alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exh 103



		

			Exhibit 10.3

		




		
			CORRECTION TO RAIL TRANSPORTATION SERVICES AGREEMENT
		

		
			THIS CORRECTION to the RAIL TRANSPORTATION SERVICES AGREEMENT (this “Agreement”), is entered into this 12th day of May, 2016 and is effective as of the 1st day of July, 2015 (the “Effective Date”), by and between Green Plains Logistics LLC (the “Operator”) and Green Plains Trade Group LLC (the “Customer”).  Customer and Operator are sometimes referred to in this Agreement as the “Parties” and individually as a “Party.” 
		

		
			WHEREAS,  the parties recognize a scrivener’s error in the Agreement and desire to correct such error to reflect the intent of the parties. Terms used herein not defined herein shall have the meaning set forth in the Agreement.
		

		
			NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual premises of the parties and covenants and conditions hereinafter set forth, and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, and intending to be legally bound, the parties hereto agree as follows:
		

			
	
			
				 1.
			

			
	
			
			 Section 3.c.i. of the Agreement is hereby modified as follows:  The word “OR” shall be inserted after “regulations” and before “related” in Section 3.c.i.




		
			IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Amendment as of the day and year first above written.
		

		
			OPERATOR: GREEN PLAINS LOGISTICS LLC

		

		
			﻿
		

		
			Signature: /s/ Jerry Peters
		

		
			Print Name:Jerry Peters
		

		
			Title:Chief Financial Officer
		

		
			﻿
		

		
			CUSTOMER: GREEN PLAINS TRADE GROUP LLC

		

		
			﻿
		

		
			Signature: /s/ Jerry Peters
		

		
			Print Name:Jerry Peters
		

		
			Title:Chief Financial Officer
		

		
			﻿
		

		
			﻿
		

		
			﻿
# C_2023024EN.01008202.xml

| 23.1.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 24/82 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.1.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 24/82

---

Action brought on 5 December 2022 — TG v Commission

(Case T-755/22)

(2023/C 24/110)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: TG (represented by: A. Tymen, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | declare the present action admissible and well founded;
  consequently: |
| --- | --- |

—

declare the present action admissible and well founded;

consequently:

| — | annul the decision of 11 March 2022 refusing to recognise the applicant’s illness as a serious illness for the purposes of Article 72(1) of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of 11 March 2022 refusing to recognise the applicant’s illness as a serious illness for the purposes of Article 72(1) of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union;

| — | annul the decision of 25 August 2022 rejecting the applicant’s complaint of 29 April 2022; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of 25 August 2022 rejecting the applicant’s complaint of 29 April 2022;

| — | order the defendant to pay damages, assessed ex aequo et bono, in the amount of EUR 5 000 in compensation for the non-pecuniary harm suffered by the applicant; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay damages, assessed ex aequo et bono, in the amount of EUR 5 000 in compensation for the non-pecuniary harm suffered by the applicant;

| — | order the defendant to pay all the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay all the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on a single plea in law alleging infringement of Article 72(1) of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union and of the general implementing provisions for the reimbursement of medical expenses adopted by Commission Decision C(2007) 3195 of 2 July 2007, as amended by the decision of 12 May 2020.

---
STATE v. MEDLEY

No. COA06-915

Court of Appeals of North Carolina

Filed April 17, 2007

Certification Date May 7, 2007

Appeal from Craven (04CRS56425).

Cases reported without published opinion. No error.
ALALA v. HARDIE.

No. COA08-77.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed January 6, 2009.

Certification Date January 26, 2009.

Appeal from Durham (06CVS6360).

Case reported without published opinion. Motion allowed appeal dismissed.
IN RE K.L.K.

No. COA07-1169.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed June 17, 2008.

Certification Date July 7, 2008.

Appeal from Mecklenburg (06J1180).

Case reported without published opinion. Affirmed in part, Vacated in part, Remanded in part.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-6398

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

RICHARD DWIGHT BERNARD,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Richmond. James R. Spencer, Chief

District Judge. (3:03-cr-00420-JRS-3; 3:06-cv-00571-JRS)

Submitted: August 14, 2008 Decided: August 19, 2008

Before MICHAEL, Circuit Judge, and WILKINS and HAMILTON, Senior

Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Richard Dwight Bernard, Appellant Pro Se. Charles Everett James,

Jr., OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Richmond, Virginia, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Richard Dwight Bernard seeks to appeal the district

court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion.

