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


SEPARATION
AGREEMENT





This
Amendment to the Separation Agreement (the "Agreement") ") is made
effective as of the date the last of the parties executes this Agreement (the
"Effective Date") by and
among Cary J. Claiborne and New Generation Biofuels Holdings,
Inc  (the "Parties").




RECITALS




A.The Parties entered into a
Separation Agreement on October 9, 2010.




B. The
Parties have agreed to amend the Agreement as set forth herein.




AGREEMENT




Section 2(b)
is  hereby amended to change the amount of the Cash Severance Payment
to a single lump sum of  $70,000.




Section 2(c) (ii)is hereby amended to
change the number of shares from 232,026 to 251,715 per verification by the
Company's Controller.








Consulting Agreement.
Effective October 10, 2010 the Company will enter into an


agreement
with your company Prosperity
Capital Management, LLC to provide advisory and other transition services
to the Company’s new President and Chief Executive Officer as well as to the
Chief Financial Officer.  The initial term of the agreement will be
from October 10 - November 30, 2010, and may be extended by mutual written
agreement of both parties. The consulting fee associated with the agreement will
be $60,000 paid in a single lump within 5 business days of the effective date of
the consulting agreement.




Except as
amended hereby, all other terms and conditions of the Agreement remain in full
force and effect.




Accepted
this 19th
day of  October, 2010.





John
      E. MackChairman
      of the Board





Cary
      J. Claiborne
CERTIFICATE
                              
      The  undersigned, Controller of SMITH BARNEY ARIZONA
MUNICIPALS FUND INC. (the "Fund"), hereby certifies that the
Fund has received  full payment, in  accordance  with  the
provisions of its Prospectus, for 629,618 shares of common
stock,  par  value $0.001 per share, the sales  of  which
are reported in the Fund's Rule 24f-2 Notice covering the
fiscal year ended May 31, 1997 and that the facts otherwise
stated in such Notice are true.


                                   Thomas M. Reynolds
                                   Controller

Dated:         July 14, 1997
```
 
 
VIX FUTURES - CBOE FUTURES EXCHANGE                                  Code-1170E1
OPTION AND FUTURES COMBINED POSITIONS AS OF 11/11/14          |
--------------------------------------------------------------| NONREPORTABLE
      NON-COMMERCIAL      |   COMMERCIAL    |      TOTAL      |   POSITIONS
--------------------------|-----------------|-----------------|-----------------
  Long  | Short  |Spreads |  Long  | Short  |  Long  | Short  |  Long  | Short
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
($1000 X INDEX)                                      OPEN INTEREST:      392,934
COMMITMENTS
 116,557  126,487  119,081  132,084  119,251  367,722  364,819   25,212   28,115

CHANGES FROM 11/04/14 (CHANGE IN OPEN INTEREST:     38,059)
  12,012   24,270    5,484   16,684   10,778   34,180   40,532    3,879   -2,473

PERCENT OF OPEN INTEREST FOR EACH CATEGORY OF TRADER
    29.7     32.2     30.3     33.6     30.3     93.6     92.8      6.4      7.2

NUMBER OF TRADERS IN EACH CATEGORY (TOTAL TRADERS:      183)
      44       76       76       41       43      137      156
```

----

Updated November 14, 2014
NUSTAR ENERGY SERVICES, INC. v. ING BANK N.V., et al.

No. 18-1224 (R46-03)

Supreme Court of the United States.

October 17, 2019

The petition for writ of certiorari was dismissed today pursuant to Rule 46 of the Rules of this Court.
* 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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

June 25, 2003

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 02-51121

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

RAUL CONTRARAS-FLORES, also

known as Raul Aceves-Flores,

Defendant-Appellant.

--------------------

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. DR-02-CR-80-1-WWJ

--------------------

Before DeMOSS, DENNIS, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

 Raul Contraras-Flores appeals the sentence imposed following

his guilty plea conviction of being found in the United States

after deportation/removal in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. 

