alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
San Mateo, CA
                                                                 April 28, 2000
                                                                 $250,000

                             SECURED PROMISSORY NOTE

For  value  received,  the  undersigned,  Hypermedia  Communications,   Inc.,  a
California  corporation  ("Borrower") promises to pay MK GVD Fund ("Lender") the
principal  sum of two  hundred  and  fifty  thousand  dollars  ($250,000),  with
interest  from the date hereof at a rate of ten percent  (10%) per annum,  which
amount shall be secured by all of the assets of Borrower.  Said principal  shall
be due and  payable on demand by Lender,  which  demand may be made at any time,
but in no event shall the principal be paid later than one hundred  eighty (180)
days after the date of this Note.  This Note may be prepaid at any time  without
penalty.

In the event of liquidation,  merger, sale, or winding up of the company, Lender
shall be entitled to receive,  prior and in  preference  to any other holders of
debt or equity securities,  (except as provided in item 1. below), the principal
value of this Note plus accrued interest.

The  following is a statement of the rights of the Borrower of this Note and the
conditions to which this Note is subject,  to which the Borrower and Lender,  by
the acceptance of this Note agree:

         1.  Security  Interest  - Borrower  hereby  grants to Lender a security
interest  in all assets of  Borrower  to secure  repayment  of the  indebtedness
represented  by this Note.  Borrower  hereby  represents and agrees that it will
take all actions  contemplated above including the execution of a UCC1 financing
statement,  which for the purposes of such  execution,  Borrower hereby appoints
Lender as its attorney-in-fact to execute such UCC1 financing statement.

         2. Attorneys' Fees - If any action or proceeding  shall be commenced to
enforce  this Note or any right  arising  in  connection  with  this  Note,  the
prevailing  party in such action or proceeding shall be entitled to recover from
the other party the reasonable  attorneys' fees, costs, and expenses incurred by
such  prevailing   party  in  connection  with  such  action  or  proceeding  or
negotiation to avoid such action or proceeding.  In the event that any provision
of this Note should be deemed unlawful or unenforceable, such provision shall be
struck and the remainder  hereof shall be enforced to the fullest  extent of the
law.

         3.  Governing  Law - This Note is  issued  in and shall be  interpreted
under the laws of the State of California.

Issued this 28 day of April, 2000.

                                         Hypermedia Communications, Inc.



                                         By: __________________

                                         Title: ________________
### §5355. Eligibility for funds of tribe or tribal organization controlling or managing private schools

The Secretary is authorized and directed to provide funds, pursuant to this chapter; the the 1 Act of April 16, 1934 (48 Stat. 596), as amended [25 U.S.C. 5342 et seq.]; or any other authority granted to him to any tribe or tribal organization which controls and manages any previously private school.

(Pub. L. 93–638, title II, §208, Jan. 4, 1975, 88 Stat. 2216; Pub. L. 97–375, title I, §108(d), Dec. 21, 1982, 96 Stat. 1820.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

This chapter, referred to in text, was in the original "this Act", meaning Pub. L. 93–638, Jan. 4, 1975, 88 Stat. 2203, known as the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act, which is classified principally to this chapter. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see Short Title note set out under section 5301 of this title and Tables.

Act of April 16, 1934, referred to in text, is act Apr. 16, 1934, ch. 147, 48 Stat. 596, popularly known as the Johnson-O'Malley Act, which is classified generally to section 5342 et seq. of this title. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see Short Title note set out under section 5301 of this title and Tables.

#### Codification

Section was formerly classified to section 458d of this title prior to editorial reclassification and renumbering as this section.

#### Amendments

1982—Pub. L. 97–375 struck out provisions relating to annual reporting requirements of Secretary to Congressional committees respecting educational assistance program conducted pursuant to this section.

1 So in original.
### §3408. Job creation activities authorized

#### (a) In general

The plan submitted by a tribal government may involve the expenditure of funds for the creation of employment opportunities and for the development of the economic resources of the tribal government or of individual Indian people if such expenditures are consistent with an overall regional economic activity which has a reasonable likelihood of success and consistent with the purposes specifically applicable to Indian programs in the statute under which the funds are authorized.

