alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
ex10-1.htm


EXHIBIT 10.1







SHELL TRADING (US) COMPANY


1700 Broadway, Suite 1400


Denver, CO  80290







September 11, 2006







Native American Energy Group


72-11 Austin St, Suite 288


Forest Hills, NY  11375







Attn:  Raj S. Nanvaan



	RE:    	LEASE PURCHASE AGREEMENT
	 	NUMBER:   01090R01





 


 


Dear Mr. Nanvaan







This confirms Shell Trading (US) Company’s (“STUSCO”) agreement to Native American Energy Group’s (“Seller”) agreement to sell and deliver crude oil production from the lease(s) described in the enclosed Attachment(s) to carriers designated by STUSCO.  Provisions relating to crude type(s), decimal interest(s) for purchases from each lease, price, payment for crude oil and payment of taxes are stated in Attachment(s).







This agreement will continue from the effective date indicated on Attachment(s) until the 1st of the month following either party’s thirty (30) days advance written notice of cancellation and is also subject to the terms and conditions stated in the General Provisions, a copy of which is attached hereto and made part hereof.







Please confirm by fax to 713-246-8863 to the attention of Amy Watson, that the above accurately records the terms and conditions of our agreement.  If a reply is not received within ten (10) business days, it will constitute acceptance of the terms stated herein.


 




	 	
 

	 	Regards,	 
	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 	/s/ Patrick I.K. Clements	 
	 	 	 	Patrick I.K. Clements	 
	 	 	 	Crude oil Acquisitions – Rocky Mountain Region	 
	 	 	 	 	 
	NATIVE AMERICAN ENERGY GROUP	 	 
	 	 	 	 	 
	By: 	/s/ Raj S. Nanvaan 	 	 	 
	 	Raj S. Nanvaan – CFO	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 	 
	Date:	9/11/06
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 178 (Thursday, September 15, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Page 54569]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-18439]


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

INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION

[USITC SE-05-029]


Government in the Sunshine Act Meeting Notice

Agency Holding the Meeting: United States International Trade 
Commission.

Time and Date: September 20 , 2005 at 11 a.m.

Place: Room 101, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436, Telephone: 
(202) 205-2000.

Status: Open to the public.

Matters To Be Considered: 1. Agenda for future meetings: None.
    2. Minutes.
    3. Ratification List.
    4. Inv. No. 731-TA-459 (Second Review) (Polyethylene Terephthalate 
Film from Korea)--briefing and vote. (The Commission is currently 
scheduled to transmit its determination and Commissioners' opinions to 
the Secretary of Commerce on or before September 29, 2005.)
    5. Inv. Nos. 731-TA-376, 563, and 564 (Second Review) (Stainless 
Steel Butt-Weld Pipe Fittings from Japan, Korea, and Taiwan)--briefing 
and vote. (The Commission is currently scheduled tor transmit its 
determination and Commissioners' opinions to the Secretary of Commerce 
on or before September 29, 2005.)
    6. Outstanding action jackets: None.
    In accordance with Commission policy, subject matter listed above, 
not disposed of at the scheduled meeting, may be carried over to the 
agenda of the following meeting.

    By order of the Commission.

    Issued: September 12, 2005.
Marilyn R. Abbott,
Secretary to the Commission.
[FR Doc. 05-18439 Filed 9-13-05; 12:47 pm]
BILLING CODE 7020-02-P
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-6438

JAMES JOSEPH OWENS,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

ERICK STEIGER, Mr., Chief of Security; KIM ANTHONY, Ms., Case

Manager; MARY JO WILLIAMS, Regional Analyst; EDWARD G. PERRY,

Chairman,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

Maryland, at Baltimore. J. Frederick Motz, District Judge. (1:08-

cv-00121-JFM)

Submitted: July 31, 2008 Decided: September 2, 2008

Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

James Joseph Owens, Appellant Pro Se.

