alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Defense

###### Office of the Secretary

# AGENCY:

Missile Defense Agency (MDA), DoD.

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

This notice announces the appointment of the members of the Performance Review Board (PRB) of the Missile Defense Agency (MDA). The publication of PRB membership is required by 5 U.S.C. 4314(C)(4).

# DATES:

Effective September 3, 2010.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Jovey Martir, MDA SES Program Management, Missile Defense Agency, Arlington, Virginia, (703) 693-1568.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The Performance Review Board (PRB) provides fair and impartial review of Senior Executive Service performance appraisals and makes recommendations regarding performance ratings and performance scores to the Director, MDA.

In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 4314(C)(4), the following executives are appointed to the Missile Defense Agency PRB:

RDML Randall M. Hendrickson, USN (Chair),

RADM Joseph A. Horn, USN,

Brig Gen Terrence A. Feehan, USAF,

Mr. David Altwegg,

Ms. Nancy Morgan,

Mr. Richard Matlock.

Executives listed will serve a one-year term, effective September 3, 2010.

Dated: September 24, 2010.

Mitchell S. Bryman,

Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.

[FR Doc. 2010-24432 Filed 9-28-10; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 5001-06-P
Exhibit 10.26

Consulting Agreement

Mr. Seth Fireman                         Mr. Alan Elkes
Mr. Fred Rudy                            Chief Executive Officer
Managing Partners                        Dalton Kent Securities Group, Inc.
Olympia Partners, LLC                    711 Fifth Avenue, 15th Floor
660 Madison Avenue, 15th Floor           New York,  NY 10022
New York,  NY 10021

American Champion Entertainment, Inc. ("ACEI") hereby appoints Olympia
Partners, LLC and Dalton  Kent Securities Group, Inc. as financial consultants
("Consultants") to ACEI with specific  services as following:

* Assist in seeking financing for ACEI's production needs for the TV program

* Provide and set up promotional activities for ACEI, which includes but not
  limited to  retail support of ACEI's shares as traded on Nasdaq

* Term:  24 months beginning November 25, 1998

ACEI will compensate Consultants as follows, to be equally divided between
Olympia Partners, LLC,  and Dalton Kent Securities Group, Inc.:

1)      On the first business day of January 1999, ACEI will pay consultants
for services rendered  in December 1998.  This compensation will, at the option
of ACEI, equal to an aggregate of  $100,000   or   100,000 warrants exercisable
at $1.25 per share.  And,

2)      Thereafter the following compensation shall be paid in aggregate to the
Consultants:

                                                Eligible from
                                                Effectiveness
   Amount            Strike Price            of S-3 Registration     Expires
100,000 shares      $1.50 per share                 45 days          30 months
100,000 shares      $2.00 per share                 90 days          30 months
100,000 shares      $2.50 per share                135 days          30 months
100,000 shares      $2.75 per share                180 days          30 months
100,000 shares      $4.00 per share                360 days          30 months



For                                        Accepted:

American Champion Entertainment, Inc.      Olympia Partners, LLC

By: /s/ Anthony K. Chan                    By:  /s/ Seth Fireman
Anthony K. Chan                            Name:  Seth Fireman
President & CEO                            Title:  Managing Partner


Date:   November 25, 1998                   Dalton Kent Securities Group, Inc.

                                            By:   /s/ Alan Elkes
                                            Name:   Alan Elkes
                                            Title:  Chief Executive Officer
Exhibit 10.9

	
Amendment to 2006 Stock Compensation Plan





AMENDMENT TO 2006 STOCK

COMPENSATION PLAN (THE “PLAN”)


          On
December
15, 2008, the Board of Directors of the Corporation approved the following
amendment to The
Plan:


          (i)          The
last sentence of Section 8.1 was amended by the insertion of “(i)” prior to the
words “no modification” and by the addition of the following at the end of that
sentence: “and (ii) no Option or Stock Appreciation Right shall be modified,
extended or renewed if such modification, extension or renewal would result in
a violation of Section 409A of the Code.”


          (ii)          Section
10.7 was amended by the addition of the following sentence at the end thereof:
“In no event shall the Committee make any determination, or take any action,
under this Section 10.7 which would result in a violation of Section 409A of
the Code.”


          (iii)          The
last sentence of Section 13.1 was amended by the deletion of the words “rules
adopted by the Committee” and the substitution of the following therefor: “the
terms of the applicable Award Agreement.”


17
CONSULTATION AGREEMENT ADDENDUM

Addendum  to  the Consultation Agreement of the 9th day of September, 2002, made
between  CHANGZHOU  BROADWAY  BUSINESS  DEVELOPMENT  CO. LTD and GLOBAL PROJECTS
CONSULTATIONS  INC  .