The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge

issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)

(2000). 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) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by

demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that any

assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is

debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by

the district court is likewise debatable. Miller-El v. Cockrell,

537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484

(2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have

independently reviewed the record and conclude that Bernard 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 materials before the court and argument would not

aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
# Commission Regulation (EU) No 714/2014Show full title

Commission Regulation (EU) No 714/2014 of 25 June 2014 establishing a prohibition of fishing for Bluefin tuna in Atlantic            Ocean, east of 45° W, and Mediterranean by vessels flying the flag of Greece         

        - Previous
        - Next

U.K.

# Commission Regulation (EU) No 714/2014                     

# of 25 June 2014

# establishing a prohibition of fishing for Bluefin tuna in Atlantic Ocean, east of 45° W, and Mediterranean by vessels flying                        the flag of Greece                     

THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009 of 20 November 2009 establishing a Community control system for ensuring                           compliance with the rules of the common fisheries policy(1), and in particular Article 36(2) thereof,                        

Whereas:

(1)Council Regulation (EU) No 43/2014(2), lays down quotas for 2014.

(2)According to the information received by the Commission, catches of the stock referred to in the Annex to this Regulation                              by vessels flying the flag of or registered in the Member State referred to therein have exhausted the quota allocated for                              2014.

(3)It is therefore necessary to prohibit fishing activities for that stock,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

## Article 1U.K.Quota exhaustion

The fishing quota allocated to the Member State referred to in the Annex to this Regulation for the stock referred to therein                     for 2014 shall be deemed to be exhausted from the date set out in that Annex.                  

## Article 2U.K.Prohibitions

Fishing activities for the stock referred to in the Annex to this Regulation by vessels flying the flag of or registered in                     the Member State referred to therein shall be prohibited from the date set out in that Annex. In particular it shall be prohibited                     to retain on board, relocate, tranship or land fish from that stock caught by those vessels after that date.                  

## Article 3U.K.Entry into force

This Regulation shall enter into force on the day following that 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, 25 June 2014.

*For the Commission*                            

*On behalf of the President,*                            

Lowri Evans                            

*Director-General for Maritime Affairs and Fisheries*                            

## ANNEXU.K.

1

OJ L 343, 22.12.2009, p. 1.                           

2

Council Regulation (EU) No 43/2014 of 20 January 2014 fixing for 2014 the fishing opportunities for certain fish stocks and                              groups of fish stocks, applicable in Union waters and, to Union vessels, in certain non-Union waters (OJ L 24, 28.1.2014, p. 1).
# Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 793/2014Show full title

Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 793/2014 of 22 July 2014 implementing Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 concerning restrictive            measures in view of the situation in Syria         

        - Previous
        - Next

U.K.

# Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 793/2014                     

# of 22 July 2014

# implementing Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 of 18 January 2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation                           in Syria and repealing Regulation (EU) No 442/2011(1), and in particular Article 32(1) thereof,                        

Whereas:

(1)On 18 January 2012, the Council adopted Regulation (EU) No 36/2012.

(2)In view of the gravity of the situation, three persons and nine entities should be added to the list of persons and entities                              subject to restrictive measures in Annex II to Regulation (EU) No 36/2012.

(3)Annex II to Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 should therefore be amended accordingly,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

# Article 1U.K.

The persons and entities listed in the Annex to this Regulation shall be added to the list set out in Annex II to Regulation                     (EU) No 36/2012.                  

# Article 2U.K.

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, 22 July 2014.

*For the Council*                            

*The President*                            

C. Ashton                            

## ANNEXU.K.List of persons and entities referred to in Article 1

### A.PersonsU.K.

### B.EntitiesU.K.

1

OJ L 16, 19.1.2012, p. 1.
STATE v. Michael H. FINNERAN.

No. 140P08.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

June 11, 2008.

Kathleen Barry, Assistant Attorney General, C. Colon Willoughby, Jr., District Attorney, for State of NC.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 18th day of April 2008 by Defendant for Leave to Withdraw Petition for Discretionary Review:

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference this the 11th day of June 2008."
Exhibit
10.117

     

     

    
      Description
of Decision on Payment of Cooke Director Fees

      


      Pursuant
to the Company’s meeting of its Board of Directors on July 12, 2010, the Board
agreed to pay Jeff Cooke a Director’s fee in the amount of $30,000 upon the
closing of a recapitalization or sale transaction.  The payment is
contingent upon Mr. Cooke continuing his role as a member of the Board of
Directors through the closing date of such transaction.
IN RE S.R.M.

