alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT

THIS  SETTLEMENT  AGREEMENT  is entered into by and between Gateway Distributors
LTD  ("GD")  and Donald Gary Hansen a Consultant for GD effective as of February
17, 2004. FOR GOOD AND VALUABLE CONSIDERATIONS RECEIVED, AND THE MUTUAL PROMISES
HEREIN,  THE  PARTIES  AGREE  AS  FOLLOWS:

1.  DISPUTE

It  is  the position of Donald Gary Hansen a Consultant that compensation in the
form  of shares of GD were due to the Consultant, as consideration for loans and
being engaged to supply services for or on behalf of GD, over two years prior to
this  date.  It  is  the position of the Company that the shares are in complete
settlement  of any claim of the Consultant for compensation or money owed by the
Company  and  in  avoidance of further dispute and litigation and relate back to
the  services  rendered  over  two  years  ago.

2.  SETTLEMENT

The  parties  hereby  agree  that  they  have settled any and all claims one has
against  the  other,  including  any  affiliates  of  a party, such as officers,
Directors, and shareholders, by the execution and performance of this Agreement.
In  connection  herewith,  the  parties  agree  that,  on  or  about  this date:

     a.   November 15, 2004 $5000, January 12, 2004 $5000, January 28, 2004
          $20000, and final payment of $15,000 enclosed.

     b.   Any and all work product, documents, and materials, data,
          relating to Consultants work in the possession or control of
          Consultant or GD shall be retained by GD;

3.  RELEASE

The  parties agree to release hereby one another from any and all obligations of
one  to  the  other,  except  to  perform  this  Agreement.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Agreement on the date above
written.


     The "Company"
     Gateway Distributors
     A Nevada Corporation

     By:
        -------------------------
     Name: Rick Bailey
     Title: President / CEO


<PAGE>
     The "Consultant"
     Donald Gary Hansen

     By:
        -------------------------

     Name: Donald Gary Hansen

     Title:      Consultant
1 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 39379

STATE OF IDAHO
,

Plaintiff-Respondent
,

v.

ROBERT EARL SMITH
,

Defendant-Appellant

. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 2012 Unpublished Opinion No. 771

Filed: December 21, 2012

Stephen W. Kenyon, Clerk

THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED
OPINION AND SHALL NOT
BE CITED AS AUTHORITY

Appeal from the District Court of the Sixth Judicial District, State of Idaho,
Franklin County. Hon. Mitchell W. Brown , District Judge.

Judgment of conviction and unified sentence of eight years, with two years determinate , for sexual abuse of a child under the age of sixteen years

, affirmed

.

Sara B. Thomas, State Appellate Public Defender; Brian R. Dickson , Deputy Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant.

Hon. Lawrence G. Wa sden, Attorney General; Jason M. Gray , Deputy Attorney General, Boise, for respondent.

________________________________________________
Before GRATTON, Chief Judge; GUTIERREZ, Judge; and MELANSON, Judge

PER CURIAM

Robert Earl Smith pled guilty to sexual abuse of a child under the age of sixteen years

. Idaho Code § 18

- 1506(1)(d) . The district court sentenced Smith to a unified term of eight years,

with two years determinate

. Smith appeals.

Sentencing is a mat ter for the trial court ’ s discretion. Both our standard of review and the

factors to be considered in evaluating the reasonableness of the sentence are well established and

need not be repeated here. See State v. Hernandez , 121 Idaho 1 14, 117

- 18, 822 P.2 d 1011,

1014

- 15 (Ct. App. 1991); State v. Lopez , 106 Idaho 447, 449

- 51, 680 P.2d 869, 871

- 73 (Ct. App.

1984); State v. Toohill , 103 Idaho 565, 568, 650 P.2d 707, 710 (Ct. App. 1982). When reviewing

the length of a sentence, we consider the defendant’s ent ire sentence. State v. Oliver , 144 Idaho2 722, 726, 170 P.3d 387, 391 (2007). Applying these standards, and having reviewed the record

in this case, we cannot say that the district court abused its discretion.