#### (b) Job creation opportunities

#### (1) In general

Notwithstanding any other provisions of law, including any requirement of a program that is integrated under a plan under this chapter, a tribal government may use a percentage of the funds made available under this chapter (as determined under paragraph (2)) for the creation of employment opportunities, including providing private sector training placement under section 3409 of this title.

#### (2) Determination of percentage

The percentage of funds that a tribal government may use under this subsection is the greater of—

(A) the rate of unemployment in the service area of the tribe up to a maximum of 25 percent; or

(B) 10 percent.

#### (c) Limitation

The funds used for an expenditure described in subsection (a) may only include funds made available to the Indian tribe by a Federal agency under a statutory or administrative formula.

(Pub. L. 102–477, §9, Oct. 23, 1992, 106 Stat. 2303; Pub. L. 106–568, title XI, §1103(e), Dec. 27, 2000, 114 Stat. 2932.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

2000—Pub. L. 106–568 designated existing provisions as subsec. (a), inserted heading, and added subsecs. (b) and (c).
### **EXHIBIT 31.2**

**CERTIFICATION OF THE CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OFTHE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

I, Glen E. Shipley, certify that:

1.               I have reviewed this reporton Form 10-Q of Internet Commerce Corporation;

2.               Based on my knowledge, thisreport does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit tostate a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading withrespect to the period covered by this report;

3.               Based on my knowledge, thefinancial statements, and other financial information included in this report,fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periodspresented in this report;

4.               The registrant’s othercertifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintainingdisclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e)and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

a.               Designed such disclosurecontrols and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures tobe designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relatingto the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to usby others within those entities, particularly during the period in which thisreport is being prepared;

b.              Evaluated the effectivenessof the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in thisreport our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls andprocedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on suchevaluation; and

c.               Disclosed in this report anychange in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurredduring the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter that has materiallyaffected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting; and

5.               The registrant’s othercertifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluationof internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors andthe audit committee of registrant’s board of directors (or persons performingthe equivalent functions):

a.               All significant deficienciesand material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control overfinancial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect theregistrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financialinformation; and

b.              Any fraud, whether or notmaterial, that involves management or other employees who have a significantrole in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.
| Date:  | June 5, 2007             |
|--------|--------------------------|
|   |                     |
| By:    | /s/ Glen  E. Shipley     |   |
|   | Glen E.  Shipley         |
|   | Chief  Financial Officer |

 

----
### §5355. General provisions relating to bonds

The provisions of section 5551 (relating to bonds) shall be applicable to the bonds required under section 5354.

(Added Pub. L. 85–859, title II, §201, Sept. 2, 1958, 72 Stat. 1379.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Prior Provisions

A prior section 5355, act Aug. 16, 1954, ch. 736, 68A Stat. 664, consisted of provisions similar to those comprising this section, prior to the general revision of this chapter by Pub. L. 85–859.
### PART II—INCOME IN RESPECT OF DECEDENTS

Sec.
691.
Recipients of income in respect of decedents.
692.
Income taxes of members of Armed Forces, astronauts, and victims of certain terrorist attacks on death.

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

**2003**—Pub. L. 108–121, title I, §110(a)(3)(B), Nov. 11, 2003, 117 Stat. 1342, inserted ", astronauts," after "Forces" in item 692.

**2002**—Pub. L. 107–134, title I, §101(c)(2), Jan. 23, 2002, 115 Stat. 2429, substituted "Income taxes of members of Armed Forces and victims of certain terrorist attacks on death" for "Income taxes of members of Armed Forces on death" in item 692.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

WESTERN DISTRICT

IN RE: ADOPTION OF J.R.W.

PETITION OF: J.D.W., NATURAL 

FATHER

:

:

:

:

:

No. 265 WAL 2018

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from 

the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 24th day of August, 2018, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is 

DENIED.
### §5123. Preservation and inspection of records, and entry of premises for inspection

#### (a) Preservation and inspection of records

Any records or other documents required to be kept under this part or regulations issued pursuant thereto shall be preserved by the person required to keep such records or documents, as the Secretary may by regulations prescribe, and shall be kept available for inspection by any internal revenue officer during business hours.

