alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### § 301.1 Applicability.

The regulations in this part apply to the sales of electric power by any Utility to the Bonneville Power Administration (Bonneville) under section 5(c) of the Pacific Northwest Electric Power Planning and Conservation Act (Northwest Power Act). 16 U.S.C. 839c(c).
<PAGE>   1
                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.37


                          [THE TRADE BANK LETTERHEAD]


                                January 22, 1998


Jalate, Ltd.
6557 Flotilla St.
City of Commerce, CA 90040
Attn: Frederick A. Findley

      RE:   Credit Agreement dated as of January 21, 1998
            (the "Credit Agreement") by and between Jalate, Ltd.
            ("Jalate") and Wells Fargo HSBC Trade Bank, N.A.
            (the "Bank")

Dear Mr. Findley:

      This letter is in reference to the above-described Credit Agreement. The
Bank understands that Jalate intends to sell and issue to certain lenders (the
"Lenders") $950,000 aggregate principal amount of 10% subordinated secured
promissory notes (the "Notes"). A copy of the form of the Notes in
substantially its final form is attached to this letter as Exhibit A. The Bank
further understands that Jalate will execute a Security and Pledge Agreement
(the "Security Agreement") pursuant to which Jalate will pledge as collateral
for the Notes (i) all of the capital stock of Air Shop Ltd. ("Air Shop") now or
hereafter acquired by Jalate and (ii) all of Jalate's rights under that certain
letter agreement (the "Letter Agreement") among Jalate, Dominique Camacho and
Air Shop dated October 17, 1997 with respect to the investment by Jalate in Air
Shop. A copy of the form of the Security Agreement in substantially its final
form is attached hereto as Exhibit B.

      To the extent required by the terms of the Credit Agreement, the Bank
hereby consents to the sale and issuance of the Notes (in substantially the
form attached hereto) by Jalate to the Lenders and the grant of the security
interests provided for in the Security Agreement (in substantially the form
attached hereto). In addition, the Bank hereby waives any security interest it
may otherwise have in the collateral provided for in the Security Agreement.

                                   Very truly yours,

                                   WELLS FARGO HSBC
                                     TRADE BANK, N.A.


                                   /s/ Greg Richardson
                                   ----------------------------------
                                   Greg Richardson
                                   Vice President
§ 706.202 Gifts, entertainment, and favors. ( a ) Except as provided in paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section, an employee shall not solicit or accept, directly or indirectly, any gift, gratuity, favor, entertainment, loan, or any other thing of monetary value, from a person who: ( 1 ) Has, or is seeking to obtain, contractual or other business or financial relations with the Council;
( 2 ) Conducts operations or activities that are regulated by the Council; or
( 3 ) Has interests that may be substantially affected by the performance or nonperformance of his official duty.
( b ) The restrictions set forth in paragraph (a) of this section do not apply to: ( 1 ) Obvious family or personal relationships, such as those between the employee and his parents, children, or spouse, when the circumstances make it clear that those relationships rather than the business of the persons concerned are the motivating factors;
( 2 ) The acceptance of food and refreshments of nominal value on infrequent occasions in the ordinary course of a luncheon or dinner meeting or other meeting or on an inspection tour where an employee may be properly in attendance;
( 3 ) The acceptance of loans from banks or other financial institutions on customary terms to finance proper and usual activities of employees, such as home mortgage loans; and
( 4 ) The acceptance of unsolicited advertising or promotional material, such as pens, pencils, note pads, calendars, and other items of nominal intrinsic value.
( c ) An employee shall not solicit a contribution from another employee for a gift to an official superior, make a donation as a gift to an official superior, or accept a gift from an employee receiving less pay than himself (5 U.S.C. 7351). However, this paragraph does not prohibit a voluntary gift of nominal value or donation in a nominal amount made on a special occasion such as marriage, illness, or retirement.
( d ) An employee shall not accept a gift, present, decoration, or other thing from a foreign government unless authorized by Congress as provided by the Constitution and in 5 U.S.C. 7342.
( e ) Neither this section nor § 706.203 precludes an employee from receipt of bona fide reimbursement, unless prohibited by law, for expenses of travel and such other necessary subsistence as is compatible with this part for which no Government payment or reimbursement is made. However, this paragraph does not allow an employee to be reimbursed, or payment to be made on his behalf, for excessive personal living expenses, gifts, entertainment, or other personal benefits, nor does it allow an employee to be reimbursed by a person for travel on official business under Council orders when reimbursement is proscribed by Decision B-128527 of the Comptroller General dated March 7, 1967.
### SUBCHAPTER LIX–CC—ADAMS NATIONAL HISTORICAL PARK
§ 115.41 Screening for risk of victimization and abusiveness. ( a ) All inmates shall be assessed during an intake screening and upon transfer to another facility for their risk of being sexually abused by other inmates or sexually abusive toward other inmates.
( b ) Intake screening shall ordinarily take place within 72 hours of arrival at the facility.
( c ) Such assessments shall be conducted using an objective screening instrument.
( d ) The intake screening shall consider, at a minimum, the following criteria to assess inmates for risk of sexual victimization: ( 1 ) Whether the inmate has a mental, physical, or developmental disability;
( 2 ) The age of the inmate;
( 3 ) The physical build of the inmate;
( 4 ) Whether the inmate has previously been incarcerated;
( 5 ) Whether the inmate's criminal history is exclusively nonviolent;
( 6 ) Whether the inmate has prior convictions for sex offenses against an adult or child;
( 7 ) Whether the inmate is or is perceived to be gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender, intersex, or gender nonconforming;
( 8 ) Whether the inmate has previously experienced sexual victimization;
( 9 ) The inmate's own perception of vulnerability; and
( 10 ) Whether the inmate is detained solely for civil immigration purposes.
( e ) The initial screening shall consider prior acts of sexual abuse, prior convictions for violent offenses, and history of prior institutional violence or sexual abuse, as known to the agency, in assessing inmates for risk of being sexually abusive.
( f ) Within a set time period, not to exceed 30 days from the inmate's arrival at the facility, the facility will reassess the inmate's risk of victimization or abusiveness based upon any additional, relevant information received by the facility since the intake screening.
( g ) An inmate's risk level shall be reassessed when warranted due to a referral, request, incident of sexual abuse, or receipt of additional information that bears on the inmate's risk of sexual victimization or abusiveness.
( h ) Inmates may not be disciplined for refusing to answer, or for not disclosing complete information in response to, questions asked pursuant to paragraphs (d)(1), (d)(7), (d)(8), or (d)(9) of this section.
( i ) The agency shall implement appropriate controls on the dissemination within the facility of responses to questions asked pursuant to this standard in order to ensure that sensitive information is not exploited to the inmate's detriment by staff or other inmates.
Order entered February 20, 2014

