alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
BKEP-12.31.2012-EX10.40


Exhibit 10.40


*** Where this marking appears throughout this Exhibit 10.40, information has been omitted pursuant to a request for confidential treatment and such information has been filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission.


FIRST AMENDMENT TO 
CRUDE OIL STORAGE SERVICES AGREEMENT


This FIRST AMENDMENT TO CRUDE OIL STORAGE SERVICES AGREEMENT, (the “Amendment”) is effective March 1st, 2013 (the “Effective Date”), made by and between BKEP Pipeline, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, (the “Operator”) and Vitol, Inc., a Delaware corporation, (the “Customer”), each referred to individually as “Party” or collectively as “Parties”.


RECITALS


WHEREAS, the parties previously entered into that certain Crude Oil Storage Services Agreement dated effective June 1st, 2012, (the “Agreement”).


WHEREAS, the parties desire to amend the Agreement as hereinafter described by modifying the Term and Fees of said Agreement. 


NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises set forth below, and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the undersigned Parties hereto agree as follows: 


Term.  The term of the Agreement will be modified and extended with a beginning date of March 1st, 2013 and ending date of October 31st, 2013.   By agreement, the Parties may elect to extend this agreement for successive thirty (30) day periods.     


Monthly Storage Fee.   Commencing on the Effective Date, the monthly storage fee as set forth in Section 4 of the Agreement will change to *** per Barrel of Shell Capacity (the “Monthly Storage”), for a total of ***, regardless of the actual volume of Crude Oil placed in the facility.  


Counterparts.   This Amendment may be executed in several counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original and each of which alone, and all of which together, shall constitute one and the same amendment.  


Effect of Amendment.    This Amendment shall be effective as of the Effective Date.   Except as expressly amended or modified herein, all other terms, covenants, and the conditions of the Agreement shall be unaffected by this Amendment and shall remain in full force and effect.  In the event of conflict between the provisions of this Amendment and the provisions of the Agreement, this Amendment shall prevail.  


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have executed this Amendment effective as of the Effective Date above. 




BKEP Pipeline, LLC, a Delaware limited 
liability company 


/s/ Alex G. Stallings


Title: CFO and Secretary 




Vitol, Inc., a Delaware Corporation


/s/ Mike A. Loya


Title: President
Exhibit 10


            Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements of
Form S-8 (Registration No. 333-12586, 333-13786, 333-14142, 333-83914,
333-104070 and 333-121229) of our report dated February 7, 2005, with respect to
the consolidated financial statements of Alvarion Ltd. included in this annual
report on Form 20-F/A for year ended December 31, 2004.








Tel Aviv, Israel
February 9, 2006





                                    /s/ KOST FORER GABBAY & KASIERER
                                         A Member of Ernst & Young Global
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 139 (Wednesday, July 22, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 36281]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-17488]


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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION


Sunshine Act Meetings

    Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the 
Government in the Sunshine Act, Public Law 94-409, that the Securities 
and Exchange Commission will hold Closed Meetings on Thursday, July 23, 
2009 at 2 p.m. and on Friday, July 24, 2009 at 8 a.m.
    Commissioners, Counsel to the Commissioners, the Secretary to the 
Commission, and recording secretaries will attend the Closed Meetings. 
Certain staff members who have an interest in the matters also may be 
present.
    The General Counsel of the Commission, or his designee, has 
certified that, in his opinion, one or more of the exemptions set forth 
in 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(3), (5), (7), 9(B) and (10) and 17 CFR 
200.402(a)(3), (5), (7), 9(ii) and (10), permit consideration of the 
scheduled matters at the Closed Meetings.
    Commissioner Casey, as duty officer, voted to consider the items 
listed for the Closed Meetings in a closed session, and determined that 
no earlier notice thereof was possible.
    The subject matter of the Closed Meeting scheduled for Thursday, 
July 23, 2009 will be:

institution and settlement of injunctive actions; institution and 
settlement of administrative proceedings; and other matters relating 
to enforcement proceedings.

    The subject matter of the Closed Meeting scheduled for Friday, July 
24, 2009 will be:

consideration of amici consideration; and litigation matters.