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

PER CURIAM:

James Joseph Owens seeks to appeal the district court’s

order dismissing his complaint without prejudice pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 1915(e) (2000). To the extent that Owens seeks to state

a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) claim based on alleged civil rights

violations occurring in Maryland, this court may exercise

jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2000), and

certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292

(2000); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan

Corp., 337 U.S. 541 (1949). The order Owens seeks to appeal is

neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral

order. See Domino Sugar Corp. v. Sugar Workers Local Union 392, 10

F.3d 1064, 1066 (4th Cir. 1993). Accordingly, we dismiss this

portion of the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

To the extent that Owens seeks to state a § 1983 claim

based on alleged civil rights violations occurring in Ohio, or

seeks to raise a habeas corpus claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241

(2000), we have reviewed the record and find that this appeal is

frivolous. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for the reasons

stated by the district court. Owens v. Steiger, No. 1:08-cv-00121-

JFM (D. Md. filed Feb. 21, 2008; entered Feb. 25, 2008). We

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
- 3 -

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the

court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

September 4, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

137195 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman, 

Justices IN RE EXECUTIVE MESSAGE SC: 137195 

of GOVERNOR REQUESTING the 

AUTHORIZATION of a CERTIFIED QUESTION 

_________________________________________/ 

The Governor’s September 2, 2008 Executive Message, pursuant to MCR 

7.305(A)(1), requested this Court to authorize the Court of Appeals to certify a question 

relating to the removal proceeding to be conducted by the Governor against the Mayor of 

Detroit. On the same date, the plaintiff Mayor filed a claim of appeal in Detroit Mayor v 

Governor (Court of Appeals Docket No. 287462) and, by peremptory order of September 

2, 2008, the Court of Appeals affirmed the Wayne Circuit Court and denied the plaintiff 

Mayor’s motion for a stay. On September 3, 2008, the plaintiff Mayor filed in this Court 

(Docket No. 137197) an emergency application for leave to appeal from that Court of 

Appeals decision. This Court denied that application on September 4, 2008. 

Accordingly, in response to the Executive Message, we respectfully decline the request to 

authorize the certified question because it is effectively moot. 

p0903 

I, Corbin R. Davis, 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. 

September 4, 2008 

 Clerk
# CE2004078EN.01027101.xml

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/271 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/271

---

(2004/C 78 E/0271)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3353/03

by Hiltrud Breyer (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(13 November 2003)

Subject:   Equal treatment of men and women in sport

Subject:

Men and women are treated differently in a number of different sports: for example, female boxers are not allowed to compete at the Olympic Games.

Does the Commission feel that this unequal treatment on the basis of gender is compatible with EU law?

If not, what legislation should be used to prevent discrimination in sport?

If it does, is the Commission thinking of closing the loopholes in the law, with, for example, the planned directive on equality between men and women outside the workplace?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(6 January 2004)

(6 January 2004)

The European Union already has substantial legislation on gender equality in employment.

Council Directive 76/207/EEC of 9 February 1976 on the implementation of the principle of equal treatment for men and women as regards access to employment, vocational training and promotion, and working conditions (1) guarantees equal treatment for men and women in sport, provided they are professional sportspeople and fall within the definition of a ‘worker’.

1

In addition, on 5 November 2003 the Commission adopted a proposal for a Council Directive (2) implementing the principle of equal treatment for women and men outside the labour market. The aim of this Directive is the progressive implementation of equal treatment.

2

With regard to women's competitions at the Olympic Games, the Commission is unable to comment on a matter which is not within its jurisdiction. The International Olympic Committee (IOC), which organises the competition, is a private body whose job it is to organise the event not only according to sporting criteria but also in line with commercial criteria. The rules for participation in the Games are decided jointly by the International Olympic Committee and international sports federations.

---

(1)  OJ L 39, 14.2.1976.

1

(2)  COM(2003) 657 final.

2

---
STATE of North Carolina v. Steven Lorenzo LOWERY.

No. COA15-425.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Nov. 17, 2015.

**Case Reported Without Published Opinion**

Vacated.
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.0

                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 Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of LIN TV Corp.
for the quarter ended September 30, 2003 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the undersigned, Gary R.
Chapman, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, William A. Cunningham, Vice
President and Controller, Deborah R. Jacobson, Vice President of Corporate
Development and Treasurer, and Peter E. Maloney, Vice President of Finance, each
hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, 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.