#### (b) Entry of premises for inspection

The Secretary may enter during business hours the premises (including places of storage) of any dealer for the purpose of inspecting or examining any records or other documents required to be kept by such dealer under this chapter or regulations issued pursuant thereto and any distilled spirits, wines, or beer kept or stored by such dealer on such premises.

(Added Pub. L. 85–859, title II, §201, Sept. 2, 1958, 72 Stat. 1348, §5146; amended Pub. L. 94–455, title XIX, §1906(b)(13)(A), Oct. 4, 1976, 90 Stat. 1834; renumbered §5123, Pub. L. 109–59, title XI, §11125(b)(7), Aug. 10, 2005, 119 Stat. 1955.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Prior Provisions

A prior section 5123, added Pub. L. 85–859, title II, §201, Sept. 2, 1958, 72 Stat. 1344; amended Pub. L. 87–863, §4(a), Oct. 23, 1962, 76 Stat. 1142; Pub. L. 94–455, title XIX, §1906(b)(13)(A), Oct. 4, 1976, 90 Stat. 1834; Pub. L. 100–647, title II, §2004(t)(3), Nov. 10, 1988, 102 Stat. 3610, related to exemptions from special tax on certain wholesale and retail dealers in liquors or beer, prior to repeal by Pub. L. 109–59, title XI, §11125(a)(1)(D), (c), Aug. 10, 2005, 119 Stat. 1953, 1957, effective July 1, 2008, but inapplicable to taxes imposed for periods before such date.

Another prior section 5123, act Aug. 16, 1954, ch. 736, 68A Stat. 621, related to exemptions from tax on retail dealers of liquors or beer, prior to the general revision of this chapter by Pub. L. 85–859.

#### Amendments

2005—Pub. L. 109–59 renumbered section 5146 of this title as this section and transferred section to this subpart so as to appear after section 5122.

1976—Pub. L. 94–455 struck out "or his delegate" after "Secretary" wherever appearing.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

Gaona consented to proceed before a magistrate judge. See 28

** 

U.S.C. § 636(c).

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

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

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

MARTIN PARTIDA GAONA,

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

 v.

KUSHNER; et al.,

 Defendants - Appellees.

No. 11-15155

D.C. No. 1:06-cv-00865-SMS

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of California

Sandra M. Snyder, Magistrate Judge, Presiding**

Submitted February 21, 2012*** 

Before: FERNANDEZ, McKEOWN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges. 

Martin Partida Gaona, a Califonia state prisoner, appeals pro se from the

district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C.§ 1983 action alleging deliberate

FILED

MAR 06 2012

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 11-15155

indifference to serious medical needs. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.

§ 1291. We review de novo. Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir. 2000). 

We affirm. 

The district court properly dismissed Gaona’s action for failure to state a

claim because Gaona failed to allege facts showing that defendants acted with

deliberate indifference in the treatment of his infection with Valley Fever. See

Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1060 (9th Cir. 2004) (deliberate indifference is a

high legal standard; malpractice or negligence does not constitute an Eighth

Amendment violation). 

The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Gaona leave to

amend his third amended complaint, where it had previously provided notice of the

complaint’s deficiencies and granted leave to amend. See Chodos v. West Publ’g

Co., 292 F.3d 992, 1003 (9th Cir. 2009) (setting forth standard of review and

noting that court’s discretion is particularly broad where it has already granted

leave to amend). 

The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Gaona’s motion for

appointment of counsel because Gaona failed to demonstrate exceptional

circumstances. See Palmer v. Valdez, 560 F.3d 965, 970 (9th Cir. 2009) (setting

forth standard of review and requirement of “exceptional circumstances” for
3 11-15155

appointment of counsel). 

Gaona’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive. 

AFFIRMED.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

HON. ROY K. ALTMAN

ORDER SCHEDULING STATUS CONFERENCES

The Plaintiffs’ Complaints allege violations of one of the following: the Americans with 

Disabilities Act (the “ADA”), 42 U.S.C. § 12181, et seq, Fair Labor Standards Act (the 

“FLSA”), 29 U.S.C. § 203, the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (the “FDCPA”), 15 U.S.C. §§ 

1692–1692p, et seq, or the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (the “TCPA”), 47 U.S.C. § 227.