    At times, changes in Commission priorities require alterations in 
the scheduling of meeting items.
    For further information and to ascertain what, if any, matters have 
been added, deleted or postponed, please contact:
    The Office of the Secretary at (202) 551-5400.

    Dated: July 17, 2009.
Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-17488 Filed 7-20-09; 11:15 am]
BILLING CODE 8010-01-P
Exhibit 13.1





CERTIFICATION OF THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER


PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED


PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





I, Eran Gorev, as Chief Executive Officer of Alvarion Ltd. (the “Company”), certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:




(1)  The accompanying Annual Report on Form 20-F for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2009 as filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission  (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; 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:  March 26, 2010




/s/ Eran GorevEran GorevChief Executive Officer




A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-4250

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee,

v. ANTHONY MURPHY, Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, Senior District Judge (3:05-cr-00275-REP-1)

Submitted: February 4, 2009 Decided: February 18, 2009

Before NIEMEYER, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Michael S. Nachmanoff, Federal Public Defender, Frances H. Pratt, Carolyn V. Grady, Assistant Federal Public Defenders, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellant. Chuck Rosenberg, United States Attorney, Angela Mastandrea-Miller, Assistant United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Anthony Murphy appeals the twenty-four month sentence imposed upon the revocation of his supervised release. On appeal, counsel asserts that the sentence is plainly unreasonable because the district court failed to consider the advisory sentencing guidelines range or the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2006) sentencing factors. Finding no reversible error, we affirm. Our review of the record leads us to conclude that the district court sufficiently considered the advisory sentencing guideline range of eight to fourteen months and the statutory sentencing factors in imposing a sentence within the statutory maximum set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3). We therefore find that the sentence imposed upon revocation of supervised release is not plainly unreasonable. See United States v. Crudup , 461 F.3d 433, 439-40 (4th Cir. 2006) (providing standard). Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment. 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.

AFFIRMED
#### The Cloud.1 Bergantz and others *v.*The Cloud.

*(District Court, E. D. Pennsylvania.*

December 8, 1886.)

Salvage—Tug at Wharf on Fire.

A tug took fire while tied to a wharf. Whije the fire was burning, and the firemen on shore were trying to put it out, the tug got loose, and was in danger of escaping beyond the reach of the firemen. Libelants secured the tug, made her fast, and aided in extinguishing the fire. *Held,*that they had rendered a salvage service, and were entitled to comnensation.

In Admiralty.

*Theodore Etting,*for libelants.

*Flanders & Pugh,*for respondent.

1

 Reported by C. Berkeley Taylor, Esq., of the Philadelphia bar.

Butler, J.

In view of the proofs, it must be held that the libel-ants rendered a salvage seiwice. It is clear that they tied up the tug, which had become unfastened, with no one on board, and was so near the outer end of the dock as to be in some danger of escaping, or passing beyond reach of the firemen on shore; they also did something towards extinguishing the fire, and preventing her destruction. The services were not hazardous, nor of great value, and occupied but little time. They must be compensated accordingly. I believe the sum of $75 will be a sufficient and fair compensation, and this sum is allowed. A decree may be so entered.
<PAGE>   1


                                                                   Exhibit 11.01

                                   STAC, INC.
                        COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER SHARE
               (in thousands, except per share amounts; unaudited)

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                   Three Months
                                                                Ended December 31,
                                                              -----------------------
                                                              1996              1995
                                                              ----              ----
<S>                                                         <C>               <C>
Primary earnings (loss) per share:

Net income (loss)                                           $ 2,204           $ (9,180)

Less preferred dividends                                       --                  168
                                                            -------           --------

Income (loss) available for common                         
 stockholders                                               $ 2,204           $ (9,348)
                                                            =======           ========

Common and common stock
 equivalent shares outstanding                               31,184             28,492


Primary earnings (loss) per share                           $  0.07           ($  0.33)





Fully diluted earnings (loss) per share:

Net income (loss)                                           $ 2,204           $ (9,180)

Less preferred dividends                                       --                 --
                                                            -------           --------

Income (loss) available for common
 stockholders                                               $ 2,204           $ (9,180)
                                                            =======           ========

Common and common stock
 equivalent shares outstanding                               31,184             30,440