Therefore, Smith ’s judgment of conviction and sentence are affirmed.
HB-2-3560

Appendix 3

Page 1 of 1

APPENDIX 3

FORMS REFERENCED IN THIS HANDBOOK

Below is a list of forms that are mentioned in the text of this handbook. Since the Rural 

Development forms may change more frequently than the handbook, users are 

encouraged to obtain the most updated copy of these forms from the Rural Development 

Resources home page (https://www.rd.usda.gov/resources) for their own reference.

Form FEMA 81-93, Standard Flood Hazard Determination

Form G-845S, Verification for SAVE Agencies 

Form HUD 935.2, Affirmative Fair Housing Marketing Plan 

Form RD 400-8, Compliance Review

Form RD 426-2, Property Insurance Mortgagee Clause (w/o control)

Form RD 444-27A, Amendment to RA Agreement

Form RD 1924-13, Estimate and Certificate of Actual Cost

Form RD 1944-37, Previous Participation Certification

Form RD 3550-6, Notice of Special Flood Hazards, Flood Insurance Purchase 

Requirements, and Availability of Federal Disaster Relief Assistance

Form RD 3560-7, Multiple Family Housing Project Budget/Utility Allowance

Form RD 3560-8, Tenant Certification

Form RD 3560-9, Interest Credit and Rental Assistance Agreement

Form RD 3560-10, Borrower Balance Sheet

Form RD 3560-11, MFH Physical Inspection Report

Form RD 3560-12, Request for Authorization to Withdraw Reserve Funds

Form RD 3560-13, Management Certification 

Form RD 3560-19, MFH Advice of Mortgaged Real Estate Acquired 

Form RD 3560-27, Rental Assistance Agreement

Form RD 3560-29, Notice of Payment Due Report

Form RD 3560-30, No Identity of Interest Certificate

Form RD 3560-31, Identity of Interest Disclosure/Qualification Certificate

Form RD 3560-37, Previous Participation Certification

Form RD 3560-51, Obligation Fund Analysis

Form RD 3560-52, Promissory Note

Form RD 3560-53, Cancellation of U.S. Treasury Check and/or Obligation

Form RD 3560-55, MFH Transfer of RA

(02-24-05) SPECIAL PN
§ 2.3 Demonstration of compliance with standards and regulations. ( a ) Each applicant for a license must demonstrate that his or her location(s) and any animals, facilities, vehicles, equipment, or other locations used or intended for use in the business comply with the Act and the regulations and standards set forth in parts 2 and 3 of this subchapter. Each applicant must make his or her animals, locations, facilities, vehicles, equipment, and records available for inspection during business hours and at other times mutually agreeable to the applicant and APHIS, to ascertain the applicant's compliance with the Act and the regulations and standards.
( b ) Each applicant for a license must be inspected by APHIS and demonstrate compliance with the Act and the regulations and standards, as required in paragraph (a) of this section, before APHIS will issue a license. If the first inspection reveals that the applicant's animals, premises, facilities, vehicles, equipment, locations, or records do not meet the applicable requirements of this subchapter, APHIS will advise the applicant of existing deficiencies and the corrective measures that must be completed to come into compliance with the regulations and standards. An applicant who fails the first inspection may request up to two more inspections by APHIS to demonstrate his or her compliance with the Act and the regulations and standards. The applicant must request the second inspection, and if applicable, the third inspection, within 60 days following the first inspection.
( c ) Any applicant who fails the third and final prelicense inspection may appeal all or part of the inspection findings to the Deputy Administrator. To appeal, the applicant must send a written statement contesting the inspection finding(s) and include any documentation or other information in support of the appeal. To receive consideration, the appeal must be received by the Deputy Administrator within 7 days of the date the applicant received the third prelicense inspection report. Within 7 days of receiving a timely appeal, the Deputy Administrator will issue a written response to notify the applicant whether APHIS will issue a license or deny the application.
( d ) If an applicant fails inspection or fails to request reinspections within the 60-day period, or fails to submit a timely appeal of the third prelicense inspection report as described in paragraph (c) of this section, the applicant cannot reapply for a license for a period of 6 months from the date of the failed third inspection or the expiration of the time to request a third inspection. No license will be issued until the applicant pays the license fee and demonstrates upon inspection that the animals, premises, facilities, vehicles, equipment, locations, and records are in compliance with all applicable requirements in the Act and the regulations and standards in this subchapter.
(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control numbers 0579-0036 and 0579-0486) [85 FR 28796, May 13, 2020, as amended at 88 FR 10713, Feb. 21, 2023]
#### William M. Cavanaugh, Appellant, v. Alfred Brumme, Respondent.

