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

            COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 1406/2004

of 2 August 2004         

setting the exchange rate applicable to certain direct aid with an operative event on 1 July 2004         

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 2799/98 of 15 December 1998 establishing agrimonetary arrangements for the euro (1),

Having regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 2808/98 of 22 December 1998 laying down detailed rules for the application of the agrimonetary system for the euro in agriculture (2), and in particular the second sentence of Article 4(3) thereof,

Whereas:

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

The exchange rates given in the Annex shall apply to the following amounts whose operative event is 1 July 2004:

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 2 August 2004.

For the Commission

Franz FISCHLER            

Member of the Commission

----

(1)OJ L 349, 24.12.1998, p. 1.

(2)OJ L 349, 24.12.1998, p. 36. Regulation as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 1250/2004 (OJ L 237, 8.7.2004, p. 13).

(3)OJ L 160, 26.6.1999, p. 1. Regulation as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 (OJ L 270, 21.10.2003, p. 1).

(4)OJ L 206, 16.8.1996, p. 4. Regulation as last amended by the 2003 Act of Accession.

(5)OJ L 270, 21.10.2003, p. 1. Regulation as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 864/2004 (OJ L 161, 30.4.2004, p. 48).

(6)OJ L 163, 6.7.1993, p. 22. Regulation as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 1410/1999 (OJ L 164, 30.6.1999, p. 53).

(7)OJ L 175, 4.8.1971, p. 1. Regulation as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 2320/2003 (OJ L 345, 31.12.2003, p. 18).

----

ANNEX

Exchange rates referred to in Article 1

1 euro = (average 1.6.2004 to 30.6.2004)

----
EXHIBIT 31.1

                                  CERTIFICATION

I, Peter Wardle, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-KSB of Protosource Corporation;

2. Based on my knowledge, this annual 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 annual
report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this annual report, fairly present in all material
respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the
registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this annual report;

4. The registrant's other certifying officers and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and have:

     a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that material
     information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated
     subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities,
     particularly during the period in which this annual report is being
     prepared;

     b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and
     procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of this
     annual report (the "Evaluation Date"); and

     c) presented in this annual report our conclusions about the effectiveness
     of the disclosure controls and procedures based on our evaluation as of the
     Evaluation Date;

5. The registrant's other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our
most recent evaluation, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of
registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent
functions):

     a) all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal
     controls which could adversely affect the registrant's ability to record,
     process, summarize and report financial data and have identified for the
     registrant's auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; and

     b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
     employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal
     controls; and

6. The registrant's other certifying officers and I have indicated in this
annual report whether or not there were significant changes in internal controls
or in other factors that could significantly affect internal controls subsequent
to the date of our most recent evaluation, including any corrective actions with
regard to significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.

April 30, 2004

/s/ PETER WARDLE
----------------
Peter Wardle
Chief Executive Officer
Exhibit








EXHIBIT 10.2







May 9, 2016


Mr. Ronald J. Foster
1400 Kerry Lane
Edmond, Oklahoma 73034


Re:    Amendment to Employment Agreement (the “Employment Agreement”) dated as of August 4, 2014, between CSI Compressco GP Inc. (the “Company”) and Ronald J. Foster 


Dear Ron:


In order to address the challenges that the Company continues to face with the downturn in the oil and gas market, we are implementing workweek schedule and wage reductions. 


Please sign below to confirm your consent and agreement that your current Base Salary set forth in Section 3.1 of the Employment Agreement will be reduced by 10% from $325,000 to $295,000 (on an annual basis) effective May 14, 2016. You also understand that your incentive compensation under the CICP (as defined in the Employment Agreement) for 2016 will be based on your Base Salary in effect on December 31, 2016. You further acknowledge and agree that this salary reduction does not constitute “Good Reason” for termination as defined in Section 4.4 of the Employment Agreement.


In this very difficult market, we appreciate your continued commitment and hard work. 
Sincerely, 


/s/Bass C. Wallace, Jr.            
Bass C. Wallace, Jr., General Counsel


Agreed to and acknowledged 
on May 9, 2016 by:


/s/Ronald J. Foster                
Ronald J. Foster




CSI Compressco LP    P.O. Box 60760, Midland, TX 79711.
1-432-563-1170    www.csicompressco.com
Page 1 

Commodity Futures Trading Commission 

CEA CASES 

NAME: CARGILL, INCORPORATED, ERWIN E. KELM, H. ROBERT DIERCKS, WALTER B. 