Fully diluted income (loss) per share                       $  0.07           ($  0.30)
</TABLE>


                                       15
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.3


                                  CERTIFICATION

      I, Jeffrey D. Beck, certify that:

      1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K, and all reports on
Form 8-K containing distribution or servicing reports filed in respect of
periods included in the year covered by this annual report, of Advanta Business
Receivables Corp. on behalf of Advanta Business Card Master Trust;

      2. Based on my knowledge, the information in these reports, taken as a
whole, 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 as of the
last day of the period covered by this annual report;

      3. Based on my knowledge, the distribution or servicing information
required to be provided to the trustee by the servicer under the pooling and
servicing, or similar, agreement, for inclusion in these reports is included in
these reports;

      4. Based on my knowledge and upon the annual compliance statement included
in the report and required to be delivered to the trustee in accordance with the
terms of the pooling and servicing, or similar, agreement, and except as
disclosed in the reports, the servicer has fulfilled its obligations under the
servicing agreement; and

      5. The reports disclose all significant deficiencies relating to the
servicer's compliance with the minimum servicing standards based upon the report
provided by an independent public accountant, after conducting a review in
compliance with the Transfer and Servicing Agreement, that is included in these
reports.

Date: March 31, 2003

/s/ Jeffrey D. Beck
---------------------------------------------
Jeffrey D. Beck
President of Advanta Business
  Receivables Corp.


                                      -11-
NOTICE: NOT FOR OFFICIAL PUBLICATION.

UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL

AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE.

IN THE

ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS

DIVISION ONE

STATE OF ARIZONA, Respondent,

v.

SHANE ALAN RAFFAELE, Petitioner.

No. 1 CA-CR 23-0464 PRPC

Petition for Review from the Superior Court in Maricopa County

No. CR2013-437445-001

The Honorable Jay R. Adleman, Judge

REVIEW GRANTED; RELIEF DENIED

COUNSEL

Arizona Attorney General’s Office, Phoenix

By Veronica Skinner

Counsel for Respondent

Shane Alan Raffaele, Florence

Petitioner

FILED 10-03-2024
STATE v. RAFFAELE

Decision of the Court

2

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Presiding Judge Maria Elena Cruz, Judge Samuel A. Thumma and Judge 

Andrew M. Jacobs delivered the following decision.

PER CURIAM:

¶1 Petitioner Shane Alan Raffaele seeks review of the superior 

court’s order denying his petition for post-conviction relief. This is 

Raffaele’s second petition.

¶2 Absent an abuse of discretion or error of law, this court will 

not disturb a superior court’s ruling on a petition for post-conviction relief. 

See State v. Gutierrez, 229 Ariz. 573, 577 ¶ 19 (2012). It is Petitioner’s burden 

to show that the superior court abused its discretion by denying the petition 

for post-conviction relief. See State v. Poblete, 227 Ariz. 537, 538 ¶ 1 (App. 

2011) (petitioner has burden of establishing abuse of discretion on review).

¶3 We have reviewed the record in this matter, the superior 

court’s order denying the petition for post-conviction relief, and the petition 

for review. We find the petitioner has not established an abuse of 

discretion. 

¶4 We grant review but deny relief.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-1766

GARY PHAM,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

D. B. ELLIS, Patrol Section; WINTER HILL

APARTMENT; DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN DEVELOPMENT;

SOCIAL SECURITY DISTRICT OFFICE; LOCK WOOD

HOUSE,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. T.S. Ellis, III, District Judge.

(CA-96-183-A)

Submitted: August 20, 1996 Decided: September 3, 1996

Before WILKINS and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Gary Pham, Appellant Pro Se. Anthony D. Dawyer, Columbia, Maryland; Ann Gouldin Killalea, OFFICE OF THE COUNTY ATTORNEY, Fairfax,

Virginia; Constance Harriett Frogale, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES

ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia; Steven Dewey Briglia, BRIGLIA &

WRIGHT, P.C., Fairfax, Virginia, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals from the district court's order granting the

Defendants' motions to dismiss Appellant's claim that he was being

victimized and that the Defendants were part of a conspiracy to

further this victimization. We have reviewed the record and the

district court's order and find no reversible error. Appellant's

complaint fails to satisfy any of the requirements of Fed. R. Civ.