     Dated: November 17, 2003        /s/ Gary R. Chapman
                                     -------------------------------------------
                                     Gary R. Chapman
                                     Chief Executive Officer

     Dated: November 17, 2003        /s/ William A. Cunningham
                                     -------------------------------------------
                                     William A. Cunningham
                                     Vice President and Controller

     Dated: November 17, 2003        /s/ Deborah R. Jacobson
                                     -------------------------------------------
                                     Deborah R. Jacobson
                                     Vice President of Corporate Development and
                                     Treasurer

     Dated: November 17, 2003        /s/ Peter E. Maloney
                                     -------------------------------------------
                                     Peter E. Maloney
                                     Vice President of Finance
# Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 53/2014Show full title

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 53/2014 of 21 January 2014 establishing the standard import values for determining            the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables         

        - Previous
        - Next

U.K.

# Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 53/2014                     

# of 21 January 2014

# establishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables

THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

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

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural                           markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation)(1),                        

Having regard to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 of 7 June 2011 laying down detailed rules for the application                           of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in respect of the fruit and vegetables and processed fruit and vegetables sectors(2), and in particular Article 136(1) thereof,                        

Whereas:

(1)Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 lays down, pursuant to the outcome of the Uruguay Round multilateral trade negotiations,                              the criteria whereby the Commission fixes the standard values for imports from third countries, in respect of the products                              and periods stipulated in Annex XVI, Part A thereto.

(2)The standard import value is calculated each working day, in accordance with Article 136(1) of Implementing Regulation (EU)                              No 543/2011, taking into account variable daily data. Therefore this Regulation should enter into force on the day of its                              publication in the *Official Journal of the European Union*,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

# Article 1U.K.

The standard import values referred to in Article 136 of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 are fixed in the Annex to                     this Regulation.                  

# 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, 21 January 2014.

*For the Commission, On behalf of the President,*                            

Jerzy Plewa                            

*Director-General for Agriculture and Rural Development*                            

## ANNEXU.K.Standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables

1

OJ L 299, 16.11.2007, p. 1.                           

2

OJ L 157, 15.6.2011, p. 1.
STATE of North Carolina v. BRYAN EGAN.

No. COA15-297.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Feb. 16, 2016.

**Case Reported Without Published Opinion**

Vacated in part; Remanded in part.
<PAGE>   1
                                                                      EXHIBIT 11

                     UNIVERSAL AUTOMOTIVE INDUSTRIES, INC.
                       COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER SHARE
                                  (UNAUDITED)
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                       Three Months Ended June 30,      Six Months Ended June 30,
                                                       --------------------------       ------------------------
                                                           1998            1997            1998            1997
                                                           ----            ----            ----            ----
<S>                                                    <C>             <C>              <C>            <C>
BASIC NET INCOME (LOSS) PER COMMON SHARE

Net income (loss)                                      $  349,539      $  328,976       $  391,671     $ (164,767)
                                                       ==========      ==========       ==========     ========== 
Weighted average common shares outstanding              6,769,425       6,738,656        6,769,425      6,734,041
                                                       ==========      ==========       ==========     ========== 
Basic net income (loss) per common share               $     0.05      $     0.05       $     0.06     $    (0.02)
                                                       ==========      ==========       ==========     ========== 

DILUTED NET INCOME (LOSS) PER COMMON SHARE
Net income (loss)                                      $  349,539      $  328,976       $  391,671     $ (164,767)
                                                       ==========      ==========       ==========     ==========
Weighted average common shares outstanding              6,769,425       6,738,656        6,769,425      6,734,041
Options and warrants assumed to be common stock
   equivalents using treasury stock method                  1,780          38,551            2.434              0
                                                       ----------      ----------       ----------     ----------
                                                                                                                 
Weighted average common shares outstanding, as
   adjusted                                             6,771,205       6,777,207        6,771,859      6,734,041
                                                       ==========      ==========       ==========     ==========
Diluted net income (loss) per common share             $     0.05      $     0.05       $     0.06     $    (0.02)
                                                       ==========      ==========       ==========     ==========
</TABLE>