Contraras contends that 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)

define separate offenses. He argues that the prior conviction

that resulted in his increased sentence is an element of a

separate offense under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) that should have been

alleged in his indictment. Contraras maintains that he pleaded
No. 02-51121

-2-

guilty to an indictment which charged only simple reentry under

8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). He argues that his sentence exceeds the

two-year maximum term of imprisonment which may be imposed for

that offense.

In Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 235

(1998), the Supreme Court held that the enhanced penalties in

8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) are sentencing provisions, not elements of

separate offenses. The Court further held that the sentencing

provisions do not violate the Due Process Clause. Id. at 239-47. 

Contraras acknowledges that his argument is foreclosed by

Almendarez-Torres, but asserts that the decision has been cast

into doubt by Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 490 (2000). 

He seeks to preserve his argument for further review. 

Apprendi did not overrule Almendarez-Torres. See Apprendi,

530 U.S. at 489-90; United States v. Dabeit, 231 F.3d 979, 984

(5th Cir. 2000). This court must follow Almendarez-Torres

“unless and until the Supreme Court itself determines to overrule

it.” Dabeit, 231 F.3d at 984 (internal quotation marks and

citation omitted). The judgment of the district court is

AFFIRMED.

The Government has moved for a summary affirmance in lieu of

filing an appellee’s brief. In its motion, the Government asks

that an appellee’s brief not be required. The motion is GRANTED. 

AFFIRMED; MOTION GRANTED.
## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 08-3002

___________ In re: John R. Burwell, * * Debtor, * * ----------------------------- * * Randall L. Seaver, Trustee, * * Appellee, * * Appeal from the United States v. * Bankruptcy Appellate Panel * for the Eighth Circuit. Burwell Family Limited Partnership; * RHFP, LLC, * [UNPUBLISHED] * Appellants, * * John R. Burwell; Albert Kelly, Jr., * * Defendants. *

___________ Submitted: October 9, 2009 Filed: October 23, 2009

___________ Before MURPHY, COLLOTON, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM.1 The Honorable Nancy C. Dreher, Chief Judge, United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Minnesota. -2- Burwell Family Limited Partnership and RHFP, LLC, appeal from the decision of the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel (B AP) affirming the bankruptcy court’s 1 judgment in favor of Randall Seaver, the Trustee of defendant John Burwell’ s bankruptcy estate. Reviewing the bankruptcy court’s factual fi ndings for clear error and its conclusions of law de novo, see In re Vote , 276 F.3d 1024, 1026 (8th Cir. 2002), we agree with the BAP’s analysis. Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. We also deny the Trustee’s motion to dismiss.

______________________________
Thomas Ritter HELM, Petitioner v. Lisa Lorraine HAUSER.

No. 19-5958

Supreme Court of the United States.

November 12, 2019

Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed *in forma pauperis* denied. Petitioner allowed until December 3, 2019, within which to pay the docketing fee required by Rule 38(a) and to submit a petition in compliance with Rule 33.1 of the Rules of this Court.
RELEASE OF SECURITY AGREEMENT
                          -----------------------------


     This  RELEASE  OF SECURITY AGREEMENT ("Agreement") is made and entered into
this  24th  day  of  November,  2003,  by AXESS AG ("Secured Party") and DESIGNA
ACCESS  CORPORATION,  an  agent  of  Axess  AG ("Agent"), with reference to that
certain Security Agreement, dated September 23, 2003 (the "Security Agreement"),
executed  by  Rapidtron,  Inc.,  a  Nevada  corporation  ("Debtor"), in favor of
Secured  Party.

     For valuable consideration, receipt of which is acknowledged, Secured Party
hereby  acknowledges  and agrees that the Obligations have been fully satisfied,
and Secured Party hereby releases and relinquishes the security interest created
by  the  Security  Agreement.  Debtor  is  hereby  authorized  to  file  a UCC-3
termination  statement  with  the California Secretary of State and to take such
other  action  as  may  be necessary to terminate any financing statements filed
with  respect  to  the  Security  Agreement.