SAUNDERS, AND BENJAMIN S. JAFFRAY 

DOCKET NUMBER: 120 

DOCUMENT TYPE: ISSUANCE OF COMPLAINT 

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Commodity Exchange Authority 

Washington 25, D. C. 

ISSUANCE OF COMPLAINT - CEA DOCKET NO. 120 

(Administrative Hearing under the Commodity Exchange Act) 

A complaint and notice of hearing has been signed by the Assistant Secretary 

of Agriculture, charging violation of the Commodity Exchange Act by: 

Cargill, Incorporated 

Erwin E. Kelm 

H. Robert Diercks 

Walter B. Saunders 

(Minneapolis, Minnesota) 

Benjamin S. Jaffray 

(Chicago, Illinois) 

The complaint charges attempted manipulation and manipulation of the price of 

the May 1963 wheat future on the Chicago Board of Trade on May 21, 1963, and of 

the price of Red Winter wheat in interstate commerce on May 20 and 21, 1963. It 

alleges that the respondents demanded and received prices for the May 1963 

future which were arbitrary and artificial and that as a result of the 

operations of the respondent corporation cash wheat in Chicago sold at 

artificial prices. 

The issuance of a complaint under the Commodity Exchange Act does not 

constitute proof of violation of the law. Such violation is established only 

when the Judicial Officer of the Department has made a determination that the 

evidence substantiates allegations in the complaint. Complaints are filed in 

the Office of the Hearing Clerk of the Department of Agriculture and are a 

matter of public record. Pending disposition by the Judicial Officer, it is the 

policy of the Commodity Exchange Authority not to comment or elaborate on 

charges contained in complaints or to discuss evidence on which they are based. 

A public hearing on the complaint is scheduled to be held before a referee at 

10:00 a.m., local time, August 19, 1964, in Minneapolis, Minnesota. 

LOAD-DATE: June 12, 2008 
Page 2
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Stephen J. Markman, Chief Justice

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano 

Richard H. Bernstein

Joan L. Larsen

Kurtis T. Wilder,

Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 July 26, 2017

Order 

Clerk

July 26, 2017

155715(44)

MELISSA A. REICHENBACH,

Plaintiff-Appellee/Cross-Appellant, SC: 155715

v COA: 326355

Clinton CC: 13-024577-DM

JAMES W. REICHENBACH,

Defendant-Appellant/Cross- Appellee.

___________________________________________/

On order of the Chief Justice, the motion of plaintiff-appellee/cross-appellant to 

extend the time for filing her reply on cross appeal is GRANTED. The reply will be 

accepted as timely filed if submitted on or before August 8, 2017.
NUMBER 13-08-00565-CV

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

____________________________________________________________

IN THE INTEREST OF I.J.S., A CHILD 

____________________________________________________________

On appeal from the 94th District Court of Nueces County, Texas.

____________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Yañez and Benavides

Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam

Appellant, Jessica Schulz, perfected an appeal from a judgment entered by the 94th

District Court of Nueces County, Texas, in cause number 06-1380-C. Appellant has filed

a notice of nonsuit stating that she no longer desires to prosecute this appeal and that the

parties have entered into a settlement agreement. This Court interprets the notice of

nonsuit as a request to dismiss the appeal.

The Court, having considered the documents on file and appellant’s motion to

dismiss the appeal, is of the opinion that the motion should be granted. See TEX. R. APP.
2

P. 42.1(a). Appellant’s motion to dismiss is granted, and the appeal is hereby DISMISSED.

Having dismissed the appeal at appellant's request, no motion for rehearing will be

entertained, and our mandate will issue forthwith.

PER CURIAM

Memorandum Opinion delivered and

filed this the 12th day of February, 2009.
EXHIBIT 32.1  CERTIFICATIONS PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 (18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)   In connection with the Quarterly Report of Portlogic Systems Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending November 30, 2013 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), each of the undersigned officers 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:   i. The Report fully complies with the requirements of 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and  ii. The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and Result of operations of the company.   IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned have executed this certification as of the 14th day of January, 2014.   /s/  Joseph Putegnat ------------------------------------- By:  Joseph Putegnat Principal Executive Officer    /s/  Jueane Thiessen ------------------------------------- By:  Jueane Thiessen Principal Accounting Officer, and Treasurer
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Tatyana Kisina, Appellant.

[875 NYS2d 124]

— Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Cooperman, J.), rendered October 25, 2007, convicting her of insurance fraud in the third degree (two counts) and falsifying business records in the first degree (two counts), upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

*696Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

We have considered the defendant’s challenge to the legal sufficiency of the counts charging her with falsifying business records in the first degree, and we find it to be without merit.