Both  parties  mutually  agree  to  the  following  amendment:

Broadway  will pay Global on a retainer basis the agreed sum of US$250,000; such
an  amount  to  be paid to Global or its designate, no later than July 31, 2003.

IN  WITNESS  WHEREOF  the parties hereto have duly executed this Amendment as of
the  day,  month  and  year  written  below.

Dated:  the  25th  day  of  February,  2003.

CHANGZHOU  BROADWAY  BUSINESS  DEVELOPMENT  CO.  LTD
/s/ Jiaping Jiang
-----------------
Jiaping Jiang

Global Projects Consultations Inc.
/s/ Nico Huang
--------------
Nico Huang
#### Stephanie STANLEY v. John Christopher REAMS.

No. 2010-C-1346.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Fourth Circuit.

Jan. 26, 2010.

Mitchell J. Hoffman, Kim Ngan Nguyen, Lowe Stein Hoffman Allweiss & Hauver, L.L.P., New Orleans, LA, for Stephanie Stanley.

Jane Ettinger Booth, Booth & Booth, APLC, New Orleans, LA, for John Christopher Reams.

(Court composed of Judge CHARLES R. JONES, Judge PATRICIA RIVET MURRAY, and Judge EDWIN A. LOMBARD).

ON APPLICATION FOR REHEARING

CHARLES R. JONES, Judge.

11 The application for rehearing of the Respondent, John Christopher Reams, is granted for the limited purpose of clarifying a portion of the disposition rendered by this Court in the writ application of the Relator, Stephanie Stanley. On rehearing, Mr. Reams seeks clarification of that portion of our writ disposition wherein we held that:

> ... the district court erred in reducing the $190,744 reimbursement claim of the Relator by one-half when there was no proof that the repayment amount owed came from the separate funds of the Relator and the contract between the parties did not call for such a reduction.

Mr. Reams argues that if the reimbursement claim of Ms. Stanley for $190,744, does not arise from her use of separate funds, but from community funds, then she does not have a claim for reimbursement at all under Louisiana community property laws. Mr. Reams further argues that if the repayment amount due stemmed from the use of separate funds of Ms. Stanley, then her reimbursement is limited to one-half, whereas if the repayment amount stems from the use of community funds, then no reimbursement exists. _j2ponsidering the writ application and the record, we determined two things in rendering our disposition on the issue of the reimbursement claim of Ms. Stanley. First, no proof existed as to the true nature of the funds in dispute on the reimbursement claim, and whether those funds were used for community expenses. Additionally, we found that the parties in this matter entered into a consent judgment wherein Mr. Reams agreed to pay Ms. Stanley $190,744 in reimbursement, less any amounts owed to Mr. Reams as reimbursement. The district court erred in adjusting the reimbursement claim of Ms. Stanley where the parties contractually agreed on the manner in which they were going to handle reimbursement issues between themselves. Thus, while we granted rehearing for Mr. Reams for clarification, we affirm the disposition of this Court previously rendered.

*DECREE*

For the foregoing reasons, we grant the application for rehearing of John Christopher Reams, and affirm the disposition of this Court previously rendered.

*APPLICATION FOR REHEARING GRANTED*
IN THE MISSOURI COURT OF APPEALS

HANDDOWN LIST OF JUNE 2 , 2015

WESTERN DISTRICT

THE FOLLOWING CASES WERE AFFIRMED PURSUANT TO RULE 84.16(b)

AND ISSUED PER CURIAM



### ------------------------------------------------------------------

WD77154 Richard C. Davis vs. State of Missouri

WD77909 Joyce Elaine Rider

- Diehl vs. Darrell Leroy Diehl

THE FOLLOWING CASES WERE AFFIRMED PURSUANT TO RULE 30.25(b)

AND ISSUED PER CURIAM



### ---------------------------------------------------------------- --

WD76978 State of Missouri vs. Derrick C. Bluett

WD77262 State of Missouri vs. Raheem K. Bland

WD77335 State of Missouri vs. Sara Nichole Myers
#### STATE ex rel. Carl COTLONG v. STATE of Louisiana.

No. 2010-KH-0608.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

March 4, 2011.

In re Cotlong, Carl; —Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Calcasieu, 14th Judicial District Court Div. F, No. 6976-04; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. KH 09-01357.

