alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 109 (Wednesday, June 5, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 28522]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-13992]



=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

19 CFR Part 132


Extension of Comment Period for Administration of Tobacco Tariff-
Rate Quota

AGENCY: Office of the United States Trade Representative.

ACTION: Notice of extension of comment period.

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

SUMMARY: On February 20, 1996, the Office of the United States Trade 
Representative (USTR) published a notice soliciting comments and views 
on the administration of the tariff-rate quota on leaf tobacco, 
established on September 13, 1995, which was operating on a first-come, 
first-served basis (61 FR 6333). Because of request by interested 
parties for an extension of the comment period, USTR is extending the 
comment period until June 19, 1996.

DATES: Comment period extended until June 19, 1996.

ADDRESSES: Office of the U.S. Trade Representative, Room 222, 600 17th 
Street, NW., Washington, DC 20508, attention: Tobacco Tariff-Rate 
Quota.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Tom Perkins, Senior Economist, Office of Agricultural Affairs, USTR, 
(202) 395-6127; or Rachel Shub, Assistant General Counsel, USTR (202) 
395-7305.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Persons submitting written comments should 
provide a statement, in ten copies, by noon June 19, 1996 to Sybia 
Harrison, Office of the United States Trade Representative, Room 222, 
600 17th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20508, attention: Tobacco Tariff-
Rate Quota. Non-confidential information received will be available for 
public inspection by appointment, in the USTR Reading Room, Room 101, 
Monday through Friday, 10:00 a.m. to 12:00 noon and 1:00 p.m. to 4:00 
p.m. For an appointment call Brenda Webb at (202) 395-6186. Business 
confidential information will be subject to the requirements of 15 CFR 
2003.6 Any business confidential material must be clearly marked as 
such on the cover letter or page and each succeeding page, and must be 
accompanied by a non-confidential summary thereof.

Jennifer Hillman,
General Counsel.
[FR Doc. 96-13992 Filed 6-4-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3190-01-M
Case 2:17-mj-00589-MHB Document 1 Filed 11/20/17 Page 1 of 4
Case 2:17-mj-00589-MHB Document 1 Filed 11/20/17 Page 2 of 4
Case 2:17-mj-00589-MHB Document 1 Filed 11/20/17 Page 3 of 4
Case 2:17-mj-00589-MHB Document 1 Filed 11/20/17 Page 4 of 4
In the

Court of Appeals

Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth

No. 02-19-00409-CR

DARRELL DARCELL DARBY, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS

§

§

§

§

§

On Appeal from the 396th District 

Court

of Tarrant County (0807929A)

January 16, 2020

Per Curiam

(nfp)

JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that the 

appeal should be dismissed. It is ordered that the appeal is dismissed for want of 

jurisdiction.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS 

PER CURIAM
Exhibit 32

                           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 Smitten Press: Local Lore and
Legends, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending June 30,
2005, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
(the "Report"), I, Richard Smitten, acting in the capacity as the Chief
Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify to the
best of my knowledge, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 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 result of operations
            of the Company.


/s/ Richard Smitten
------------------------
    Richard Smitten
    President, CEO, Principal Financial Officer and Principal
    Accounting Officer

September 14, 2005
---

Fusion Capital Partners, LLC

222 Merchandise Mart Plaza, Suite 9-112 
  Chicago, Illinois 60654 
  Phone: 312-611-6614 
  Facsimile: 312-644-6244 www.fusioncapital.com

June 05, 2003

VIA FACSIMILE

Online Innovation, Inc. 
  1118 Homer Street, Suite 218 
  Vancouver, B.C. Canada V6B 6L5 
  Attention: Chad Lee

Re: Termination of Common Stock Purchase Agreement

Ladies and Gentlemen:

Reference is made to that certain Common Stock Purchase Agreement between ONLINE INNOVATION, INC, a Delware corporation (theCompany) and FUSION CAPITAL FUND II, LLC (Fusion) dated as of June 25, 2001 (the Purchase
Agreement) All capitalized terms used herein that are not defined herein shall have the meanings set forth in the Purchase Agreement.

Pursuant to Section 11(k)(i) of the Purchase Agreement, Fusion may terminate
  the Purchase Agreement any time on Event of Default exists without liability
  or payment to the Company. Certain Events of Default exist as of the date hereof.