In The 

## Court of Appeals **Fifth District of Texas at Dallas**
No. 05
- 14
- 00170
- CV
BAXTER BAILEY & ASSO CIATES, INC., Appellant
V. TTS, LLC, Appellee On Appeal from the 401st Judicial District Court Collin County, Texas Tr ial Court Cause No. 401
- 04029
- 2012 

### O RDER
We GRANT appellant’s February 11, 2014 motion for an extension of time to file a notice of appeal. The notice of appeal filed on February 11, 2014 is deemed timely for jurisdictional purposes.

/s/ ADA BROWN JUS TICE
###### Editorial Note on Part 0

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 0 appear at 73 FR 73 FR 54947, Sept. 24, 2008.

#### § 0.128a General functions.

The Foreign Claims Settlement Commission has been authorized to determine claims of United States nationals for loss of property in specific foreign countries as a result of nationalization or other taking by the government of those countries by the International Claims Settlement Act of 1949, as amended, (22 U.S.C. 1621-1645o); and to determine claims of U.S. nationals and organizations in territories of the United States for damage and loss of property as a result of military operations during World War II and claims of U.S. military personnel and civilian American citizens for having been held in a captured status in specified areas during World War II, the Korean conflict and the Vietnam conflict by the War Claims Act of 1948, as amended (50 U.S.C. app. 2001-2017p).
#### § 701.51 The Council.

Decisions of the Council are made as hereinafter described in §§ 701.53 and 701.54.
### §690o. Regulations

The Administrator may issue such regulations as the Administrator determines necessary to carry out the provisions of this part in accordance with its purposes.

(Pub. L. 85–699, title III, §396, as added Pub. L. 110–140, title XII, §1207, Dec. 19, 2007, 121 Stat. 1783.)
---

---

Exhibit 4.27

# Summary of Agreement
in Hebrew

|Date:    | March 31, 2003                           
|-------- | -----------------------------------------
|         |                                          
|Parties: | Robomatix Technologies Ltd. (Robomatix)
|         | Berger Holdings 1 (1992) Ltd. (Berger) 

# The Transaction:

Berger acquired all of
Robomatixs obligations and rights under all agreements made with Benny Konstantin
and Edco Electronics Ltd.
In addition, Robomatix sold to Berger all of its shares,
constituting 49.5% of the issued and outstanding share capital of Edco Technologies 1993
Ltd., formerly Associative Computing Ltd. (Edco) and all of its notes
guaranteeing repayment of loans from Edco. 
Berger agreed to release Robomatix and Silverboim Holdings Ltd. from all their obligations towards Bank HaPoalim resulting
from Edcos loans. 
The agreement does not release Robomatix from its obligations to
Konstantin in connection with the share purchase agreement by and between Edco, Robomatix
and Konstantin or from any liability regarding representations and warranties given by
Robomatix or Edco under the share purchase agreement.