Denied. Moot. The district court has acted
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    EXHIBIT 4.11

                             BLUE RHINO CORPORATION

             CERTIFICATE OF DESIGNATION, NUMBER OF AUTHORIZED SHARES
                     OF SERIES A CONVERTIBLE PREFERRED STOCK


                         Pursuant to Section 151 of the
                           General Corporation Law of
                              the State of Delaware


                  I, Billy D. Prim, President of Blue Rhino Corporation, a
Delaware corporation (the "COMPANY"), pursuant to the provisions of Section 151
of the General Corporation Law of the State of Delaware, do hereby make this
Certificate of Designation and do hereby state and certify that the Board of
Directors duly adopted the following resolution:

                  WHEREAS, pursuant to the authority expressly vested in the
Company's Board of Directors by the Company's Second Amended and Restated
Certificate of Incorporation, as amended, the Board of Directors has previously
fixed the designation and preferences and relative, participating, optional and
other special rights, qualifications, limitations and restrictions
(collectively, "RIGHTS") of the Company's Series A Convertible Preferred Stock,
$0.001 par value per share ("SERIES A PREFERRED"), which Rights were reflected
in a Certificate of Designation dated and filed on September 7, 2000 pursuant to
Section 151 of the General Corporation Law of the State of Delaware;

                  RESOLVED, that the number of designated shares of Series A
Preferred be and hereby is increased to 3,133,333.

                  IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Blue Rhino Corporation caused this
Certificate to be signed by its President and attested by its Secretary on this
25th day of October, 2000.

                                              BLUE RHINO CORPORATION


                                              By:  /s/ Billy D. Prim
                                                   -----------------
                                                       Billy D. Prim
                                                       CEO and President

ATTEST:

/s/ Mark Castaneda
------------------
Mark Castaneda
Secretary
#### Kim SAACKS v. TARGET CORPORATION d/b/a Target Store T-1449 and Richards Clearview, L.L.C. d/b/a Clearview Shopping Center.

No. 2011-C-0688.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

May 20, 2011.

In re Saacks, Kim; —Plaintiff; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court Div. L, No. 671-298; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 10-CA-819.

Denied.
EXHIBIT 23.06


                  CONSENT OF REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM



Spectrum Organic Products, Inc.
Petaluma, California

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statements on Form S-8 (as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
August 30, 2000 and October 1, 2003) of Spectrum Organic Products, Inc. of our
report dated February 21, 2003, relating to the 2002 financial statements, which
appears in this Annual Report on Form 10-K.


/s/  BDO Seidman, LLP
-----------------------------
     BDO Seidman, LLP


San Francisco, California
March 24, 2005
News United States Air Force
 Carter visits Minot, emphasizes nuclear missionPublished Sept. 27, 2016
                        
                        By Senior Airman Apryl Hall
                        
                        
                        Minot Air Force Base Public Affairs
                **MINOT AIR FORCE BASE, N.D. (AFNS) --**
                Defense Secretary Ash Carter visited Minot Air Force Base Sept. 26, giving Airmen who support the nation’s intercontinental ballistic missile and strategic bomber forces a chance to engage with him.
During the visit to the 5th Bomb and 91st Missile Wings, Carter emphasized the importance of the Defense Department’s only dual-wing, nuclear capable installation.
While touring a missile alert facility in rural North Dakota, Carter witnessed firsthand the work Airmen accomplish on a daily basis, and emphasized the importance of their roles in defending the U.S.
“This is the most important mission we have,” Carter said. “I’m proud of you, and I appreciate you guys.”
The secretary mirrored those feelings while meeting with 5th BW Airmen, as he toured a B-52H Stratofortress and the weapons storage area. He recognized outstanding performers from both the 5th BW and 91st MW for their commitment to the mission.
“America’s nuclear deterrence is the bedrock of our security and the highest priority mission of the Department of Defense,” Carter said. “It’s a mission that demands unparalleled excellence; excellence that you define. We count on you for that.”
Carter said for more than seven decades, the nuclear deterrence mission has given nuclear enterprise options directly to the president of the United States. He also explained how Minot AFB’s mission plays a part in all other DOD missions.
“On a broader, operational level, on more day-to-day basis, you enable American Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen and Marines to accomplish their conventional missions around the world,” he said.
Carter concluded with remarks on the need to constantly enhance the nuclear missions, and keep them a priority.
“How we deter cannot be static,” Carter said. “It must adapt as threats evolve, while continuing to preserve strategic stability, reinforcing nuclear restraint rather than inviting competition or attack. That’s important because it illustrates how strong deterrence doesn’t lower the threshold for nuclear war, instead it raises it.”
Carter thanked the Minot AFB community and stressed their impact on the mission.
“For all Americans, and for that matter, all people all over the world, the bedrock of security you provide has enabled millions and millions to get up in the morning to go to school, go to work, to live their lives, to dream their dreams and to give their children a better future,” he said.DOD 



Minot AFB 



AFGSC 



nuclear 



deterrence
#### John Allan TURNER, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent.

No. 1D11-1283.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

March 30, 2011.

Rehearing Denied May 5, 2011.

John Allan Turner, pro se, Petitioner.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM.

The petition alleging ineffective assistance of appellate counsel is denied on the merits. *See Squires v. State,*450 So.2d 208, 211 (Fla.1984) (“Where a defendant is convicted of first-degree murder, an error or omission in an instruction on the lesser included offense of manslaughter is not fundamental error”).