     Any  capitalized  term  not  otherwise  defined  herein shall have the same
meaning  as  ascribed  to  it  in  the  Security  Agreement.


"Secured  Party"

AXESS  AG

By:  Designa  Access  Corporation
Its: Authorized  Agent

     By:   /s/ W. Bernie Kubisiak
        ---------------------------------
     Print Name: W. Bernie Kubisiak
                -------------------------
     Its:  Treasurer
         --------------------------------


<PAGE>
                                   SCHEDULE I


                            DESCRIPTION OF COLLATERAL
                            -------------------------


     The  first  One  Hundred Thousand Dollars (US$100,000) collected by Debtor,
beginning on September 23, 2003, pursuant to Debtor's contract rights, rights to
the  payment of money (whether due or to become due and whether or not earned by
performance),  in  the  following  accounts  receivable:

                       (Please attach Aging Detail Report)




                                   Schedule I


<PAGE>
# Official Journal L 466/2021

| | ISSN 1977-0677 |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | L 466 |
| | |
| English edition | Legislation | Volume 6429 December 2021 |

ISSN 1977-0677

Official Journal

of the European Union

L 466

English edition

Legislation

Volume 6429 December 2021

---

| Contents | | II   Non-legislative acts | page |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| | | REGULATIONS |
| | * | Council Regulation (EU) 2021/2278 of 20 December 2021 suspending the Common Customs Tariff duties referred to in Article 56(2), point (c), of Regulation (EU) No 952/2013 on certain agricultural and industrial products, and repealing Regulation (EU) No 1387/2013 | 1 |

Contents

II   Non-legislative acts

page

REGULATIONS

*

Council Regulation (EU) 2021/2278 of 20 December 2021 suspending the Common Customs Tariff duties referred to in Article 56(2), point (c), of Regulation (EU) No 952/2013 on certain agricultural and industrial products, and repealing Regulation (EU) No 1387/2013

1

| EN | Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.
  The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk. |
| --- | --- |

EN

Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.

The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk.
Duryane Lewis CHANEY, Petitioner v. UNITED STATES

No. 19-5278

Supreme Court of the United States.

December 16, 2019

Petition for rehearing denied.
IA 

113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. J. RES. 104 

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to repeal 

the sixteenth article of amendment. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

NOVEMBER 15, 2013 

Mr. BRIDENSTINE (for himself, Mr. MASSIE, and Mr. DESANTIS) introduced 

the following joint resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the 

Judiciary 

JOINT RESOLUTION 

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United 

States to repeal the sixteenth article of amendment. 

1 Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives 

2 of the United States of America in Congress assembled

3 (two-thirds of each House concurring therein), 

4 SECTION 1. The following article is proposed as an 

5 amendment to the Constitution of the United States, 

6 which shall be valid to all intents and purposes as part 

7 of the Constitution when ratified by the legislatures of 

8 three-fourths of the several States within seven years after 

9 the date of its submission for ratification: 


sroberts on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HJ 104 IH 

1 ‘‘ARTICLE— 

2 ‘‘Effective 2 years after the ratification of this article 

3 of amendment, the sixteenth article of amendment to the 

4 Constitution of the United States is repealed, and the 

5 Congress shall have no power to lay and collect taxes on 

6 incomes, from whatever source derived, except in time of 

7 war declared by the Congress.’’. 

8 SEC. 2. Not later than 180 days after the ratification 

9 of the article of amendment in section 1, the Secretary 

10 of the Treasury shall submit a report to Congress con11 taining recommendations for any legislation that may be 

12 necessary to implement such article. 

