alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
- All
            - Title
            - Author
            - Subject
            - Date
            - Full-Text

            -                              Explore                            ******                - Educational Resources
              - Archival Collections
              -                                      Themes                                    ******                  - Economic Data
                - Federal Reserve
                - View all 
              - Timelines 
            -                              Browse                            ******                - Titles
              - Authors
              - Subjects
              - Dates 
            -                              About                            ******                - About FRASER
              - FAQ
              - Contact Us
              -                                      FRASER API                                    ******                  - REST API
                - OAI-PMH 
            - Inside FRASER Blog

            - **

Home                 > Browse by Title > Wages, Hours, and Working Conditions in the Folding-Paper-Box Industry: 1933, 1934, and 1935

              																	Baril, Victor S.					,	Jones, Frances M. (Frances Mary)					 and 	United States. Bureau of Labor Statistics. 						*Wages, Hours, and Working Conditions in the Folding-Paper-Box Industry: 1933, 1934, and 1935 : Bulletin of the United States Bureau of Labor Statistics, No. 620*,												Washington, D.C: 								U.S. G.P.O., 										August 1936,									https://fraser.stlouisfed.org/title/4140,			accessed on September 24, 2024.						    

        - **FRASER**
        - About
        - FAQ
        - Legal and Privacy
        - FRASER API

          -                              @FedFRASER 
          - ** Contact Us
          -  **  What's New  
          -  **  Inside FRASER
Exhibit 10.5.1


 


THIS PROMISSORY NOTE (“NOTE”) TO WHICH THIS AMENDMENT RELATES
HAS NOT BEEN REGISTERED UNDER THE SECURITIES ACT OF 1933, AS AMENDED (THE “SECURITIES ACT”). SUCH NOTE, AS AMENDED, HAS BEEN
ACQUIRED FOR INVESTMENT ONLY AND MAY NOT BE SOLD, TRANSFERRED OR ASSIGNED IN THE ABSENCE OF REGISTRATION OF THE RESALE THEREOF UNDER THE
SECURITIES ACT OR AN OPINION OF COUNSEL REASONABLY SATISFACTORY IN FORM, SCOPE AND SUBSTANCE TO THE COMPANY THAT SUCH REGISTRATION IS
NOT REQUIRED.


 


AMENDMENT TO PROMISSORY NOTE


 


	Principal Amount: 	
    up to $350,000 (consisting of the original principal amount of $300,000
    and an additional principal amount of $50,000)

     
	Dated as of September 20, 2021


(as set forth on the Schedule of Borrowings attached hereto)


 


Cartica Acquisition Corp, a Cayman Islands exempted
company and blank check company (the “Maker”), hereby amends its promissory note dated as of February 9, 2021 to:


 


		(a)	increase the principal amount that it promises to pay to the
order of Cartica Acquisition Partners, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, or its registered assigns or successors in interest
(the “Payee”), from the original principal sum of up to three hundred thousand U.S. dollars ($300,000) to the principal
sum of up to three hundred fifty thousand dollars ($350,000) (as set forth on the Schedule of Borrowings attached hereto) in lawful money
of the United States of America, and



 


		(b)	revise the date on which the principal balance of this Note
shall be payable by the Maker to be the earlier of: (i) December 31, 2021 or (ii) the date on which Maker consummates an initial
public offering of its securities (the “IPO”).



 


All of the other terms of the promissory note dated
as of February 9, 2021 remain unchanged and in effect.


  


[Signature page follows]


  




     


     


    

 


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Maker, intending to be legally bound hereby,
has caused this Note to be duly executed by the undersigned as of the day and year first above written.


