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

From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Henry Foley <hfoley 1031 @aol.com>

Sunday, December 5, 2010 7:54 PM

dfadefinitions <dfadefinitions@CFTC.gov>

Re: No loopholes in Dodd-Frank

1) Securities and Exchange Commission/Commodities Futures Trading Commission, Re: Commercial Risk (CFTC RIN

3235-AK65, SEC File Number $7-12-10)

Dear Commissioners Shapiro and Gensler: Don’t let the American Bankers Association (ABA) redefine important terms like

"commercial risk" to keep banks that engage in risky derivatives trading from complying with transparency and business

conduct requirements. Commercial risk should not be expanded to include financial risk. Accepting the ABA argument

would open the door for exemptions for risky hedge funds and insurance companies.

2) Commodities Futures Trading Commission, Re: Position Limits (RIN 3038-AD 17 )

Dear Commissioner Gensler: The CFTC needs to set strong position limits to crack down on the energy and food commodity

speculation that serves no productive purpose. I urge the Commission to define limits that will address not only manipulation,

but also excessive speculation, which will require a stricter approach.

3) U.S. Department of the Treasury, Re: FX Swaps (75 FR 66426 Document Number 2010-27274)

Dear Secretary Geithner: Just say "no" to foreign exchange traders who want to exempt foreign currency derivatives from the

clearing and transparency requirements of the

Dodd-Frank Act. $4 trillion dollars a day is traded in these highly-leveraged swaps and this number may increase to over $10

trillion in a decade. As the head of the Financial

Stability Oversight Board your job is to decrease risk in the system, not encourage off-book trading and opaque markets.

Henry Foley

12349 Oliva Road

San Diego, CA 92128
Exhibit 10.24


 


SUPPORT AGREEMENT AMENDMENT


 


THIS AMENDMENT AGREEMENT is made as of the 28th day of May, 2018,


 


B E T W E E N:


 


BROOKFIELD ASSET MANAGEMENT INC., a corporation incorporated under the laws of the Province of Ontario


 


(“Brookfield”)


 


- and -


 


TERRAFORM POWER, INC., a corporation incorporated under the laws of the State of Delaware


 


(“TerraForm”)


 


RECITALS:


 


Brookfield and TerraForm entered into a Support Agreement dated February 6, 2018 (the “Support Agreement”).


 


The parties wish to amend the Support Agreement to reflect an increase in the maximum amount of the back-stop.


 


NOW THEREFORE in consideration of the mutual covenants contained in this Amendment Agreement and other good and valuable consideration (the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged), the parties hereto agree as follows:


 



	
1.

	
Amendment







 


The Support Agreement is hereby amended by increasing the amount of the “Equity Offering” (as defined in the recitals to the Support Agreement) from “up to approximately $400 million” to “up to $650 million”.


 


Except as amended hereby, the terms of the Support Agreement remain in full force and effect.  TerraForm acknowledges and agrees that the Conflicts Committee of the TerraForm Board of Directors has agreed to and approved this Amendment Agreement.


 



	
2.

	
Further Assurances







 


Each of the parties hereto shall promptly do, make, execute or deliver, or cause to be done, made, executed or delivered, all such further acts, documents and things as the other party hereto may reasonably require from time to time for the purpose of giving effect to this Amendment Agreement and shall use its best efforts and take all such steps as may be reasonably within its power to implement to their full extent the provisions of this Amendment Agreement.









- 2 -






	
3.

	
Governing Law







 


This Amendment Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of New York.


 



	
4.

	
Counterparts







 


This Amendment Agreement may be executed in one or more counterparts, and by different parties hereto on separate counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original, but all of which together shall constitute one and the same instrument.  Execution and delivery of this Amendment Agreement may be made and evidenced by facsimile transmission or other means of electronic communication.


 


[REMAINDER OF PAGE LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK]









- 3 -




IN WITNESS WHEREOF the parties hereto have executed this Amendment Agreement as of the date first written above.


 


	 	
BROOKFIELD ASSET MANAGEMENT INC.


	 	 
	 	
by:

	/s/ Sachin Shah
	 	 	
Name:

	
Sachin Shah


	 	 	
Title:

	
Senior Managing Partner





 


	 	
TERRAFORM POWER, INC.


