal of this corporation.




DOT
      VN, INC./s/
            Lee JohnsonBy:
            Lee
      JohnsonIts:
            President





CORPORATE
PROMISSORY NOTE
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<RESTATED>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-29-1997
<PERIOD-START>                              JUL-1-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-29-1997
<CASH>                                             404
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   29,937
<ALLOWANCES>                                       250
<INVENTORY>                                     14,879
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                55,975
<PP&E>                                          69,123
<DEPRECIATION>                                  29,615
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  95,669
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           23,576
<BONDS>                                          5,037
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            58
<OTHER-SE>                                      56,035
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    95,669
<SALES>                                        159,054
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               159,054
<CGS>                                          125,735
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  125,735
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 214
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 15,550
<INCOME-TAX>                                     5,730
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              9,820
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     9,820
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.72
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.70
        

</TABLE>
#### Arthur Mbanefo, Appellant, v Jennifer Warren Mbanefo, Respondent.

[874 NYS2d 809]

— In an action for a divorce and ancillary relief, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by his brief, from stated portions of an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Tolbert, J.), entered February 21, 2007, which, inter alia, granted those branches of the defendant’s motion which were for pendente lite maintenance and an award of an interim attorney’s fee.

*649Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

“ ‘Pendente lite awards should reflect an accommodation between the reasonable needs of the moving spouse and the financial ability of the other spouse with due regard for the parties’ preseparation standard of living’ ” *(Bogannam v Bogannam,*20 AD3d 442, 442 [2005], quoting *Campanaro v Campanaro,*292 AD2d 330, 330 [2002]; *see*Domestic Relations Law § 236 [B] [6]; *Campion v Campion,*264 AD2d 705 [1999]; *Ash v Ash,*262 AD2d 436 [1999]; *Landau v Landau,*258 AD2d 508 [1999]).

Under the circumstances, the Supreme Court properly directed the plaintiff to pay the defendant monthly maintenance pendente lite as provided by the parties’ previous agreement *(see McLeod v McLeod,*50 AD3d 979 [2008]; *Bogannam v Bogannam,*20 AD3d 442 [2005]).

In light of the parties’ disparate economic circumstances and the submission of proof on the issue, the award of an attorney’s fee was a provident exercise of discretion *(see Prichep v Prichep,*52 AD3d 61 [2008]; *McGarrity v McGarrity,*49 AD3d 824, 826 [2008]; *Stubbs v Stubbs,*41 AD3d 832 [2007]; *Bogannam v Bogannam,*20 AD3d 442 [2005]).

The plaintiff’s remaining contentions are without merit. Fisher, J.P., Florio, Dickerson and Belen, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 32.1 CERTIFICATION   PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002   I, Ronald A. Davis, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of Bella Viaggio, Inc. (the "Company") certify that:  1. I have reviewed the quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Bella Viaggio, Inc.;  2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly 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 quarterly report; and  3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this quarterly report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the Company as of, and for, the period presented in this quarterly report.   Date: August 14, 2009   /s/ Ronald A. Davis Ronald A. Davis, Chief Executive Officer Chief Financial Officer
#### In the Matter of Arnold Kahn, Individually and as President of Park Lane Condominium, Appellant, v Planning Board of City of Buffalo et al., Respondents.

[875 NYS2d 421] —

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Erie County (Kevin M. Dillon, J), entered February 21, 2008 in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78. The judgment dismissed the petition.

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: Petitioner commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding seeking, inter alia, to annul the determination approving the site plan for the construction of a residential tower by respondent Uniland Development Company. The record establishes that petitioner did not argue to respondent Planning Board of City of Buffalo that it violated article 8 of the Environmental Conservation Law in failing to refer the project to the City of Buffalo Environmental Management Commission, as required by the Code of the City of Buffalo. Thus, that contention was not properly before Supreme Court, nor is it *1452properly before us. “[I]n a CPLR article 78 proceeding, the [c]ourt’s review is limited to the arguments and record adduced before the agency” *(Matter of Kaufman v Incorporated Vil. of Kings Point, 52*AD3d 604, 607 [2008]; *see also Matter of O’Donnell v Town of Schoharie,*291 AD2d 739, 741-742 [2002]; *Matter of Forjone v Bove,*280 AD2d 948 [2001]).

We reject petitioner’s remaining contentions and otherwise affirm for reasons stated in the decision at Supreme Court. Present—Scudder, P.J., Hurlbutt, Eeradotto, Green and Gorski, JJ.
No. 96.

#### Goldberg-Rudkowsky *v.*Equitable Life Assurance Society.

October 14, 1935.

*Mr. Borris M. Komar*for petitioner.

*Messrs. John W. Davis*and *Wm. C. Cannon*for respondent.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals of New York denied.