P. 8(a). Appellant makes no assertions as to why the federal court

has jurisdiction, nor does he raise any federal questions or constitutional issues. Furthermore, Appellant's complaint fails to

state a cause of action upon which relief could be granted and

therefore was properly dismissed pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.

12(b)(6). Finally, Appellant fails to make any specific request for

relief in his complaint. Accordingly, we affirm the order of the

district court. Pham v. Ellis, No. CA-96-183-A (E.D. Va. Apr. 26,

1996). 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.

AFFIRMED
**EXHIBIT 99.1**

Form of Section 906 Certification

**CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER**

**AND**

**CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER**

**PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350**

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Boston Pacific Medical, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period
ended March 31, 2002 (the "Report"), I, Brant Dees, Chief Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer of the
Company, hereby certify 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 results of
operations of the Company.

/s/ Brant Dees

Brant Dees

Chief Executive Officer and

Principal Financial Officer

Date: December 24, 2002
7.0% or more

6.0% to 6.9%5.0% to 5.9%4.0% to 4.9%3.9% or below

Unemployment Rate

Unemployment rates by county and disaster assistance elig

September 2005, not seasonally adjusted

(State rate = 5.3%; U.S. rate = 4.8%)

The nine laeligible for of Septemare eligible 

NOTE:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

DANIEL CASTRO,

Petitioner

v.

LISA MARIE ROSADO,

Respondent

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 261 EAL 2020

Petition for Allowance of Appeal 

from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 4th day of May, 2021, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is 

DENIED.
I 

108TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 886

To amend title 38, United States Code, to provide for the payment of 

dependency and indemnity compensation to the survivors of former prisoners of war who died on or before September 30, 1999, under the 

same eligibility conditions as apply to payment of dependency and indemnity compensation to the survivors of former prisoners of war who die 

after that date. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 25, 2003

Mr. HOLDEN (for himself, Mr. EVANS, Ms. KAPTUR, Mr. TOWNS, Mr. SANDERS, Mrs. MCCARTHY of New York, Mr. BRADY of Pennsylvania, Ms. 

NORTON, Mr. CARSON of Oklahoma, Mr. FROST, Ms. WOOLSEY, Mr. 

PAUL, Mr. STRICKLAND, Mrs. MALONEY, Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN, Mr. 

HEFLEY, Ms. SCHAKOWSKY, Mr. RANGEL, Mrs. JONES of Ohio, and Mr. 

MCGOVERN) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs 

A BILL

To amend title 38, United States Code, to provide for the 

payment of dependency and indemnity compensation to 

the survivors of former prisoners of war who died on 

or before September 30, 1999, under the same eligibility 

conditions as apply to payment of dependency and indemnity compensation to the survivors of former prisoners of war who die after that date.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
2

•HR 886 IH 

1 That section 1318(b)(3) of title 38, United States Code, 

2 is amended by striking ‘‘who died after September 30, 

3 1999,’’.

Æ
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-10700

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

SHAWN SCOTT BANTA,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeals from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:15-CR-35-1

Before JOLLY, DENNIS, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The attorney appointed to represent Shawn Scott Banta has moved for 

leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 

386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores, 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). 

Banta has not filed a response. 

We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record 

reflected therein. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal 

 

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not 

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH 

CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

June 23, 2016

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 15-10700 Document: 00513561873 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/23/2016
No. 15-10700

2

presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review, including counsel’s 

conclusion that the record is not sufficiently developed to allow us to make a 

fair evaluation of any claim of ineffective assistance of counsel; we therefore 

decline to consider such a claim without prejudice to collateral review. See 

United States v. Isgar, 739 F.3d 829, 841 (5th Cir. 2014). We also note that, 

contrary to counsel’s assertion, there is no clerical error in the district court’s 

Statement of Reasons (SOR). The SOR correctly reflects that the sentence was 

within the guideline range and that the difference between the maximum and 

minimum of the guideline range does not exceed 24 months. Accordingly, 

counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from 

further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5TH CIR.

R. 42.2.

 Case: 15-10700 Document: 00513561873 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/23/2016
# 17SNR02_00

# image1.png