Æ 


sroberts on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
i i i i i i



### MEM ORA ND UM OP INION No
. 04 -0 8- 00 90 7- CV Maria E lsa VARGAS , Appellant
v . Mario NAK

AZ ONO , Appellee Fr om the 111th J udicial District Court, Webb County , Texas

Trial Court No. 2008CVQ000472 D2 Honora ble Raul Vasquez, J udg e Presiding Opinion by : Catherine Stone, Chief Justice Sitt ing: Catherine Stone, Chief Justice

Kar en Ang elini, J ustice Marialy n Ba rnar d, J ustice Deliver ed and F iled: November 4, 2009 AFF I RMED This is a restricte d appea l from an or der dismi ssing the unde rlying c ause f or lac k of pr os e c uti on . M ari a

El sa Va rg a s a sserts the tr ia l c ourt a bu se d it s d isc re tio n in

dis mis sin g he r c a se beca use the trial “ court did not provide a dequate no t i ce that a dismissal was intended, suc h that Var g as’[s] rig ht to due proce ss w as denied.” Var g as contends that she neve r re ceive d written notice
o f t h e d i s m i s s al h ea ri n g.04
- 08
- 00 90 7- CV

- 2- I nit ia lly , w e no te that th e tr ia l c ourt ’s or de r s tate s th a t th e a tto rn e y of re c ord w a s “ du ly notified.” We pre sume the re cital in the orde r is corr ect a bsent controve rting proof in the r ecor d. See CVN Group, Inc. v. De lgado , N o . 0 3
- 0 7
- 0 0 2 9 1
- CV , 2 0 0 9 WL 2 8 3 7 6 9 1 , a t * 2 ( T e x. Ap p. —Aus tin

Au g . 3 1, 20 09 , n o p e t. h .) ; In re B.D. , 16 S.W.3 d 77, 80 (T e x. Ap p. —H ou sto n [1s t Di st. ] 200 0, pe t. d e nie d) ; MJ R F in. , I nc . v . M ar sh all , 8 4 0 S
. W
. 2 d 5 , 9 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1992, orig . proce eding ). “When a pa

rty claims in a re stricted appe al that re quired notice was not g iven or a require d hear ing was n ev er held, the err or must appea r on the fa ce of

the re cord.” Ginn v. Forrester , 282 S.W .3d 430, 432 (Tex. 2009)
. “When extrinsic evidence is nece ssary to challeng e a judg ment, the appropr iate re medy

is by motion for new tria l or by bill of review f

iled in the trial court so that the trial court ha s the opportunity to consider a

nd weig h fac tual evidenc e.” Id
. “The rules g overningdismi s sals for wa nt of prosec ution direct the district cle rk to mail notice containingthe date a

nd place of hea

ring at which the court intends to dismiss t he ca se, T EX . R. C IV . P. 165a(1) , and a simil ar notice of t he si g ning of the dismissal order, seeT EX . R. C IV . P. 306a(3).” Id . at 433. “B ut the rules do not impose upon the cler k an aff irmative duty

to rec ord the mailingof the re quired notice s; acc ording ly , the abse nce of proof in the rec ord that notice was provided doe s not establish error

on the fa ce of

the re cord.” Id
. I n the prese nt c ase, the rec ord contains an orde r re citing that notice was g iven, and the r ecor d is otherwise silent with reg ard to notice
. Acc ording ly , beca use Va rg as fa iled to establish error on the fa ce of

the re cord, the trial court’ s order is affirme d. Catherine Stone, Chief Justice
Mark GERTH, Petitioner, v. WARDEN, ALLEN OAKWOOD CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION.

No. 19-6790

Supreme Court of the United States.

January 13, 2020

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit denied.
Sub-Item 77D:

Pursuant to Rule 35d-1 under the Investment Company Act of
1940, as amended, the following funds changed their
investment policies to invest, under normal conditions, at
least 80% of their net assets plus the amount of borrowings
for investment purposes in the types of securities suggested
by their names:  Equity Index Portfolio, Intermediate High
Grade Portfolio and Salomon Brothers Variable International
Equity Fund, each a series of Greenwich Street Series Fund.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

WESTERN DISTRICT

IN RE: ADOPTION OF T.J.S.

PETITION OF: T.B., MOTHER

IN RE: ADOPTION OF T.B.S.