 


	 	CARTICA ACQUISITION CORP
	 	A Cayman Islands exempted company
	 	 	 
	 	By:	 /s/ Sanjeev Goel
	 	 	Name:  Sanjeev Goel
	 	 	Title:    Director 


 


[Signature Page to Promissory Note]


 




     


     


    

 


SCHEDULE OF BORROWINGS


 


The following increases or decreases in this Promissory Note have been
made:


 


	Date of 

Increase or 

Decrease	Amount of decrease in 

Principal Amount of this 

Promissory Note	Amount of increase in 

Principal Amount of this 

Promissory Note	Principal Amount of this 

Promissory Note following such 

decrease or increase
	 	 	 	 
	September 20, 2021	NA	$50,000	$350,000
### §7725. Superintendents

(a) Appointment and Qualifications.—An individual serving as the superintendent of one of the Cemeteries should have, as determined by the Secretary of the Army—

(1) experience in the administration, management, and operation of cemeteries under the jurisdiction of the National Cemeteries System administered by the Department of Veterans Affairs; or

(2) experience in the administration, management, and operation of large civilian cemeteries equivalent to the experience described in paragraph (1).

(b) Duties.—The superintendents of the Cemeteries report directly to the Executive Director and performs such duties and responsibilities as the Executive Director prescribes.

(Added Pub. L. 112–81, div. A, title V, §591(a)(1), Dec. 31, 2011, 125 Stat. 1441, §4725; renumbered §7725, Pub. L. 115–232, div. A, title VIII, §808(d), Aug. 13, 2018, 132 Stat. 1839.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Prior Provisions

A prior section 7725 was renumbered section 8895 of this title.

#### Amendments

2018—Pub. L. 115–232 renumbered section 4725 of this title as this section.

#### **Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries**

#### Effective Date of 2018 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 115–232 effective Feb. 1, 2019, with provision for the coordination of amendments and special rule for certain redesignations, see section 800 of Pub. L. 115–232, set out as a note preceding section 3001 of this title.
# C_2006190EN.01003101.xml

| 12.8.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 190/31 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.8.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 190/31

---

Order of the Court of First Instance of 14 June 2006 — Muswellbrook v OHIM-Nike (NIKE)

(Case T-362/02, T-363/02, T-364/02, T-365/02 and T-366/02) (1)

1

(2006/C 190/56)

Language of the case: Spanish

Language of the case: Spanish

The President of the Second Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 44, 22.2.2003.

1

---
----

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Koblenz (Germany) lodged on 31 May 2006 — Dynamic Medien Vertriebs GmbH v Avides Media AG

(Case C-244/06)

(2006/C 178/40)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landgericht Koblenz

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Dynamic Medien Vertriebs GmbH

Defendant: Avides Media AG

Question referred

Does the principle of the free movement of goods within the meaning of Article 28 EC preclude a provision of German law prohibiting the sale by mail order of image storage media (DVDs, videos) that are not labelled as having been examined in Germany as to their availability to young persons?

In particular:

Does the prohibition of mail order sales of such image storage media constitute a measure having equivalent effect within the meaning of Article 28 EC?

If so:

Is such a prohibition justified under Article 30 EC, having regard to Directive 2000/31/EC, (1) even if the image storage medium has been examined as to its availability to young persons by another Member State of the EU and is labelled accordingly, or does such a check by another Member State of the EU constitute a less severe means for the purposes of that provision?

----

(1)  OJ L 178, p. 1.

----
### §331. Interim compensation

A trustee, an examiner, a debtor's attorney, or any professional person employed under section 327 or 1103 of this title may apply to the court not more than once every 120 days after an order for relief in a case under this title, or more often if the court permits, for such compensation for services rendered before the date of such an application or reimbursement for expenses incurred before such date as is provided under section 330 of this title. After notice and a hearing, the court may allow and disburse to such applicant such compensation or reimbursement.

(Pub. L. 95–598, Nov. 6, 1978, 92 Stat. 2564.)