WOLF, DAVIS, and PADOVANO, JJ., concur.
#### Yunior Galvez CASANAS, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent.

No. 4D10-1937.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

June 25, 2010.

George M. Evans of The Law Offices of George M. Evans, P.A., Coral Gables, for petitioner.

Bill McCollum, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Myra J. Fried, Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for respondent.

*7PER CURIAM.

The petition for writ of habeas corpus is granted and the trial court is directed to hold an evidentiary hearing, forthwith, to determine whether there is evidence to sustain a finding that petitioner committed a new offense while on pretrial release. The trial court shall reinstate bond if there is no longer probable cause to believe that petitioner committed a new offense. *See Baehren v. State,*962 So.2d 417 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007).

GROSS, C.J., STEVENSON and CIKLIN, JJ., concur.
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 Annual Report on Form 10-KSB of Heritage Worldwide, Inc.
(the "Company") for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2006, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Claude
Couty, Chief Financial Officer hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section
1350:

         (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.



Date:  September 28, 2006                        /s/ Claude Couty
                                                     -----------------------
                                                     Claude Couty
                                                     Chief Financial Officer
#### Edward COX v. PORT AGGREGATES, INC.

No. 2011-C-0462.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

May 6, 2011.

In re Bridgefield Casualty Insurance Company; Port Aggregates Inc.; —Defendants); Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review Office of Workers’ Compensation District 03, No. 09-05011; to the *129Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. 10-707.

Denied.

VICTORY and CLARK, JJ., would grant.
583 A.2d 315

#### IN THE MATTER OF THE TENURE HEARING OF LYNN JENISCH TYLER, SCHOOL DISTRICT OF SUSSEX-WANTAGE REGIONAL, SUSSEX COUNTY.

January 29, 1990.

Petition for certification denied. (See 236 *N.J.Super.*478, 566 A.2d 229)
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

October 23, 2018

No. 04-18-00310-CR

Shaun Ruiz PUENTE,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 218th Judicial District Court, Atascosa County, Texas

Trial Court No. 14-01-0040-CRA

Honorable Donna S. Rayes, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

Appellant’s brief was originally due to be filed on November 9, 2018. On October 17, 

2018, appellant filed a motion requesting an extension of time to file the brief until February 7, 

2019, for a total extension of ninety days. The motion is GRANTED. THIS IS THE FINAL 

AND ONLY EXTENSION OF TIME THAT APPELLANT WILL BE GRANTED.

_________________________________

Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 23rd day of October, 2018.

___________________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
#### C. D. Cates v. Louis Maas.

(No. 3477.)

Appeal from Tarrant County.

Capps & Oantey, counsel for appellant.

No counsel appeared for appellee.

November 1, 1890.

Opinion by

Hurt, J.

§161. *Consideration; verification of a plea that a written instrument is without, held insufficient.*In this case the defendant interposed as a defense to the promissory note sued on, that it was without consideration. The plea was verified by his affidavit stating “that the matters and things alleged in the foregoing plea are true, in substance and fact, to the best of his knowledge and belief.” An exception to the plea because “the affidavit to the truth of the same is not positive, but to the effect that the same is true, in substance and in fact, to the best of the knowledge and belief of affiant,” was sustained, and the plaintiff recovered a judgment for the amount of the note. *Held:*The statute provides that an answer setting up “ that a written instrument upon which a pleading is founded is without consideration, or that the consideration of the same has failed in whole or in part,” shall be verified by affidavit. [Art. 1265, E. S.] In the case of Wilson v. Adams, 15 Tex. 323, where one of the pleas enumerated in the statute cited was in question, the defendant having made oath to its truth, “to the best of his knowledge and belief, ” the court held, Hemp-hill, J., delivering the opinion, that the affidavit was insufficient. To the same effect is the case of Davis v. Campbell, 35 Tex. V79. We are cited to no case by appellant holding the contrary. The plea was bad for want of proper affidavit, and the court did not err in sustaining exceptions thereto.

Affirmed.
**EXHIBIT
21.1**
   
 **Subsidiaries
of Camden Summit Partnership, L.P.**
 
 **Name
      of Subsidiary**
    **State
      of Organization**Summit
      Management Company
    MarylandSummit
      Apartment Builders, Inc.
    FloridaPortofino
      Place, Ltd.
    FloridaFoxcroft
      East Associates
    North
      CarolinaSummit
      Valley Brook, LLC
    DelawareSummit
      Grandview, LLC
    North
      CarolinaSummit
      Grand Parc, LLC
    DelawareSummit
      Roosevelt, LLC
    DelawarePAPEC
      Silo Creek, LLC
    DelawareSummit
      Brickellview, LLC
    DelawareHistoric
      Summit Roosevelt, LLC
    Delaware