In fulfilling our responsibility to conduct an independent review of the weight of the evidence *(see People v*Danielson, 9 NY3d 342 [2007]; CPL 470.15 [5]), we nevertheless accord great deference to the jury’s opportunity to view the witnesses, hear the testimony, and observe demeanor *(see People v Mateo, 2*NY3d 383 [2004], *cert denied*542 US 946 [2004]). Upon review of the record here, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence *(see People v Romero,*7 NY3d 633 [2006]).

The defendant’s contention that evidence relating to counts of which she was acquitted had a prejudicial spillover effect with respect to counts of which she was convicted is without merit *(see People v Doshi,*93 NY2d 499, 504-506 [1999]; *People v Baghai-Kermani,*84 NY2d 525, 532-533 [1994]; *People v Moore,*29 AD3d 825, 826 [2006]).

The defendant’s remaining contention is without merit. Mastro, J.P., Rivera, Fisher and Eng, JJ., concur.
**EXHIBIT 99.7**

|   | **KPMG LLP**                       | Telephone | (604) 691-3000   |
|--------|------------------------------------|-----------|------------------|
|   | **Chartered   Accountants**        | Fax       | (604)   691-3031 |
|   | PO Box 10426 777 Dunsmuir   Street | Internet  | www.kpmg.ca      |
|   | Vancouver BC V7Y 1K3               |      |             |
|   | Canada                             |      |             |

** **

**COMMENTS BY AUDITOR FOR U.S. READERS ON CANADA -U.S. REPORTING DIFFERENCE**

In the United States, reporting standards for auditors require the addition of an explanatory paragraph (following the opinion paragraph) when there is a change in accounting principles that has a material effect on the comparability of the company’s financial statements, such as the changes described in notes 1(r) and 1(s) to the financial statements. Our report to the shareholders dated February 7, 2006, included herein, is expressed in accordance with Canadian reporting standards which do not require a reference to such a change in accounting principles in the auditors’ report when the change is properly accounted for and adequately disclosed in the financial statements.

Chartered Accountants Vancouver, Canada February 7, 2006

 

 

 

 

KPMG LLP a Canadian limited liability partnership is the Canadian member firm of KPMG International, a Swiss cooperative.
Page 1 

Commodity Futures Trading Commission 

CEA CASES 

NAME: G. H. MILLER AND COMPANY; GILBERT H. MILLER; HOWARD RANDOLPH, D/B/A 

RANDOLPH AND COMPANY; REFRIGERATED PRODUCTS, INC.; J.W. HARDING; CENTRAL IOWA 

POULTRY AND EGG COMPANY; JOHN H. SNOWGREN; ALLEN HEADLEE, D/B/A HEADLEE PRODUCE 

COMPANY; E.E. HUMMEL AND K. HUMMEL, D/B/A HUMMEL PRODUCE COMPANY; ALBERT SCHIRM, 

D/B/A SCHIRM PRODUCE COMPANY; LEO HAGEN; A.L. MYRICK, D/B/A MARKET PRODUCE 

COMPANY; LEWIS R. VAN SANT AND ROY ROUNTREE, D/B/A DATED EGG COMPANY 

DOCKET NUMBER: 60 

DATE: SEPTEMBER 8, 1953 

DOCUMENT TYPE: ISSUANCE OF COMPLAINT 

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Commodity Exchange, Authority 

Washington 25, D. C. 

September 8, 1953 

ISSUANCE OF COMPLAINT - CE-A DOCKET NO. 60 

(Administrative Hearing under the Commodity Exchange Act) 

A complaint and notice of hearing was signed by the 

Assistant Secretary of Agriculture on September 1, 1953, charging 

G. H. Miller and Company, et al. 

with violation of the Commodity Exchange Act. 

Complaints are issued under the Commodity Exchange Act for the purpose of 

notifying respondents that the Secretary of Agriculture has reason to believe 

that respondents have violated the Act and to advise them of the time and place 

of hearings to be held to determine whether the charges are correct. The 

issuance of a complaint does not, of course, constitute proof of violation of 

the law. Such violation is established only when the Judicial Officer of the 

Department has made a determination that the evidence substantiates allegations 

in the complaint. 

Complaints are filed in the office of the hearing clerk of the Solicitor of 

the Department of Agriculture and are thereupon a matter of public record. 

Copies are filed in the Washington office and the field offices of the Commodity 

Exchange Authority. 