	 	 
	 	
by:

	/s/ Andrea Rocheleau
	 	 	
Name:

	
Andrea Rocheleau


	 	 	
Title:

	
General Counsel and Secretary
**Exhibit 15(a).3**

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

We consent to the incorporation by reference in theRegistration Statements (Form S-8 No. 333-12958, No. 333-11288, No. 333-118619 and No. 333-123666; and Form F-3 No. 333-145834) of CDC Corporation (formerly chinadotcom corporation) of our report dated June 20, 2006 with respect to the consolidatedfinancial statements of CDC Corporation included in the Annual Report (Form 20-F) of CDC Corporation for the year ended December 31, 2007. 

/s/ Ernst &Young 

Hong Kong 

June 30, 2008
# C_2011063EN.01001501.xml

| 26.2.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 63/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.2.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 63/15

---

Order of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 27 October 2010 — REWE-Zentral AG v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Aldi Einkauf GmbH & Co. OHG

(Case C-22/10 P) (1)

1

(Appeal - Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the Community word mark Clina - Earlier Community word mark CLINAIR - Refusal of registration - Relative ground for refusal - Examination of the likelihood of confusion - Regulation (EC) No 40/94 - Article 8(1)(b))

2011/C 63/27

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Appellant: REWE-Zentral AG (represented by: M. Kinkeldey and A. Bognár, Rechtsanwälte)

Appellant:

Other parties to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: R. Pethke, acting as Agent), Aldi Einkauf GmbH & Co. OHG (represented by: N. Lützenrath, Rechtsanwalt)

Other parties to the proceedings:

Re:

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Sixth Chamber) of 11 November 2009 in Case T-150/08 REWE-Zentral v OHIM, by which the Court dismissed the action for annulment brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 15 February 2008 refusing the registration of the word sign ‘Clina’ as a Community trade mark for certain goods in Classes 3 and 21 by upholding the opposition brought by the proprietor of the earlier Community word mark ‘CLINAIR’ — Likelihood of confusion between two marks — Failure to carry out a global assessment of the relevant factors in examining the likelihood of confusion — Breach of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94

REWE-Zentral

OHIM

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The appeal is dismissed. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The appeal is dismissed.

| 2. | REWE-Zentral AG is ordered to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

REWE-Zentral AG is ordered to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 80, 27.03.2010.

1

---
# C_2011340EN.01000302.xml

| 19.11.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 340/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.11.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 340/3

---

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 29 September 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State — Netherlands) — Baris Unal v Staatssecretaris van Justitie

(Case C-187/10) (1)

1

(EEC-Turkey Association Agreement - Decision No 1/80 of the Association Council - Article 6(1), first indent - Turkish national - Residence permit - Family reunification - Separation of the partners - Withdrawal of the residence permit - Retroactive effect)

2011/C 340/05

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Referring court

Raad van State

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Baris Unal

Applicant:

Defendant: Staatssecretaris van Justitie

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Raad van State — Interpretation of the first indent of Article 6(1) of Decision No 1/80 of 19 September 1980 on the development of the Association, adopted by the Association Council set up by the Agreement establishing an Association between the European Economic Community and Turkey — Right of residence of Turkish nationals — Residence permit granted to a Turkish national to allow him to live with his partner — Separation of the partners not notified to the competent authorities — Withdrawal of the residence permit

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The first indent of Article 6(1) of Decision No 1/80 of 19 September 1980 on the development of the Association, adopted by the Association Council set up by the Agreement establishing an Association between the European Economic Community and Turkey, must be interpreted as precluding the competent national authorities from withdrawing the residence permit of a Turkish worker with retroactive effect from the point in time at which there was no longer compliance with the ground on the basis of which his residence permit had been issued under national law if there is no question of fraudulent conduct on the part of that worker and that withdrawal occurs after the expiry of the one-year period of legal employment provided for in the first indent of Article 6(1) of Decision No 1/80.

---

(1)  OJ C 195, 17.7.2010.

1

---
# C_2009220EN.01002101.xml

| 12.9.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 220/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.9.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 220/21

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Berlin (Germany) lodged on 1 July 2009 — SEYDALAND Vereinigte Agrarbetriebe GmbH & Co. v BVVG Bodenverwertungs- und –verwaltungs GmbH.