#### Historical and Revision Notes

#### senate report no. 95–989

Section 331 permits trustees and professional persons to apply to the court not more than once every 120 days for interim compensation and reimbursement payments. The court may permit more frequent applications if the circumstances warrant, such as in very large cases where the legal work is extensive and merits more frequent payments. The court is authorized to allow and order disbursement to the applicant of compensation and reimbursement that is otherwise allowable under section 330. The only effect of this section is to remove any doubt that officers of the estate may apply for, and the court may approve, compensation and reimbursement during the case, instead of being required to wait until the end of the case, which in some instances, may be years. The practice of interim compensation is followed in some courts today, but has been subject to some question. This section explicitly authorizes it.

This section will apply to professionals such as auctioneers and appraisers only if they are not paid on a per job basis.
### §949j. Opportunity to obtain witnesses and other evidence

(a) In General.—(1) Defense counsel in a military commission under this chapter shall have a reasonable opportunity to obtain witnesses and other evidence as provided in regulations prescribed by the Secretary of Defense. The opportunity to obtain witnesses and evidence shall be comparable to the opportunity available to a criminal defendant in a court of the United States under article III of the Constitution.

(2) Process issued in military commissions under this chapter to compel witnesses to appear and testify and to compel the production of other evidence—

(A) shall be similar to that which courts of the United States having criminal jurisdiction may lawfully issue; and

(B) shall run to any place where the United States shall have jurisdiction thereof.

(b) Disclosure of Exculpatory Evidence.—(1) As soon as practicable, trial counsel in a military commission under this chapter shall disclose to the defense the existence of any evidence that reasonably tends to—

(A) negate the guilt of the accused of an offense charged; or

(B) reduce the degree of guilt of the accused with respect to an offense charged.

(2) The trial counsel shall, as soon as practicable, disclose to the defense the existence of evidence that reasonably tends to impeach the credibility of a witness whom the government intends to call at trial.

(3) The trial counsel shall, as soon as practicable upon a finding of guilt, disclose to the defense the existence of evidence that is not subject to paragraph (1) or paragraph (2) but that reasonably may be viewed as mitigation evidence at sentencing.

(4) The disclosure obligations under this subsection encompass evidence that is known or reasonably should be known to any government officials who participated in the investigation and prosecution of the case against the defendant.

(Added Pub. L. 111–84, div. A, title XVIII, §1802, Oct. 28, 2009, 123 Stat. 2587.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Prior Provisions

A prior section 949j, added Pub. L. 109–366, §3(a)(1), Oct. 17, 2006, 120 Stat. 2614, related to the opportunity to obtain witnesses and other evidence, prior to the general amendment of this chapter by Pub. L. 111–84.
**Exhibit99.2**

 

 

 

**CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER**

**PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. § 1350,**

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**§ 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report of The RiceX Company (the“Company”) on Form 10-QSB for the period ending June 30, 2002 as filedwith the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”),I, Todd C. Crow, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.§ 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, herebycertify that to the best of my knowledge:

 

(1)   The Report fully complies with therequirements of § 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(2)   The information contained in the Reportfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultof operations of the Company.

 

 
| /s/ Todd C. Crow        |
|-------------------------|
| Todd C. Crow            |
| Chief Financial Officer |
| August 12, 2002         |

 

 

This certification accompanies this Report pursuant to Section 906 ofthe Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required bythe Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes ofSection 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

 

 

 

 

 

 

----
§ 36.91 What are the program requirements for behavioral health services? ( a ) The homeliving behavioral health program must make available the following services: ( 1 ) Behavioral Health Screening/Assessment;
( 2 ) Diagnosis;
( 3 ) Treatment Plan;
( 4 ) Treatment and Placement;
( 5 ) Evaluation; and
( 6 ) Record of Services (if applicable, in coordination with the student's Individual Education Plan).
( b ) Each homeliving behavioral health program must have written procedures for dealing with emergency behavioral health care issues.
( c ) Parents or guardians may opt out of any non-emergency behavioral health services by submitting a written request.
( d ) Parents or guardians must be consulted before a child is prescribed behavioral health.
( e ) Medication in a non-emergency situation.
### [§186. Repealed. Pub. L. 113–291, div. A, title IX, §901(c), Dec. 19, 2014, 128 Stat. 3463]