                                      11
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 676 Engrossed in Senate (ES)]

  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
110th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 676

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
     To provide that the Executive Director of the Inter-American 
   Development Bank or the Alternate Executive Director of the Inter-
 American Development Bank may serve on the Board of Directors of the 
                       Inter-American Foundation.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. AUTHORITY TO APPOINT EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OR ALTERNATE 
              EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF THE INTER-AMERICAN DEVELOPMENT BANK 
              TO THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE INTER-AMERICAN 
              FOUNDATION.

    The third sentence of section 401(g) of the Foreign Assistance Act 
of 1969 (22 U.S.C. 290f(g)) is amended to read as follows: ``Three 
members of the Board shall be appointed from among the following: 
officers or employees of agencies of the United States concerned with 
inter-American affairs, the United States Executive Director of the 
Inter-American Development Bank, or the Alternate Executive Director of 
the Inter-American Development Bank.''.

            Passed the Senate March 15, 2007.

            Attest:

                                                             Secretary.
110th CONGRESS

  1st Session

                                 S. 676

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

     To provide that the Executive Director of the Inter-American 
   Development Bank or the Alternate Executive Director of the Inter-
 American Development Bank may serve on the Board of Directors of the 
                       Inter-American Foundation.
```
Mason W. HYDE v. STATE of North Carolina.

No. 88P15-2.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Oct. 9, 2015.

Mason W. Hyde, for Hyde, Mason White.

Robert C. Montgomery, Special Deputy Attorney General, for State of N.C.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed by Defendant on the 5th of October 2015 in this matter for a writ of mandamus, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the Superior Court, Davie County:

> *76"Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 9th of October 2015."

Upon consideration of the application filed by Defendant on the 5th of October 2015 in this matter for Writ of Habeas Corpus, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the Superior Court, Davie County:

> "Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 9th of October 2015."
* This panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not

materially assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2);

10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral

argument. This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the

doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited,

however, for its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and

10th Cir. R. 32.1.

FILED

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

August 26, 2008

Elisabeth A. Shumaker

Clerk of Court

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

BENJAMIN ARCHULETA,

Defendant-Appellant.

No. 08-4037

(D.C. No. 2:05-CR-00676-DB-1)

(D. Utah)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

Before KELLY, LUCERO, and TYMKOVICH, Circuit Judges.

This matter is before the court on the government’s motion to enforce the

appeal waiver contained in defendant’s plea agreement. The motion is filed

pursuant to United States v. Hahn, 359 F.3d 1315 (10th Cir. 2004) (en banc). 

In response, defendant concedes that the government’s motion is well taken and

that the appeal should be dismissed.
-2-

Accordingly, the government’s motion is GRANTED, and the appeal is

DISMISSED. The mandate shall issue forthwith.

ENTERED FOR THE COURT

PER CURIAM
EXHIBIT 32.2



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 Quarterly Report of Captaris, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2004 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Form 10-Q), I, Peter Papano, Chief Financial Officer and Secretary of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to
§906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



| | (1) | The Form 10-Q fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and
| | --- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (2) | The information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| | --- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                                                               
|---------------------------------------------------------------
|/s/ PETER PAPANO                                               
|Peter Papano Chief Financial Officer and Secretary May 10, 2004
TED K. BROWN,

Petitioner,

v.

VALERIE HAYS BROWN,

Respondent.

___________________________/

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO 

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND 

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D16-4509

Opinion filed December 21, 2016.

Petition for Writ of Mandamus -- Original Jurisdiction.

Ted K. Brown, pro se, Petitioner.

No appearance for Respondent.

PER CURIAM.

DENIED.

ROBERTS, C.J., ROWE and WINSOR, JJ., CONCUR.
STATE of North Carolina v. Avery R. BRINSON.

No. COA 15-602.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Nov. 17, 2015.

**Case Reported Without Published Opinion**

Affirmed in part; Reversed and Remanded in part.