PETITION OF: T.B., MOTHER

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 89 WAL 2015

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the

Order of the Superior Court

No. 90 WAL 2015

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the

Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 2nd day of April, 2015, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

DENIED.
# Official Journal L 128/2016

| | ISSN 1977-0677 |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | L 128 |
| | |
| English edition | Legislation | Volume 5919 May 2016 |

ISSN 1977-0677

Official Journal

of the European Union

L 128

English edition

Legislation

Volume 5919 May 2016

---

| Contents | | II   Non-legislative acts | page |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| | | REGULATIONS |
| | | Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/773 of 18 May 2016 establishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables | 1 |
| | | DIRECTIVES |
| | * | Commission Directive (EU) 2016/774 of 18 May 2016 amending Annex II to Directive 2000/53/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on end-of-life vehicles (
  1
  ) | 4 |
| | | DECISIONS |
| | * | Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2016/775 of 18 May 2016 on the benchmark to allocate greenhouse gas emission allowances free of charge to aircraft operators pursuant to Article 3f(5) of Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (
  1
  ) | 10 |

Contents

II   Non-legislative acts

page

REGULATIONS

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/773 of 18 May 2016 establishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables

1

DIRECTIVES

*

Commission Directive (EU) 2016/774 of 18 May 2016 amending Annex II to Directive 2000/53/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on end-of-life vehicles (
  1
  )

1

4

DECISIONS

*

Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2016/775 of 18 May 2016 on the benchmark to allocate greenhouse gas emission allowances free of charge to aircraft operators pursuant to Article 3f(5) of Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (
  1
  )

1

10

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | (1)   Text with EEA relevance |

---

(1)   Text with EEA relevance

1

| EN | Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.
  The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk. |
| --- | --- |

EN

Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.

The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk.
RIVER BIRCH, INCORPORATED, et al., Petitioners v. WASTE MANAGEMENT OF LOUISIANA, L.L.C.

No. 19-533

Supreme Court of the United States.

December 9, 2019

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.
Independent Auditors' Consent



To the Shareholders and Board of Directors of
Smith Barney Money Funds, Inc.:

We consent to the use of our reports dated February 5, 1997 and 
February 19, 1997 for the Smith Barney Money Funds, Inc. and the Smith 
Barney Funds, Inc., respectively, incorporated herein by reference and 
to the references to our Firm under the heading "Financial Statements 
and Experts" in the Prospectus/Proxy Statement.
 



	KPMG Peat Marwick LLP


New York, New York
September 10, 1997
Carlos Juan NEGRON, Petitioner, v. Mark S. INCH, Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections, et al.

No. 19-7162

Supreme Court of the United States.

March 2, 2020

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit denied.
William Alan KENNEDY, Petitioner v. Lorie DAVIS, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division.

No. 19-5824

Supreme Court of the United States.

November 4, 2019

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.
Independent Auditors' Consent




To the Shareholders and Board of Directors of
Smith Barney Sector Series Inc.:
We consent to the incorporation by reference, in
this Prospectus and Statement of Additional
Information, of our report dated December 16,
1999, on the statement of assets and liabilities
for the Smith Barney Sector Series Inc. - Natural
Resources Fund (the Fund) as of October 31, 1999,
and the related statement of operations for the
year then ended, the statements of changes in net
assets for each of the years in the two-year
period then ended and the financial highlights for
each of the years in the five-year period then
ended. These financial statements and financial
highlights and our report thereon are included in
the Annual Report of the Fund as filed on Form N-
30D.
We also consent to the references to our firm
under the headings "Financial Highlights" in the
Prospectus and "Auditors" in the Statement of
Additional Information for the Smith Barney Sector
Series Inc. - Natural Resources Fund, Financial
Services Fund, Health Sciences Fund and Technology
Fund.



K
PM
G
LL
P
New York, New York
February 7, 2000
Page
REMINGTON ARMS CO., LLC, ET AL., Petitioners v. Donna L. SOTO, Administratrix of the Estate of Victoria L. Soto, et al.

No. 19-168

Supreme Court of the United States.

November 12, 2019

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Connecticut denied.