Judgment and order affirmed, with costs. Ho opinion.'
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>               5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
financial statements for the quarterly period ending March 31, 1999 and is
qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
       
<CAPTION>
<S>                            <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                  3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>              DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                   MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                               6,759
<SECURITIES>                             0
<RECEIVABLES>                       26,427
<ALLOWANCES>                           244
<INVENTORY>                              0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                    35,321
<PP&E>                               5,469
<DEPRECIATION>                       2,771
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                      54,492
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>               21,813
<BONDS>                                  0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                    0
<PREFERRED>                              0
<COMMON>                                16
<OTHER-SE>                          18,765
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>        54,492
<SALES>                             10,258
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                    10,258
<CGS>                                  765
<TOTAL-COSTS>                          765
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                     9,294
<LOSS-PROVISION>                         0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                      46
<INCOME-PRETAX>                        153
<INCOME-TAX>                            60
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                     93
<DISCONTINUED>                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                          0
<CHANGES>                                0
<NET-INCOME>                            93
<EPS-PRIMARY>                         0.01
<EPS-DILUTED>                         0.01
                                   

</TABLE>
# C_2012217EN.01001802.xml

| 21.7.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 217/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.7.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 217/18

---

Judgment of the General Court of 13 June 2012 — Insula v Commission

(Case T-110/10) (1)

1

(Arbitration clause - Financing contract for research and development projects - El Hierro contract - Lack of supporting documents and non-compliance with the contractual requirements in respect of the declared expenses - Reimbursement of sums advanced - Counterclaim by the Commission)

2012/C 217/37

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Conseil scientifique international pour le développement des îles (Insula) (Paris, France) (represented by: J.-D. Simonet and P. Marsal, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission (represented initially by A. M. Rouchaud-Joët and F. Mirza, and subsequently by A.-M. Rouchaud-Joët and D. Calciu, Agents, and by L. Defalque and S. Woog, lawyers)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Application, submitted on the basis of Article 272 TFEU, seeking a declaration, first, that the Commission’s request for reimbursement of the sum of EUR 84 120 is unfounded and, second, that the Commission be ordered to issue a ‘credit note’ in the amount of EUR 84 120.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders the Conseil scientifique international pour le développement des îles (Insula) to pay the European Commission the principal sum of EUR 84 120, increased by default interest at the rate of 2,5 % per annum, from 26 January 2010 until full payment of that principal sum; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the Conseil scientifique international pour le développement des îles (Insula) to pay the European Commission the principal sum of EUR 84 120, increased by default interest at the rate of 2,5 % per annum, from 26 January 2010 until full payment of that principal sum;

| 3. | Dismisses the remainder of the Commission’s counterclaim; |
| --- | --- |

3.

Dismisses the remainder of the Commission’s counterclaim;

| 4. | Orders Insula to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Commission. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Orders Insula to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Commission.

---

(1)  OJ C 134, 22.5.2010.