Pursuant to Section 11(k)(iii) of the Purchase Agreement, Fusion may terminate the Purchase Agreement in the event that the Commencement shall not have occurred on or before June 30, 2002, due to the failure to satisfy the conditions set forth in
Section 6 and 7 of the Purchase Agreement. The Commencement has not occurred on or before June 30, 2002 due to that failure of the Company to satisfy certain conditions set forth in Section 7 of the Purchase Agreement.

Accordingly, pursuant to Section 11(k)(i) and 11(k)(iii) of the Purchase Agreement, Fusion hereby terminates the Purchase Agreement effective as of the date hereof provided, however, that (i) the representations and warranties of the parties
contained in Section 2 and 3 of the Purchase Agreement, (ii) the indemnification provisions set forth in Section 8 of the Purchase Agreement, and (iii) the agreements and covenants set forth in Section 11 of the Purchase Agreement shall survive such
termination and shall continue in full force and effect.

|                            | FUSION CAPITAL FUND II, LLC     
|--------------------------- | --------------------------------
|                            | BY: FUSION CAPITAL PARTNERS, LLC
|                            | BY: SGM HOLDINGS CORP.          
|                            | By:                             
|                            | Name:                           
|                            | Tide:                           
|Cc: Shivbir S. Grewal, Esq. |                                 

---
Exhibit 32 CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF
FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350)  Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
(subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States
Code), each of the undersigned officers of Viasystems, Inc., a Delaware
corporation (the Company), does hereby certify that, to the best of their
knowledge: The Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December
31, 2007 (the Form 10-K) of the Company fully complies with the requirements
of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and information
contained in the Form 10-K fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company. Date: March 28, 2008 /s/ David M. Sindelar David M. Sindelar Chief Executive Officer  Date: March 28, 2008 /s/ Gerald G. Sax Gerald G. Sax Chief Financial Officer
Case 3:18-cv-08013-MHB Document 39 Filed 04/23/18 Page 1 of 6
Case 3:18-cv-08013-MHB Document 39 Filed 04/23/18 Page 2 of 6
Case 3:18-cv-08013-MHB Document 39 Filed 04/23/18 Page 3 of 6
Case 3:18-cv-08013-MHB Document 39 Filed 04/23/18 Page 4 of 6
Case 3:18-cv-08013-MHB Document 39 Filed 04/23/18 Page 5 of 6
Case 3:18-cv-08013-MHB Document 39 Filed 04/23/18 Page 6 of 6
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Andrew Paul Gilardi, 

Petitioner, 

v. 

Charles Ryan, et al., 

Respondents.

No. CV-17-00609-TUC-RM

ORDER 

 Pending before the Court is Magistrate Judge Bernardo P. Velasco’s Report and 

Recommendation (Doc. 14) recommending that this Court deny Petitioner’s Petition for 

Writ of Habeas Corpus brought under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner was granted one 

extension, until October 12, 2018, to file objections to the Report and Recommendation 

(Doc. 16). Petitioner has not filed any objections, and the time for doing so has long-since 

expired. 

 A district judge must “make a de novo determination of those portions” of a 

magistrate judge’s “report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which 

objection is made.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The advisory committee’s notes to Rule 72(b) 

of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure state that, “[w]hen no timely objection is filed, the 

court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to 

accept the recommendation” of a magistrate judge. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b) advisory 

committee’s note to 1983 addition. See also Johnson v. Zema Sys. Corp., 170 F.3d 734, 

739 (7th Cir. 1999) (“If no objection or only partial objection is made, the district court 
- 2 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

judge reviews those unobjected portions for clear error.”); Prior v. Ryan, CV 10-225-TUCRCC, 2012 WL 1344286, at *1 (D. Ariz. Apr. 18, 2012) (reviewing for clear error 

unobjected-to portions of Report and Recommendation). 

 The Court has reviewed Judge Velasco’s Report and Recommendation, the parties’ 

briefs, and the record. The Court finds no error in Judge Velasco’s Report and 

Recommendation. Accordingly, 

 IT IS ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation (Doc. 14) is accepted and 

adopted in full. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. 

1) is denied. The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment accordingly and close this 

case. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to Rule 11 of the Rules Governing 

Section 2254 Cases, the Court declines to issue a certificate of appealability, because 

reasonable jurists would not find the Court’s ruling debatable. See Slack v. McDaniel, 529 

U.S. 473, 478, 484 (2000). 

 Dated this 17th day of December, 2018.
<Page>

EXHIBIT 10.16


AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT OF A. LEIGH POWELL.