# Consideration:

NIS 6,000,000: NIS 4,000,000 payable
upon execution of the agreement; NIS 2,000,000 in six (6) quarterly payments, linked to
the Israeli consumer price index.

# Representations and
Warranties:

Robomatix and Berger made standard
representations and warranties made in agreements of the same nature.

# Indemnification:

- Robomatix agreed to indemnify Berger (according to its relative holdings in Edco), or Edco
for any claim and/or demand made against Edco and/or Berger and/or anyone on their behalf,
resulting from any period before December 31, 2002. Edco and/or Berger and/or anyone on
their behalf shall not be entitled to settle with any plaintiff without prior written
consent of Robomatix.



---

---

- Robomatix agreed to indemnify Berger or Edco for any discrepancies in any representations,
warranties or covenants made in any of the agreements or in this agreement, which may
reduce the value of Edco and/or add to its liabilities and/or cause any other financial
damage to Berger.
- Robomatix shall only
indemnify Berger and/or Edco for damages exceeding NIS 150,000.



---

---
1.            Program Description & Model

Los Angeles SBIRT Network

The Los Angeles SBRIT Network develops, implement, and evaluate SBIRT training for students from medical residencies, nursing, social work and counseling schools throughout the Los Angeles area.  After SBIRT training, students implement SBIRT practices during their clinical rotations, which will lay the foundation for them to incorporate SBIRT into their career.  SBIRT trainings are conducted through online training modules and through in-person SBIRT training events held by the Los Angeles SBIRT Training Team.  Skills learned in training include learning how to use evidence-based screening tools, brief behavioral interventions, preparing patients for referrals and linking patients quickly and reliably into treatment. Students trained in SBIRT practices will be able to participate in the Los Angeles SBIRT Learning Community, a network of expert addiction treatment professionals, school administrators, healthcare professionals and community advocates.  All participants in the Los Angeles SBIRT Network are invited to attend the annual Los Angeles SBIRT Summit, a multidisciplinary conference to be held with stakeholders from around Los Angeles with the purpose of bringing the latest research and practice to providers to enhance SBIRT on enhancing knowledge and skills. 

2.            Special/Unique Features

The LA SBIRT Network has partners and stakeholders from a variety of settings, including public and private partners.    Most notably, UCLA Health System and the USC School of Social Work have teamed up to empower students in a variety of treatment settings to implement SBIRT practices.     The LA SBIRT Network has an especially strong connection to local treatment programs across Los Angeles that ensures an updated and accurate treatment referral system.

3.            Website URL (if applicable)

LASBIRT.com (under construction)

Or

Worldofsbirt.wordpress.com

4.            Contact information for the project director

Timothy Fong MDAssociate Professor of Psychiatry

UCLA Addiction Medicine Clinic

760 Westwood Ave

Room 38-159

Los Angeles, CA 90024

Phone:  310-825-1479

Fax: 310-794-1023

e-mail: tfong@mednet.ucla.edu
**EXHIBIT 23.2**

 

 

**Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm**

 

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-62844) pertaining to the Restated Airport Systems International, Inc. 1991 Stock Option Plan of Elecsys Corporation (formerly Airport Systems International, Inc.) of our report dated June 28, 2005, with respect to the consolidated financial statements of Elecsys Corporation as of April 30, 2005 and for the year then ended included in this Annual Report (Form 10-KSB) for the year ended April 30, 2006.

 

/s/ Mayer Hoffman McCann P.C.

 

Leawood, Kansas

July 24, 2006
#### Evelyn Wheeler, Appellant, v Daniela Laechner et al., Respondents.

[824 NYS2d 830]

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Monroe County (Thomas A. Stander, J.), entered November 1, 2005 in a personal injury action. The order granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and denied plaintiffs cross motion for partial summaiy judgment on the issue of liability.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously modified on the law by denying the motion in part and reinstating the complaint, as amplified by the bill of particulars, with respect to the fracture category of serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) and as modified the order is affirmed with costs to plaintiff.