1

---
EXHIBIT 12.1
 Digital River, Inc.
Computation of Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges
(in thousands, except ratios)
 Nine monthsendedYears ended December 31,
    
    September 30,2003
    
    2004
    
    2005
    
    2006
    
    2007
    
    2008Income from operations as reported
    
    $
    16,298
    
    
    $
    34,762
    
    
    $
    66,713
    
    
    $
    67,595
    
    
    $
    73,914
    
    
    $
    52,359Add: Fixed charges
    
    
    235
    
    
    
    2,094
    
    
    
    3,092
    
    
    
    3,240
    
    
    
    3,331
    
    
    
    2,688Earnings as defined
    
    
    16,533
    
    
    
    36,856
    
    
    
    69,805
    
    
    
    70,835
    
    
    
    77,245
    
    
    
    55,047Fixed charges
    
    $
    235
    
    
    $
    2,094
    
    
    $
    3,092
    
    
    $
    3,240
    
    
    $
    3,331
    
    
    $
    2,688Ratio of earnings to fixed charges (1)
    
    
    70.4
    
    
    
    17.6
    
    
    
    22.6
    
    
    
    21.9
    
    
    
    23.2
    
    
    
    20.5
 
 (1)
    
    The ratio of earnings to fixed charges is computed by dividing income from operations plus fixed charges by
fixed charges. Fixed charges consist of interest expense, amortization of debt issuance costs and that portion of
rental payments under operating leases that we believe to be representative of interest.
### [§§251 to 254b. Renumbered §§240a to 240f]
### §2707. Protection of uniform

The provisions of law relating to the protection of the uniform of the United States Army, Navy, or Marine Corps shall apply to the protection of the uniform of the Coast Guard, in the same manner, to the same extent, and under the same conditions.

(Aug. 4, 1949, ch. 393, 63 Stat. 533, §484; renumbered §2707, Pub. L. 115–282, title I, §116(b), Dec. 4, 2018, 132 Stat. 4226.)

#### Historical and Revision Notes

Based on title 14, U.S.C., 1946 ed., §39 (Aug. 29, 1916, ch. 418, §1, 39 Stat. 649).

The assimilation is made in general terms, rather than by reference to the applicable section in title 10, U.S.C., 1946 ed. 81st Congress, House Report No. 557.

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

2018—Pub. L. 115–282 renumbered section 484 of this title as this section.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-1532

CHARLES DAVIS BURRELL,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

RICHFOOD, INCORPORATED; RICHFOOD HOLDINGS,

INCORPORATED,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, District Judge.

(CA-97-948)

Submitted: November 5, 1998 Decided: November 18, 1998

Before ERVIN, LUTTIG, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Charles Davis Burrell, Appellant Pro Se. Patricia Kyle Epps,

Charles Randolph Sullivan, HUNTON & WILLIAMS, Richmond, Virginia,

for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Charles Davis Burrell appeals the district court’s order

dismissing his employment discrimination and 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983

(West 1998) complaint. We have reviewed the record and the district

court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we

affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Burrell v. Richfood,

Inc., No. CA-97-948 (E.D. Va. Mar. 16, 1998). 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
#### § 2.130 Minimum age requirements.

No dog or cat shall be delivered by any person to any carrier or intermediate handler for transportation, in commerce, or shall be transported in commerce by any person, except to a registered research facility, unless such dog or cat is at least eight (8) weeks of age and has been weaned.
STAKEHOLDER ANNOUNCEMENT

USDA Seeks Applications to Support Business Development and 

Create Jobs in Rural America

WASHINGTON, Feb. 4, 2021 – The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) today announced that 

it is accepting applications to support economic development and create jobs in rural America.

USDA is making this funding available under the Rural Business Development Grant program for eligible 

entities to support business opportunity and enterprise projects in rural communities. Eligible entities are rural 

towns, communities, state agencies, authorities, nonprofits, federally-recognized tribes, institutes of higher 

education and cooperatives.

The funding may be used to establish business support centers or to finance job training and leadership 

development in rural areas. Projects must be consistent with any local and area-wide community and economic 

development strategic plans, support other economic development activities in the project area, and be 

consistent with any Rural Development state strategic plan. Funding for enterprise projects must be used to 

finance or develop small and emerging businesses in rural areas. 

This year, USDA anticipates that part of the funding will be set aside for federally-recognized Native American 

tribes, Rural Empowerment Zone/Enterprise Communities/Rural Economic Area Partnerships, and Strategic 

Economic and Community Development (SECD) projects. USDA also anticipates a set-aside of funding for 

projects located in Persistent Poverty areas, including those of Native Americans. 