Consistent with the Court’s practices in such cases, counsel are directed to appear at a 

status conference on Wednesday, November 18, 2020. Matters scheduled for consideration at 

this session are listed below with corresponding times. The conference will be conducted 

telephonically. At that time, the parties shall dial 1-888-363-4734 and enter access code 

9127026, followed by the # symbol. Counsel must not utilize speakerphone functionality during 

the hearing. If possible, counsel should use a landline. Accordingly, the Court hereby ORDERS

as follows:

1. The Clerk is DIRECTED to file this Order in each of the below cases. 

2. The parties are not personally required to appear, but a representative of each 

party with full authority to enter a full and complete compromise must appear. 

3. If an agreement is reached, the parties shall promptly notify the Court.

4. The Plaintiff’s counsel must appear with the entire case file. If any of the 

Defendants has not yet appeared, the Plaintiff must serve a copy of this 

Order on any such Defendant within two business days of the date of this 

Order. 

Case 0:20-cv-60885-RKA Document 49 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/10/2020 Page 1 of 3
2

5. Counsel are ORDERED to dial in ten minutes before their designated call in 

time—and to confer with opposing counsel beforehand to confirm mutual 

attendance.

a. 20-cv-62265 – Brito v. ARCP RL Portfolio VI LLC et al.

i. Call in time: 2:30 p.m.

b. 20-cv-81524 – Cohan v. BCore Select Raven 1 TRS, LLC

i. Call in time: 2:45 p.m.

c. 20-cv-82002 – Cohan v West Boynton Auto Servs. Inc.

i. Call in time: 3:00 p.m.

d. 20-cv-82013 – Fernandez v. Capitol Lighting EH Divisions, Inc.

i. Call in time: 3:15 p.m.

e. 20-cv-62222 – Edwards v. Friedman Assocs. et al.

i. Call in time: 3:30 p.m.

f. 20-cv-61475 – Walowitz v. Corporate Coaches, Inc. et al.

i. Call in time: 3:45 p.m.

g. 20-cv-62025 – Standifer et al. v. Persaud Holdings LLC et al.

i. Call in time: 4:00 p.m.

h. 20-cv-60885 – Thompson v. Fort Lauderdale Law Grp.

i. Call in time: 4:15 p.m.

i. 20-cv-81910 – Parks et al. v. Bluegreen Vacations Corp.

i. Call in time: 4:30 p.m.

Case 0:20-cv-60885-RKA Document 49 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/10/2020 Page 2 of 3
DONE AND ORDERED in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, this 10th day of November 2020.

 _________________________________

 ROY K. ALTMAN

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

cc: counsel of record

Case 0:20-cv-60885-RKA Document 49 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/10/2020 Page 3 of 3
AFS

- 1 5

- 1171

- E May 27, 2015

Exemption No. 10521B Regulatory Docket No. FAA

- 2011

- 0824

Mr. Brian Neuhoff Airbus Helicopters, Inc.

2701 North Forum Drive

Grand Prairie , TX 7 5052

Dear Mr. Neuhoff :

This letter is to inform you that we have granted your petition to extend Exemption

No. 10521 , as amended

. It explains the basis for our decision, describes its effect, and lists

the conditions and limitations.

The Basis for Our Decision

By letter dated April 10, 2015

, you petitioned the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) on

behalf of Airbus Helicopters, Inc. ( Airbus Helicopters ) (formerly American Eurocopter Flight Simulation Center) for an extension of Exemption No.10521

, as amended . That exemption from part 60, A ppendix C, Table C2A, paragraph 4.b.3 of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) permit s a geometric error of up to 12 degrees between the image generator (IG) eye point and the pilot eye point for the Eurocopter (EC) 175 Level D full flight simulat or (FFS).

In your petition you indicate that there has been no change in the conditions and reasons relative to public interest and safety that were the basis for granting the original exemption.