No. COA08-571.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed January 6, 2009.

Certification Date January 26, 2009.

Appeal from Cabarrus (05J274, 05J275, 05J276).

Case reported without published opinion. Affirmed in part and reversed in part.
EXHIBIT 23.1
**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**
We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Form S-3(No.333-116060), Form S-8/S-3 (No.333-81755) and Form S-8 (No.333-35632, No.333-49984,No.333-106211, No.333-116061 and No.333-116900) of Covad Communications Group, Inc. of our reportdated March 14, 2005 relating to the financial statements, management’s assessment of theeffectiveness of internal control over financial reporting and the effectiveness of internalcontrol over financial reporting, which appears in this Form 10-K.

 
/s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP     San Jose, California     March 14, 2005
A. Mark ESPOSITO v. TALBERT & BRIGHT, INC. and John T. Talbert, III.

No. 154P07.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

March 6, 2008.

J. Heydt Philbeck, Sr., Raleigh, for A. Mark Esposito.

F. Darryl Mills, Wilmington, for Talbert & Bright, et al.

Prior report: 181 N.CApp. 742, 641 S.E.2d 695.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 28th day of March 2007 by Plaintiff in this matter for discretionary review of the decision of the North Carolina Court of Appeals pursuant to G.S. 7A-31, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

"Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 6th day of March 2008."
EXHIBIT 32.1
                            CERTIFICATION 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 Annual Report of OraLabs Holding Corp. (the
"Company") on Form 10-KSB/A for the period ending December 31, 2004 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report") I,
Emile Jordan, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
USC SS. 1350, as adopted pursuant to SS. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that to the best of my knowledge and belief:

(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/ Emile Jordan
-------------------------------------
Emile Jordan, Chief Financial Officer



Dated: April 29, 2005
csgs-ex1025au_235.htm



Pages where confidential treatment has been requested are stamped “Confidential Treatment Requested and the Redacted Material has been separately filed with the Commission,” and places where information has been redacted have been marked with (***). 

Exhibit 10.25AU

 

FIFTY-FIRST AMENDMENT

TO

AMENDED AND RESTATED

CSG MASTER SUBSCRIBER MANAGEMENT SYSTEM AGREEMENT

BETWEEN

CSG SYSTEMS, INC.

AND

CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS HOLDING COMPANY, LLC

 

 

This Fify-first Amendment (the “Amendment”) is made by and between CSG Systems, Inc., a Delaware corporation (“CSG”), and Charter Communications Holding Company, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company (“Customer”).  CSG and Customer entered into that certain Amended and Restated CSG Master Subscriber Management System Agreement dated February 9, 2009, as amended (the “Agreement”), and now desire to further amend the Agreement in accordance with the terms and conditions set forth in this Amendment.  If the terms and conditions set forth in this Amendment shall be in conflict with the Agreement, the terms and conditions of this Amendment shall control.  Any terms in initial capital letters or all capital letters used as a defined term but not defined in this Amendment shall have the meaning set forth in the Agreement.  Upon execution of this Amendment by the parties, the effective date of this Amendment is May 22, 2014 (the Effective Date").  Further, upon execution of this Amendment by the parties, any subsequent reference to the Agreement between the parties shall mean the Agreement as amended by this Amendment.  Except as amended by this Amendment, the terms and conditions set forth in the Agreement shall continue in full force and effect according to their terms. 

 

 

 CSG and Customer agree to the following as of the Effective Date:

 

1.   Effective as of June 30, 2014, upon execution by CSG and Customer of this Amendment, Customer agrees to purchase and CSG agrees to provide an additional ****** (**) Vantage User IDs/Sessions.  Accordingly, pursuant to the terms of the Eighth Amendment to the Agreement dated January 5, 2010 (CSG document number 2301676), the Twenty-fifth Amendment dated March 12, 2012 (CSG document number 2311963), the Thirty-second Amendment dated August 8, 2012 (CSG document number 2313710), the Thirty-ninth Amendment dated June 7, 2013 (CSG document number 2502779) and the Forty-ninth Amendment dated June 13, 2014 (CSG document number 2506656), the number of Vantage User IDs/Sessions will be increased from ***** ******* ********** (***) to ***** ******* ************ (***) and Customer shall be invoiced accordingly. 

 

 

THIS AMENDMENT is executed on the day and year last signed below to be effective as of the Effective Date.