Eligible applicants for the set-aside funds must demonstrate that at least 75 percent of the benefits of an 

approved grant will assist beneficiaries in the designated areas.

Applications must be submitted to the nearest USDA office by 4:30 p.m. local time on March 31, 2021. For 

additional information, see page 8610 of the Feb. 4, 2021, Federal Register.

If you’d like to subscribe to USDA Rural Development updates, visit our GovDelivery subscriber page.

###

USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer and lender.
<PAGE>


                                                                      EXHIBIT 32


                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


         I, Walter J. Thomsen, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the
quarterly report of Proteo, Inc. And Subsidiary on Form 10-QSB for the quarter
ended March 31, 2005 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in
such quarterly report fairly presents in all material respects the financial
condition and results of operations of Proteo, Inc. And Subsidiary..


Date:    May 15, 2005


/s/ Walter J. Thomsen
----------------------------
Walter J. Thomsen
CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND
CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER



A SIGNED ORIGINAL OF THIS WRITTEN STATEMENT REQUIRED BY SECTION 906, OR OTHER
DOCUMENT AUTHENTICATING, ACKNOWLEDGING, OR OTHERWISE ADOPTING THE SIGNATURE THAT
APPEARS IN TYPED FORM WITHIN THE ELECTRONIC VERSION OF THIS WRITTEN STATEMENT
REQUIRED BY SECTION 906, HAS BEEN PROVIDED TO PROTEO, INC. AND SUBSIDIARY AND
WILL BE RETAINED BY PROTEO, INC. AND SUBSIDIARY AND FURNISHED TO THE SECURITIES
AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION OR ITS STAFF UPON REQUEST.
Presidential Documents

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 43 / Friday, March 4, 2011 / Presidential Documents 12267 

Notice of March 2, 2011 

Continuation of the National Emergency With Respect to 

Zimbabwe 

On March 6, 2003, by Executive Order 13288, the President declared a 

national emergency and blocked the property of persons undermining democratic processes or institutions in Zimbabwe, pursuant to the International 

Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701–1706). He took this action 

to deal with the unusual and extraordinary threat to the foreign policy 

of the United States constituted by the actions and policies of certain members of the Government of Zimbabwe and other persons to undermine 

Zimbabwe’s democratic processes or institutions. These actions and policies 

have contributed to the deliberate breakdown in the rule of law in Zimbabwe, 

to politically motivated violence and intimidation in that country, and to 

political and economic instability in the southern African region. 

On November 22, 2005, the President issued Executive Order 13391 to 

take additional steps with respect to the national emergency declared in 

Executive Order 13288 by ordering the blocking of the property of additional 

persons undermining democratic processes or institutions in Zimbabwe. 

On July 25, 2008, the President issued Executive Order 13469, which expanded the scope of the national emergency declared in Executive Order 

13288 and ordered the blocking of the property of additional persons undermining democratic processes or institutions in Zimbabwe. 

Because the actions and policies of these persons continue to pose an 

unusual and extraordinary threat to the foreign policy of the United States, 

the national emergency declared on March 6, 2003, and the measures adopted 

on that date, on November 22, 2005, and on July 25, 2008, to deal with 

that emergency, must continue in effect beyond March 6, 2011. Therefore, 

in accordance with section 202(d) of the National Emergencies Act (50 

U.S.C. 1622(d)), I am continuing for 1 year the national emergency with 

respect to the actions and policies of certain members of the Government 

of Zimbabwe and other persons to undermine Zimbabwe’s democratic processes or institutions. 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PRESDOCO0

12268 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 43 / Friday, March 4, 2011 / Presidential Documents 

This notice shall be published in the Federal Register and transmitted to 

the Congress. 

THE WHITE HOUSE, 

March 2, 2011. 

[FR Doc. 2011–5152 

Filed 3–3–11; 11:15 am] 

Billing code 3195–W1–P 


mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PRESDOCO0OB#1.EPS</GPH>