On January 7, 2002, the Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors, acting
by unanimous written consent, passed the following resolutions:

            RESOLVED, to amend the October 2000 Employment Agreement of A. Leigh
       Powell, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Corporation (the
       "Employment Agreement"), effective January 1, 2002, as follows:

                 CURRENT: SECTION 2.2b - Executive, provided that he is employed
                 in good standing by the Company on January 1, 2002, shall
                 receive a direct stock grant on January 2, 2002 of 100,000
                 shares of Company's common stock provided that the average of
                 the two highest Thirty-Day Averages ending on December 31,
                 2001, is equal to or greater than $20.00. For the purposes of
                 this Section 2.2, "Thirty-Day Average" means the average over
                 thirty consecutive days of the daily closing prices of the
                 Company's common stock (as listed in the national edition of
                 the Wall Street Journal) for each of the three consecutive
                 thirty-day periods commencing ninety days prior to December 31
                 of any year.

                 REVISED: SECTION 2.2b - Executive, provided that he is employed
                 in good standing by the Company on January 1, 2002, shall
                 receive a direct stock grant on JANUARY 31, 2002 of 100,000
                 shares of Company's common stock provided that the average of
                 the highest Thirty-Day Average ending on December 31, 2001, is
                 equal to or greater than $7.00. For the purposes of this
                 Section 2.2, "Thirty-Day Average" means the average over thirty
                 consecutive days of the daily closing prices of the Company's
                 common stock (as listed in the national edition of the Wall
                 Street Journal) for each of the three consecutive thirty-day
                 periods commencing ninety days prior to December 31 of any
                 year.

            RESOLVED, that pursuant to the Employment Agreement and in
       accordance with the Plan, to award A. Leigh Powell a grant of 100,000
       shares of the Corporation's unrestricted common stock, $.0001 par value
       per share, with an effective issuance date of January 31, 2002.
<PAGE>

                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.80

                                   GUARANTEE

     GUARANTEE, dated as of October 5, 2000, of AGL Resources Inc., a Georgia
corporation (the "Guarantor").

     The Guarantor, for value received, hereby irrevocably guarantees payment in
full, as and when the same becomes due and payable, of the principal of and
interest, if any, on the promissory notes (the "Notes") issued by AGL Capital
Corporation, a Nevada corporation (the "Company"), from time to time pursuant to
the Issuing and Paying Agency Agreement, dates as of September 25, 2000, as the
same may be amended, supplemented or modified from time to time (the
"Agreement"), between the Company and The Bank of New York in the form of (i)
certificated notes or (ii) book-entry obligations evidenced by a master note
payable to The Depository Trust Company or its nominee.  The Guarantor's
obligations under this Guarantee shall be unconditional, irrespective of the
validity or enforceability of any provision of the Agreement or the Notes.

     This Guarantee is a guaranty of the due and punctual payment (and not
collectibility) of all obligations of the Company in respect of the Notes and
shall remain in full force and effect until all amounts have been validly,
finally and irrevocably paid in full, and shall not be affected in any way by
any circumstance or condition whatsoever, including without limitation (a) the
absence of any action to obtain such amounts from the Company, (b) any
variation, extension, waiver, compromise or release of any or all of the
obligations of the Company under the Agreement or the Notes or of any collateral
security therefor or (c) any change in the existence or structure of, or the
bankruptcy or insolvency of, the Company or by any other circumstance (other
than by complete, irrevocable payment) that might otherwise constitute a legal
or equitable discharge or defense of a guarantor.  The Guarantor waives all
requirements as to promptness, diligence, presentment, demand for payment,
protest and notice of any kind with respect to the Agreement and the Notes.

     This Guarantee shall remain in full force and effect or shall be reinstated
(as the case may be) if at any time any payment of the Company, in whole or in
part, is rescinded or must otherwise be returned by the holder upon the
insolvency, bankruptcy or reorganization of the Company or otherwise, all as
though such payment had not been made.

     This Guarantee shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the
law of the State of  New York.

                                   AGL RESOURCES INC.

                                   /s/ Donald P. Weinstein
                                   ________________________________
                                   By: Donald P. Weinstein
                                   Title: Chief Financial Officer
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

United States of America,

Plaintiff,

v. 

Pablo Federico Sabillon-Machado,

Defendant.