(Case C-239/09)

2009/C 220/40

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Referring court

Landgericht Berlin

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: SEYDALAND Vereinigte Agrarbetriebe GmbH & Co

Applicant:

Defendant: BVVG Bodenverwertungs- und –verwaltungs GmbH

Defendant:

Question referred

Question referred

Does Paragraph 5(1) points 2 and 3 of the FlächenerwerbsVO (Land Purchase Order), which was passed in application of Paragraph 4(3) point 1 of the AusglLeistG (Compensation Act) — ‘Where there are regional valuations of arable and pasture land, the value should be determined according to them. The regional valuations are published by the Bundesminister der Finanzen (Federal Finance Minister) in the Bundesanzeiger (Federal Gazette)’ — infringe Article 87 EC Treaty?

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0000851726
<NAME> AZCO MINING INC.
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                      23,203,866
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  239,769
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            23,443,635
<PP&E>                                       5,508,915
<DEPRECIATION>                               (136,555)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              28,815,995
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           19,392
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                    25,638,575
<OTHER-SE>                                   3,158,028
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                28,815,995
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               387,009
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             1,581,908
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (1,194,899)
<INCOME-TAX>                                  (16,600)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (1,178,299)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (1,178,299)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (.046)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (.046)
        

</TABLE>
Exhibit 10.1


 


(English
Translation)


 


SUPPLEMENTAL
AGREEMENT


 


THIS
SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT, dated as of June 5, 2018, is made by and between Yangtze River Port and Logistics Limited (“Party
A” and formerly known as Yangtze River Development Limited) and Fujian Yuesheng Industrial Development Limited (“Party
B” and “Fujian Yuesheng”) in Wuhan City, China:


 


WHEREAS,
on December 26, 2017, Party A and the eight shareholders, including Party B, of Wuhan Economic Development Port Co., Limited (incorporated
in China, hereinafter “Party B Target Company”) signed an Agreement in respect of Party A’s proposed acquisition
of Party B Target Company as well as Party B’s proposed acquisition of the equity in Energetic Mind Limited (incorporated
in the British Virgin Islands and held by Party A) (hereinafter the “Agreement”),


 


AND,
Party A and Party B signed Supplemental Agreements on March 31, 2018 and May 2, 2018 respectively (hereinafter the “Supplemental
Agreements”)


 


NOW,
THEREFORE, Party A and Party B agree to extend both the Agreement and the Supplemental Agreements to July 31, 2018.


 


THIS
SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT is in duplicate whereas Party A and Party B each hold one. It shall take effect upon signing and affixing
company seal by both parties and the Guarantor, and shall have the same legal effect as the Agreement dated December 26, 2017
and the Supplemental Agreements of March 31, 2018 and May 2, 2018.


 


Party
A


Yangtze
River Port and Logistics Limited


Signed
by CEO:


 


Party
B: 


Fujian
Yuesheng Industrial Development Limited (with seal)


Signed
by Legal Representative:


 


Guarantor
of Party B:


Signed
by Mr. Wang Kaiwei:


 


SUPPLEMENTAL
AGREEMENT – Acquisition of Wuhan Economic Development Port Limited 2018.6.5
Donald R. MIDDLEBROOKS, petitioner, v. Tony MAYS, Acting Warden.

No. 17-5592.

Supreme Court of the United States

Feb. 20, 2018.

Petition for rehearing denied.
**Exhibit 31.1**

 

**INFINEX VENTURES, INC.**

**OFFICER’S CERTIFICATE PURSUANT TO SECTION 302**

 

I, **Michael De Rosa**, certify that:

 

1. I have reviewed this Form 10-KSB of Infinex Ventures, Inc.

 

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

 

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

 

4. The small business issuer’s other certifying officer and I am responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the small business issuer and have:

 

a)          Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the small business issuer, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;

 

b)          Evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuer’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

 

c)          Disclosed in this report any change in the small business issuer’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the small business issuer’s most recent fiscal quarter (the small business issuer’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the small business issuer’s internal control over financial reporting.

 

5. The small business issuer’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation, to the small business issuer’s auditors and the audit committee of small business issuer’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function):

 

a)          All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the small business issuer’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

 

b)          Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the small business issuer’s internal control over financial reporting. 

 
| Date:  February 27, 2006.  |
|--------------------------------------|

 
| /s/ Michael De Rosa |
|---------------------|

Michael De Rosa, Chief Executive Officer

Michael De Rosa, Chief Financial Officer
R.K.B., et al., petitioners, v. E.T.