Section, added Pub. L. 108–375, div. A, title III, §332(b)(1), Oct. 28, 2004, 118 Stat. 1854; amended Pub. L. 110–417, [div. A], title IX, §904, Oct. 14, 2008, 122 Stat. 4567; Pub. L. 111–383, div. A, title X, §1075(b)(9), Jan. 7, 2011, 124 Stat. 4369, related to Defense Business System Management Committee.
## Breadcrumb

-  Home 
-  Employers & Practitioners 
-  Legal Resources 
-  Opinion Letters 

This page has not been translated. Please go to PBGC.gov's Spanish home page for more information available in Spanish.

Esta página no ha sido traducida. Por favor vaya a la página principal del sitio de español de PBGC para ver información disponible en español.

# Opinion Letters

The Office of the General Counsel of the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation issues opinion letters to advise the public of its views of the meaning of the provisions of Title IV of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA). See Opinion Letter 87-7 for further information about their legal effect. The PBGC Opinion Letters are stored in a database which contains all opinion letters issued by the Office of the General Counsel since 1974. Opinion letters that are guidance documents are searchable on our Guidance Document Database.

If you have comments, suggestions for improvements, or problems using this database, please contact us at webmaster@pbgc.gov

June 2, 2021
#### Tompkins et al. *v.*D. C. Jenkins Glass Company.

[No. 12,356.

Filed November 20, 1925.]

From Industrial Board of Indiana.

Proceeding under the Workmen’s Compensation Act between Edna Tompkins and others and the D. C. Jenkins Glass Company. From an award made therein, the former appeals. *Affirmed.*By the court in banc.

*Christian & Waltz,*for appellants.

*Turner, Adams', Merrell & Loche,*for appellee.

Remy, C. J.

Affirmed, on authority of *American Leather, etc., Co.*v. *Stone*(1920), 74 Ind. App. 547, 129 N. E. 264.
# C_2017443EN.01090901.xml

| 22.12.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 443/909 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.12.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 443/909

---

P7_TA(2014)0404

EU-Georgia Framework Agreement on the general principles for the participation of Georgia in Union programmes ***

European Parliament legislative resolution of 16 April 2014 on the draft Council decision on the conclusion of a Protocol to the Partnership and Cooperation Agreement between the European Communities and their Member States, of the one part, and Georgia of the other part, on a Framework Agreement between the European Union and Georgia on the general principles for the participation of Georgia in Union programmes (16612/2013 — C7-0486/2013 — 2013/0257(NLE))

(Consent)

(2017/C 443/80)

The European Parliament,

The European Parliament

| — | having regard to the draft Council decision (16612/2013), |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to the draft Council decision (16612/2013),

| — | having regard to the Protocol to the Partnership and Cooperation Agreement between the European Communities and their Member States, of the one part, and Georgia, of the other part, on a Framework Agreement between the European Union and Georgia, on the general principles for the participation of Georgia in Union programmes (16613/2013), |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to the Protocol to the Partnership and Cooperation Agreement between the European Communities and their Member States, of the one part, and Georgia, of the other part, on a Framework Agreement between the European Union and Georgia, on the general principles for the participation of Georgia in Union programmes (16613/2013),

| — | having regard to the request for consent submitted by the Council in accordance with Article 212 and Article 218(6), second subparagraph, point (a), of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (C7-0486/2013), |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to the request for consent submitted by the Council in accordance with Article 212 and Article 218(6), second subparagraph, point (a), of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (C7-0486/2013),

| — | having regard to Rule 81(1), first and third subparagraphs, Rule 81(2) and Rule 90(7) of its Rules of Procedure, |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to Rule 81(1), first and third subparagraphs, Rule 81(2) and Rule 90(7) of its Rules of Procedure,

| — | having regard to the recommendation of the Committee on Foreign Affairs (A7-0191/2014), |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to the recommendation of the Committee on Foreign Affairs (A7-0191/2014),

| 1. | Gives its consent to conclusion of the Protocol; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Gives its consent to conclusion of the Protocol;

| 2. | Instructs its President to forward its position to the Council, the Commission and the governments and parliaments of the Member States and of Georgia. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Instructs its President to forward its position to the Council, the Commission and the governments and parliaments of the Member States and of Georgia.