No. CR-18-00036-01-TUC-CKJ(LCK)

DETENTION ORDER

On September 15, 2020, Defendant appeared before this Court on a petition for 

revocation of supervised release. The issue of detention was submitted to the Court. The 

Court considered the petition and file in determining whether Defendant should be released 

on conditions set by the Court.

The Court finds that Defendant, having previously been convicted and placed on 

supervised release, and having appeared before the Court in connection with a petition to

revoke his supervised release, has failed to establish by clear and convincing evidence that 

he is not likely to flee or pose a danger to the safety of the community if released pursuant 

to Rule 46(d), and Rule 32.1(a)(6), Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, and 18 U.S.C. §

3143.

 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendant be detained pending further 

proceedings. 

Dated this 15th day of September, 2020.

Honorable Eileen S. Willett

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 4:18-cr-00036-SPL Document 38 Filed 09/15/20 Page 1 of 1
BRIDGE
                         TECHNOLOGY, INC.

                            AGREEMENT

This agreement supersedes the letter of intent of April 21, 1999 between
Bridge Technology, Inc. ("BTGY") and Global Pacific Wireless Internet, a
Division of Worldwide Wireless Networks, Inc. ("GP").

1.  BTGY is a diversified research, manufacturing, computer systems
enhancement products company interested in developing a wireless internet
access communications system for the Asian market through a subsidiary,
Pacific Bridge Net ("PBN").

2.  GP is designing, installing and operation wireless internet access
communications systems throughout the U.S.A., initially in Orange County,
California.

3.  The capitalization of PBN initially is to be $250,000 of which GP is to
invest $50,000 for 20% and BTGY is to invest $200,000 for 80%.

4.  Concurrent with funding PBN is to acquire the know-how, current and
developing for a wireless internet ATM ethernet bridge or router with voice
and video capability which complies with U.S. patent and FCC regulations for a
cash price of $50,000.

5.  The know-how acquired by PBN includes specifications and parameters for
certain radio equipment and software to be developed, patented, licensed and
manufactured by PBN, in conjunction with others.

6.  GP will have the exclusive sales rights for the radio equipment for the
U.S. market.

7.  PBN agrees to have the radio equipment manufactured in Asia, probably
China, and to sell the radio equipment for the U.S. market on an exclusive
basis to GP at cost plus 10% handling fee.

8.  In addition to purchasing the know-how for GP, GP agrees to offer and PBN
agrees to use the consulting services of both Jack Tortorice and Dennis Shen
to PBN and they are to be reimbursed by PBN for these expenses.

May 20, 1999


Bridge Technology, Inc.

/s/ James D'jen
- ----------------------
James D'jen
President


May 20, 1999

Global Pacific
Division of Worldwide Wireless Networks, Inc.

/s/ Jack Tortorice
- ------------------
Jack Tortorice


12601 Monarch Street, Garden Grove, CA 92841, Tel (714) 891-6508, Fax (714)
890-8590, www.bridgeus.com
EXHIBIT 31. 1


CERTIFICATIONS OF THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER


UNDER SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT





I, Jack J. Walker certify that:





1. I have reviewed this report on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2010 of AeroGrow International 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 registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;





4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and we 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 registrant, 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 registrant’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 registrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the issuer’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and





5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):





(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 registrant’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 registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.








Date:  November 10, 2010
By:
/s/ Jack J. WalkerJack J. WalkerChairman and Chief Executive Officer

(Principal Executive Officer)
#### Lawrence LANHAM, Movant-Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.

No. 68679.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One.

March 26, 1996.

John M. Schilmoeller, St. Louis, for appellant.

Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Attorney General, Kurt U. Schaefer, Assistant Attorney General, Jefferson City, for respondent.

Before REINHARD, P.J., and KAROHL and GRIMM, JJ.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

Movant appeals dismissal of his Rule 24.035 motion. On September 16,1993, mov-ant was sentenced on the charge of sale of a controlled substance, § 195.211 RSMo Cum.Supp.1992, to serve a term of eighteen years imprisonment. After serving part of the sentence with the Missouri Department of Corrections, the court placed movant on probation. The court revoked the probation on December 8, 1994. On February 16, 1995, movant filed a pro se Rule 24.035 motion. Accordingly, the pro se motion was untimely. Rule 24.035(b). Dismissal of the late filed motion was mandatory. “The time limitations contained in *Rules 24-035 and 29.15*are valid and mandatory.” *Day v. State,*770 S.W.2d 692, 695 (Mo. banc 1989). The dismissal is affirmed.