 


		
	
CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS HOLDING COMPANY, LLC (“CUSTOMER”)

 

By: Charter Communications, Inc., its Manager
	
CSG SYSTEMS, INC. (“CSG”)

	
 

 

By: /s/ Michael Ciszek
	
 

 

By:  /s/ Joseph T. Ruble

	
 

Title:  VP - Billing
	
 

Title:  EVP, CAO & General Counsel

	
 

Name:  Michael Ciszek
	
 

Name:  Joseph T. Ruble

	
 

Date:  7/23/14
	
 

Date:  24 July 2014
BLANKENSHIP v. BARTLETT.

No. 455PA06-2.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

December 3, 2008.

Jamie L. Vavonese, Amie C. Sivon, Fuquay-Varina, for Blankenship, et al.

Alexander McC. Peters, Susan K. Nichols, Karen E. Long, Special Deputy Attorney Generals, for State of NC.

The following order has been entered on the second motion filed on the 3rd day of December 2008 by Plaintiffs for Extension of Time to File Brief:

"Motion Allowed. Plaintiffs (Blankenship, et al) shall have up to and including the 12th day of December 2009 to file and serve his/her brief with this Court. By order of the Court in conference this the 3rd day of December 2008."
STATE of North Carolina v. Faronte Antonio McDUFFIE.

No. 262P08.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

August 26, 2008.

Mercedes O. Chut, Greensboro, for McDuffie.

J. Philip Allen, Assistant Attorney General, Garland N. Yates, District Attorney, for State of NC.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 10th day of June 2008 by Defendant in this matter for discretionary review of the decision of the North Carolina Court of Appeals pursuant to G.S. 7A-31, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

"Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 26th day of August 2008."
----

(2004/C 33 E/100)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1243/03

by Chris Davies (ELDR) to the Commission

(2 April 2003)

Subject:   Death of dolphins

The UK Fisheries Minister has proposed (20 March 2003) that it should be a legal requirement for some UK fishing vessels to attach pingers or other acoustic warning devices to nets in a bid to keep dolphins and porpoises from being caught.

Will the Commission now introduce similar measures with the requirement that they apply to all EU vessels using fishing methods of concern in this respect?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(15 May 2003)

The use of acoustic deterrent devices (pingers) has proven successful in reducing by-catches of small cetaceans in certain type of fisheries. The Commission is aware that such a measure has already been made mandatory since 2000 by Danish authorities, and is at present under consideration by the United Kingdom authorities within their consultation paper published on 20 March 2003.

As stated in the answer given to Question H-0122/2003 by Mrs McAvan (1), the mandatory use of acoustic alarms in certain gillnet fisheries is part of a package of measures under preparation and for which the Commission has already engaged a consultation with stakeholders. The Commission intends to finalise this package as a proposal to the Council within the coming months.

----

(1)  Written answer of 11.3.2003.

----
# C_2023252EN.01007201.xml

| 17.7.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 252/72 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.7.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 252/72

---

Action brought on 24 May 2023 — Khan v Council

(Case T-289/23)

(2023/C 252/86)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: German Khan (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: T. Marembert and A. Bass, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul Council Decision (CFSP) 2023/572 (1) of 13 March 2023 amending Decision 2014/145/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine, in so far as it concerns the applicant; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Council Decision (CFSP) 2023/572 (1) of 13 March 2023 amending Decision 2014/145/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine, in so far as it concerns the applicant;

| — | annul Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2023/571 (2) of 13 March 2023 implementing Regulation (EU) No 269/2014 concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine, in so far as it concerns the applicant; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2023/571 (2) of 13 March 2023 implementing Regulation (EU) No 269/2014 concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine, in so far as it concerns the applicant;

| — | order the Council to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Council to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on five pleas in law, which are identical or similar to those relied on in Case T-283/23, Aven v Council.

---

(1)  (OJ 2023 L 75 I, p. 134).

(2)  (OJ 2023 L 75 I, p. 1).

---
STATE of North Carolina v. Andrew Michael TOLER.

No. 157P08.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

August 26, 2008.

C. Scott Holmes, Durham, for Toler.

Derrick C. Mertz, Assistant Attorney General, Susan Doyle, District Attorney, for State of NC.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 9th day of April 2008 by Defendant in this matter for discretionary review of the decision of the North Carolina Court of Appeals pursuant to G.S. 7A-31, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

"Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 26th day of August 2008."