In cases where the Judicial Officer determines that a violation has occurred 

the resulting order will be served upon all contract markets and circularized 

among all registered futures commission merchants for their information and 

guidance. Pending disposition by the Judicial Officer it is the policy of the 

Commodity Exchange Authority not to comment or elaborate upon the charges 

contained in the complaints or discuss the evidence upon which they are based. 

LOAD-DATE: June 12, 2008 
Page 2
Page 1 

Commodity Futures Trading Commission 

CEA CASES 

NAME: RODGER HARRIS 

DOCKET NUMBER: 170 

DATE: DECEMBER 16, 1970 

DOCUMENT TYPE: SUMMARY OF CASE 

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Stults DU 8-6077 

McDavid DU 8-4026 

Washington, Dec. 16, 1970 

Sanctions Imposed for Violations of the Commodity Exchange Act: 

The U. S. Department of Agriculture today announced issuance of an order 

imposing sanctions on Rodger Harris of Chicago, Illinois for violations of the 

Commodity Exchange Act. The order prohibits the respondent from trading on 

regulated commodity exchanges for a period of 60 days beginning Jan. 14, 1971. 

A complaint issued Mar. 12, 1970, charged that on Apr. 23 and 25, 1968, Mr. 

Harris cheated and defrauded a customer by placing potato future transactions in 

the customer's account without the customer's knowledge or consent. 

Mr. Harris did not file an answer to the complaint and did not request a 

hearing. Such failure to answer constituted an admission of the allegations 

contained in the complaint and a waiver of hearing, USDA's officials said. 

The order which was issued by USDA's Judicial Officer, Thomas J. Flavin on 

Dec. 15, 1970, adopts the recommendations of USDA's referee, John G. Liebert. 

LOAD-DATE: June 16, 2008 
Page 2
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Corey Miquel HINTON, Jr., Defendant-Appellant.

No. 10-10333

Non-Argument Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.

Oct. 12, 2010.

A. Brian Albritton, U.S. Attorney’s Office, David Paul Rhodes, United States Attorney’s Office, Tampa, FL, Vincent A. Citro, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Orlando, FL, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Thomas H. Dale, Dale Law Firm, P.A., Orlando, FL, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before CARNES, MARCUS and HILL, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Thomas Dale, appointed counsel for Corey Hinton, Jr., has moved to withdraw from further representation of the appellant and filed a brief pursuant to *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 *554L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Our independent review of the entire record reveals that counsel’s assessment of the relative merit of the appeal is correct. Because independent examination of the entire record reveals no arguable issues of merit, counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED, and Hinton’s conviction and sentence are AFFIRMED.
No. 76-5458.

#### Rodriguez *v.*United States.

C. A. 1st Cir. Certiorari denied.
Page 1 

Commodity Futures Trading Commission 

CEA CASES 

NAME: GOFFE & CARKENER, INC. A. VINCENT BLACKFORD, AND DWIGHT H. WILLIAMS 

DOCKET NUMBER: 188 

DOCUMENT TYPE: ISSUANCE OF COMPLAINT 

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Commodity Exchange Authority 

Washington, D. C. 20250 

ISSUANCE OF COMPLAINT - CEA DOCKET NO. 188 

(Administrative Hearing Under the Commodity Exchange Act) 

A complaint and notice of hearing has been signed by the Under Secretary of 

Agriculture charging violation of the Commodity Exchange Act by: 

Goffe & Carkener, Inc. 

A. Vincent Blackford, 

and Dwight H. Williams 

(Kansas City, Missouri) 

The complaint charges that on July 12, 1971, the respondent corporation, 

while registered as a futures commission merchant under the Act, mishandled 

securities which had been received from customers to margin and secure commodity 

accounts. It further charges that false statements were made on a financial 

report submitted to the Commodity Exchange Authority as of July 1, 1971. 

The issuance of a complaint under the Commodity Exchange Act does not 

constitute proof of violation of the law. Such violation is established only 

when the Judicial Officer of the Department has made a determination that the 

evidence substantiates allegations in the complaint. Complaints are filed in 

the Office of the Hearing Clerk of the Department of Agriculture and are a 

matter of public record. Pending disposition by the Judicial Officer, it is the 

policy of the Commodity Exchange Authority not to comment or elaborate on 

charges contained in complaints or to discuss evidence on which they are based. 

A public hearing on the complaint is scheduled to be held before a referee at 

10:00 a.m., local time, on February 16, 1972, in Kansas City, Missouri. 

LOAD-DATE: June 16, 2008 
Page 2