---
## F IFTH 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________ Case No. 5D 23 - 2263 LT Case No. 2017 - CF
- 479

_____________________________ G REGORY A LAN P UTZKE , Appella nt, v. S TATE O F F LORIDA , Appellee .

_____________________________ 3.8 00 a ppeal from the Circuit Court for Sumter County. Mary Hatcher, Judge. Gregory Alan Putzke, Bushnell, pro se. No Appearance for Appellee. Novemb er 7, 2023 P ER C URIAM . A FFIRMED . M AKAR , H ARRIS , and B OATWRIGHT , JJ., concur.2 _____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331 .

_____________________________
§ 30.102 What does the Act require of the Secretary? ( a ) The Act requires the Secretary to define standards, assessments, and accountability system, consistent with section 1111 of the Act, for schools on a national, regional, or tribal basis, as appropriate, taking into account the unique circumstances and needs of the schools and the students served, using regulations developed through a negotiated rulemaking process.
( b ) If a tribal governing body or school board determines that the requirements described in paragraph (a) of this section are inappropriate, it may waive these requirements, in part or in whole, and propose alternative requirements for standards, assessments, and an accountability system that meets the requirements of section 1111 of the Act, taking into account the unique circumstances and needs of the school or schools and the students served by such schools.
( c ) The Secretary and the Secretary of Education will provide technical assistance, upon request, either directly or through a contract, to a tribal governing body or school board that seeks a waiver and alternative requirements described in paragraph (b) of this section.
Affirm and Opinion Filed May 27, 2014 

S 

In The 

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-14-00019-CR 

VICTORIA STUART, Appellant 

V. 

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee 

On Appeal from the Criminal District Court No. 2 

Dallas County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. F10-62404-I 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

Before Chief Justice Wright and Justices Myers and Evans 

Opinion by Chief Justice Wright 

After a jury found Victoria Stuart guilty of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon, it 

assessed her punishment at ten years’ imprisonment, probated for eight years, and a $10,000 fine. 

Based on the trial court’s findings following a hearing about why the reporter’s record has not 

been filed, we concluded appellant has abandoned her appeal. We ordered the appeal submitted 

without the reporter’s record and briefs. See TEX. R. APP. P. 37.3(c), 38.8(b)(4). Absent briefs, 

no issues are before us. Finding no fundamental error, we affirm the trial court’s judgment. 

Do Not Publish 

TEX. R. APP. P. 47 

140019F.U05 

 

/Carolyn Wright/ 

CAROLYN WRIGHT 

CHIEF JUSTICE 
 –2– 

S 

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

JUDGMENT 

VICTORIA STUART, Appellant 

No. 05-14-00019-CR V. 

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee 

 On Appeal from the Criminal District Court 

No. 2, Dallas County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. F10-62404-I. 

Opinion delivered by Chief Justice Wright, 

Justices Myers and Evans participating. 

 Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, we AFFIRM the trial court’s judgment. 

Judgment entered May 27, 2014 

/Carolyn Wright/ 

CAROLYN WRIGHT 

CHIEF JUSTICE
# C_2006253EN.01000601.xml

| 19.10.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 253/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.10.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 253/6

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.4291 — Voestalpine/Profilafroid/SAP)

(2006/C 253/04)

(Text with EEA relevance)

On 19 September 2006, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | from the Europa competition website (http://ec.europa.eu/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

from the Europa competition website (http://ec.europa.eu/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32006M4291. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law. (http://ec.europa.eu/eur-lex/lex) |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32006M4291. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law. (http://ec.europa.eu/eur-lex/lex)

---