The FAA has determined that good cause exists for not publ ishing a summary of the petition

in the Federal Register because the requested extension of the exemption would not set a precedent, and any delay in acting on this petition would be detrimental to Airbus Helicopters

.2

Our Decision

The FAA has determined that the justification for the issuance of Exemption No. 10521 , as amended, remains valid with respect to this exemption and is in the public interest. Therefore, under the authority contained in 49 U.S.C. §§ 106(f), 40113 and 44701, delegated to me by t he Administrator, Airbus Helicopter s , Inc. is granted an extension to E xemption 10521, as amended, from 14 CFR part 60, Continuous f ield

- of

- v ie w tests stated in Table C2A, paragraph 4.b.3 to the extent necessary to allow Airbus Helicopters to manufacture a nd obtain FAA qualification of its L evel D Flight Simulation Training Device ( FSTD ), subject to the following conditions and limitations:

Conditions and Limitations

1. A geometric error of no greater than 12° is allowed subject to evaluation by a National Simulator Program (NSP) Aviation Safety Inspector (ASI) by conducting ground and flight maneuvers to validate the geometric/parallax error does not negatively affect qualified training, testing, or checking tasks.

2. If the objective/subjective testing is successful, the NSP ASI will make a recommendation to the National Simulator Program Manager (NSPM) for final approval.

3. Any training maneuver found to not be subjectively acceptable due to geometric/parallax error will be task restricted on the FSTD’s Statement of Qualification as determined appropriate by the NSPM.

The Effect of Our Decision

Our decision extend s the termination date of Exemption No. 10521 , as amended, to May 31

, 201 7

, unless sooner superseded or rescinded.

Sincerely,

/s/ John Barbagallo Deputy Director, Flight Standards
SCWC-29934

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI # I

STATE OF HAWAI # I , Respondent/Plaintiff-Appellee,

vs.
KEVIN HIROYUKI AKITAKE, Petitioner/Defendant-Appellant.

CERTIORARI TO THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS (ICA NO. 29934; CASE NO. 1DTA-08-09688)

ORDER ACCEPTING APPLICATION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI (By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, Acoba, McKenna JJ. and Circuit Judge Del Rosario, in place of Duffy, J., recused) Petitioner/Defendant-Appellant Kevin Hiroyuki Akitake’s application for writ of certiorari, filed on February 7, 2012, is hereby accepted.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, that no oral argument will be heard in this case. Any party may, within ten days and pursuant to Rule 34(c) of the Hawai # i Rules of Appellate Procedure, move for retention of oral argument.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai # i, March 20, 2012. R. Patrick McPherson forpetitioner/defendantappellant on the application /s/ Mark E. Recktenwald /s/ Paula A. Nakayama /s/ Simeon R. Acoba, Jr. /s/ Sabrina S. McKenna /s/ Dexter D. Del Rosario Electronically Filed Supreme Court SCWC-29934 20-MAR-2012 02:56 PM
### §5180. Signs

#### (a) Requirements

Every person engaged in distilled spirits operations shall place and keep conspicuously on the outside of his place of business a sign showing the name of such person and denoting the business, or businesses, in which engaged. The sign required by this subsection shall be in such form and contain such information as the Secretary shall by regulations prescribe.

#### (b) Penalty

**For penalty and forfeiture relating to failure to post sign or improperly posting such sign, see section 5681.**

(Added Pub. L. 85–859, title II, §201, Sept. 2, 1958, 72 Stat. 1355; amended Pub. L. 94–455, title XIX, §1906(b)(13)(A), Oct. 4, 1976, 90 Stat. 1834; Pub. L. 96–39, title VIII, §807(a)(19), July 26, 1979, 93 Stat. 283.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Prior Provisions

A prior section 5180, act Aug. 16, 1954, ch. 736, 68A Stat. 632, consisted of provisions similar to those comprising this section, prior to the general revision of this chapter by Pub. L. 85–859.

Provisions similar to those comprising this section were contained in prior section 5274, act Aug. 16, 1954, ch. 736, 68A Stat. 651, prior to the general revision of this chapter by Pub. L. 85–859.

#### Amendments

1979—Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 96–39 substituted "distilled spirits operation" for "distilling, bonded warehousing, rectifying, or bottling of distilled spirits".

1976—Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 94–455 struck out "or his delegate" after "Secretary".

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

#### Effective Date of 1979 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 96–39 effective Jan. 1, 1980, see section 810 of Pub. L. 96–39, set out as a note under section 5001 of this title.