Memorandum: Plaintiff commenced this action to recover damages for injuries she sustained in a motor vehicle accident and now appeals from an order that, inter alia, granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that she did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d). Plaintiff contends on appeal that she sustained a serious injury within the meaning of two categories, i.e., the 90/180 and fracture categories set forth in section 5102 (d). We conclude that Supreme Court properly granted that part of defendants’ motion with re*1223spect to the 90/180 category. Defendants made a prima facie showing of their entitlement to judgment with respect to that category, and plaintiff failed to submit the requisite “objective medical evidence to establish a qualifying injury or impairment” during the period at issue *(Nitti v Clerrico,*98 NY2d 345, 357; *see Constantine v Serafín,*16 AD3d 1145, 1145-1146 [2005]). We agree with plaintiff, however, that the court erred in granting that part of defendants’ motion with respect to the fracture category, and we therefore modify the order accordingly. Although defendants met their initial burden by establishing that plaintiff did not sustain a fracture, plaintiff raised a triable issue of fact by submitting the affirmed report of defendants’ examining physician stating that, in his opinion, x-rays taken of plaintiff on the day of the accident demonstrated that she sustained “a probable minor fracture at her left pubic symphysis as a result of the . . . motor vehicle accident” *(see Elston v Canty,*15 AD3d 990 [2005]; *see generally Matott v Ward,*48 NY2d 455, 459-463 [1979]). Present—Hurlbutt, A.PJ, Martoche, Centra and Pine, JJ.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<RESTATED>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                          11,127
<SECURITIES>                                    85,361
<RECEIVABLES>                                   17,882
<ALLOWANCES>                                     7,810
<INVENTORY>                                        794
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               127,386
<PP&E>                                          59,676
<DEPRECIATION>                                  22,295
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 174,173
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           37,140
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                            3,560
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            41
<OTHER-SE>                                     132,832
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   174,173
<SALES>                                         32,747
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                32,747
<CGS>                                            3,241
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    3,241
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    712
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,330
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              (617)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     (617)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.02)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.02)


</TABLE>
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

LJUBO SKRBIC, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

 v. 

CITY OF WEST PALM BEACH, 

Defendant-Appellee.

No. 23-35591 

D.C. No. 2:23-cv-00934-RSM 

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Washington

Ricardo S. Martinez, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted February 21, 2024**

Before: FERNANDEZ, NGUYEN, and OWENS, Circuit Judges. 

Ljubo Skrbic appeals pro se from the district court’s order dismissing for 

improper venue his action alleging various claims related to a property and state 

court proceedings in Florida. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We 

review de novo. Immigrant Assistance Project of the L.A. County Fed’n of Lab.

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision 

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

FILED

FEB 28 2024

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 23-35591 

(AFL-CIO) v. INS, 306 F.3d 842, 868 (9th Cir. 2002). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Skrbic’s action for improper venue 

because Skrbic failed to establish that defendant resides in the Western District of 

Washington or that a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to his 

claims occurred there. See 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(1), (2) (describing where a civil 

action may be brought); see also 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a) (“A district court of a district 

in which is filed a case laying venue in the wrong division or district shall dismiss, 

or if it be in the interest of justice, transfer such case to any district or division in 

which it could have been brought.”).

All pending motions are denied.

AFFIRMED.
Exhibit 4.1


 


THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON


NEW YORK’S FIRST BANK-FOUNDED 1784 BY ALEXANDER HAMILTON


 


 


2 HANSON PLACE, 12TH FLOOR, BROOKLYN,
N.Y. 11217


 


 


 


March 15, 2016


 


Hennion & Walsh, Inc.


2001 Route 46, Waterview Plaza


Parsippany, New Jersey 07054


 


Smart Trust 228


 


Dear Sirs:


The Bank of New York
Mellon is acting as trustee for the series of Smart Trust set forth above (the “Trust”). We enclosed a list
of the Securities to be deposited in the Trust on the date hereof. The prices indicated therein reflect our evaluation of such
Securities as of close of business on March 14, 2016, in accordance with the valuation method set forth in the Standard Terms and
Conditions of Trust and Trust Agreement. We consent to the reference to The Bank of New York Mellon as the party performing the
evaluations of the Trust Securities in the Registration Statement (No. 333-208947) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
with respect to the registration of the sale of the Trust Units and to the filing of this consent as an exhibit thereto.


 


 


Very truly yours,


 


/s/ GERARDO CIPRIANO                       


Gerardo Cipriano


Vice President
### §4506. Termination

#### (a) In general

(1) Except as provided in subsection (b), the provisions of this chapter (other than section 4504 of this title) shall terminate 90 days after the Secretary—

(A) determines that all of the restitutionary amounts to which section 4501(a) of this title applies have been collected and disbursed as provided in this chapter; and

(B) submits to Congress the final report required by section 4505 of this title.

(2) Such final report shall include the determination (and the justification thereof) described in paragraph (1)(A). Such report shall also be published in the Federal Register.

#### (b) Exception

The requirements of section 4502(d) 1 of this title shall continue to be applicable to the use of restitutionary amounts received under this chapter as long as such funds remain available.

(Pub. L. 99–509, title III, §3007, Oct. 21, 1986, 100 Stat. 1887.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

Section 4502(d) of this title, referred to in subsec. (b), was repealed by section 4502(e) of this title.

1 See References in Text note below.