No. 17-942.

Supreme Court of the United States

March 26, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Utah denied.
1

The Honorable Garnett Thomas Eisele, United States District Judge for the

Eastern District of Arkansas.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 04-2893

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the Eastern

* District of Arkansas.

Ollie Brown, Jr., *

* [UNPUBLISHED] 

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: February 14, 2005

Filed: May 9, 2005

___________

Before MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, BOWMAN, and GRUENDER, Circuit

Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Ollie Brown, Jr., appeals the revocation by the district court1

of his term of

supervised release and the sentence of ten months' imprisonment that the court

imposed upon him for violating the conditions of his release. We affirm.

Mr. Brown challenges the district court's order only on constitutional grounds,

arguing that the logic of Blakely v. Washington, 124 S. Ct. 2531 (2004), renders
-2-

unconstitutional the United States Sentencing Guidelines, including its provisions

regarding supervised release. Mr. Brown presses this argument under the assumption

that the "guidelines created supervised release." But that assumption is incorrect.

Supervised release finds its genesis in statute, not in the guidelines. See 18 U.S.C.

§ 3583.

After the appellant filed his brief, the Supreme Court indeed held the

Sentencing Reform Act unconstitutional, but it did not discard the guidelines

wholesale. See United States v. Booker, 125 S. Ct. 738, 758, 764-65 (2005). Instead,

as we noted in United States v. Coleman, the Court "excised from the Sentencing

Reform Act only those provisions that made application of the sentencing guidelines

mandatory and thus were contrary to the sixth amendment. Among the remaining

provisions of the Sentencing Reform Act that the Court recognized as constitutionally

valid was the supervised release statute, 18 U.S.C. § 3583." Coleman, No. 04-3377,

2005 WL 937269, at *1 (8th Cir. Apr. 25, 2005) (citing Booker, 125 S. Ct. at 764).

Mr. Brown, moreover, admitted the facts that provided the basis for the revocation

of his supervised release. Mr. Brown's sixth amendment challenge therefore fails.

Affirmed.

______________________________
Meeting between OTC Derivatives Regulators Forum (ODRF)

members and representatives of central counterparties (CCPs) 

and trade repositories (TRs)

November 2 - 3, 2010

Participants: See attached three Attendee Lists: (i) ODRF Attendees, (iii) CCP Representatives 

and (iii) TR Representatives.

Summary: On 2 November, 2010, OTC Derivatives Regulators Forum members, including 

Federal Reserve staff met, with representatives of nine CCPs that currently provide or are 

planning to provide OTC derivatives clearing services, to discuss questions and issues related to 

clearing of OTC derivatives products. ODRF members also met with representatives of five 

service providers on 3 November, 2010 that currently provide or are planning to provide trade 

repository services, to discuss questions and issues related to trade repository functionality and 

market transparency.

The CCPs and TRs provided brief status updates of their respective services. In addition, the

group discussed current market developments, including Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and 

Consumer Protection Act, and ongoing engagement with ODRF members. See attached agendas 

for the topics covered.

Press Releases related to the November ODRF meeting are available at:

• ODRF Press Release: http://www.otcdrf.org/press_releases/pr_20101104.htm

• FRBNY Press Release: http://www.newyorkfed.org/newsevents/news/markets/2010/ma101104.html
## F IRST 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________
No. 1D 22

- 1497

_____________________________
M ICHAEL B OYINGTON ,
Petitioner
,

v.

S TATE OF F LORIDA , Respondent

.

_____________________________

Petition for Writ of Mandamus

— Original Jurisdiction

.

September 28, 2022

P ER C URIAM

. Because the trial court has ruled on the pleading pending below, the Court dismisses the petition for writ of mandamus as moot. See Ward v. State , 770 So. 2d 206 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000) (dismissing a petition for writ of mandamus as moot where the trial court had ruled on the pleading pending below).

L EWIS , M AKAR , and J AY , JJ., concur

.2 _____________________________ Not final until dispo sition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331

.

_____________________________

Michael Boyington, pro se
, Petitioner

. Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and Trisha Meggs Pate, Bureau Chief, Tallahassee
, for Respondent

.