alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 10.7


 


BRIGHTSPARK
CAPITOL CORP.


1300 17th
Street North, Suite 820


Arlington,
Virginia 22209


_______________, 2021


 


BrightSpark Capitol Sponsor LLC


1300 17th Street North,
Suite 820


Arlington, Virginia 22209


 


Ladies and Gentlemen:


 


This
letter will confirm our agreement that, commencing on the effective date (the “Effective Date”) of the
registration statement (the “Registration Statement”) for the initial public offering (the “IPO”)
of the securities of BrightSpark Capitol Corp., a Delaware corporation (the “Company”), and continuing
until the earlier of (i) the consummation by the Company of an initial business combination or (ii) the Company’s liquidation
(in each case as described in the Registration Statement) (such earlier date hereinafter referred to as the “Termination
Date”), BrightSpark Capitol Sponsor LLC (the “Sponsor”) shall make available to the Company
certain office space and secretarial, administrative and support services as may be required by the Company from time to time,
situated at 1300 17th Street North, Suite 820, Arlington, Virginia 22209 (or any successor location) and 305 West Pennsylvania
Avenue, Towson, Maryland 21204 (or any successor location), respectively. In exchange therefore, the Company shall pay the Sponsor
the sum of $20,000 per month on the Effective Date and continuing monthly thereafter until the Termination Date. The Sponsor hereby
agrees that it does not have any right, title, interest or claim of any kind in or to any monies that may be set aside in a trust
account (the “Trust Account”) that may be established upon the consummation of the IPO (the “Claim”)
and hereby waives any Claim it may have in the future as a result of, or arising out of, any negotiations, contracts or agreements
with the Company and will not seek recourse against the Trust Account for any reason whatsoever.


 


[Signature
Pages Follow]


 






     


     


    

 








	 	Very truly yours,
	 	 	 
	 	BRIGHTSPARK CAPITOL CORP.
	 	 	 
	 	By:	 
	 	 	Name:	Helena B. Foulkes
	 	 	Title:	Co-Chief Executive Officer


 


AGREED TO AND ACCEPTED BY:


 


BRIGHTSPARK CAPITOL SPONSOR
LLC


 


	By:	 	 
	 	Name:	Marla Beck	 
	 	Title:	Manager	 


 


[Signature
Page to Administrative Services Agreement]
Exhibit
99.4




CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
 
 In
connection with the Annual Report of Provident Energy Trust (the “Trust”) on
Form 40-F for the year ended December 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I Mark N. Walker, Senior
Vice President Finance and Chief Financial Officer of Provident Energy Ltd.,
(the “Company”), certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:
 
 3.
              The
      Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of
      the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;
and
  4.
              The
      information contained in the Report fairly represents, in all material
      respects, the financial condition and results of the operations of the
      Company.
 
 Date:
March 27, 2008
  
  ___/s/
      Mark N. Walker
                Mark
      N. Walker
                Senior
      Vice President Finance and Chief
                Financial
      Officer
EXHIBIT
      32.1






CERTIFICATION
      PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,






In
      connection with the Quarterly Report of Latin American Telecommunications
      Venture Company - LATVCO. (the “Company”), on Form 10-QSB for the period ending
      August 31, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
      hereof (the Report), I, David Bakhshi, Chief Executive Officer, certify,
      pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.1350, as adopted pursuant to ss.906 of the
      Sarbanes-Oxley Act, that:






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






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






/s/
      David Bakhshi






Chief
      Executive Officer


September
      12, 2007




A
      signed
      original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document
      authenticating, acknowledging or otherwise adopting the signature that appears
      in the typed form with the electronic version of this written statement required
      by Section 906, has been provided to IGIA, Inc. and will be retained by IGIA,
      Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
      request.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CASE NO. 1:20-cv-21815-DPG

GV KB STORE LLC d/b/a Stefano Versace

Gelato, a Florida limited liability company,

and GV SIESTAKEY LLC d/b/a Stefano

Versace Gelato, a Florida limited liability

company, on behalf of themselves and all

others similarly situated,

Plaintiffs,

v.

SCOTTSDALE INSURANCE COMPANY,

Defendants.

_______________________________________/

NOTICE OF VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL

Plaintiffs, GV KB Store LLC and GV Siestakey LLC d/b/a Stefano Versace Gelato, hereby 

voluntarily dismiss their claims against Defendant, Scottsdale Insurance Company, without 

prejudice, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i). Defendant has not answered 

or moved for summary judgment in this action. 

Respectfully submitted September 1, 2020. 

/s/ Javier A. Lopez

Javier A. Lopez, Esq.

Florida Bar No. 16727

jal@kttlaw.com

Benjamin Widlanski, Esq.

Florida Bar No. 1010644

bwidlanski@kttlaw.com

Gail A. McQuilkin, Esq. 

Florida Bar No. 969338

gam@kttlaw.com 

Harley S. Tropin, Esq. 

Florida Bar No. 241253

hst@kttlaw.com

Frank A. Florio, Esq. 

Florida Bar No. 1010461 

fflorio@kttlaw.com

Case 1:20-cv-21815-DPG Document 20 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/01/2020 Page 1 of 2
KOZYAK TROPIN & THROCKMORTON LLP

2525 Ponce de Leon Blvd., 9th Floor

Coral Gables, FL 33134

Tel: (305) 372-1800 

Daniel Tropin, Esq.

Florida Bar No. 100424

tropin@kolawyers.com

Jonathan M. Streisfeld, Esq.

Florida Bar No. 117447

streisfeld@kolawyers.com

KOPELOWITZ OSTROW FERGUSON

WEISELBERG GILBERT

One West Las Olas Blvd., Suite 500

Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301

Tel: (954) 525-4100 

 Counsel for Plaintiffs

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that on September 1, 2020, a true and correct copy of the foregoing 

document was electronically filed with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system, which 

will send a notice of electronic filing to all counsel of record.

By /s/ Javier A. Lopez

 Javier A. Lopez, Esq.

Case 1:20-cv-21815-DPG Document 20 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/01/2020 Page 2 of 2
§ 702.410 Duties of employees with respect to special examinations. ( a ) For any special examination required of an employee by §§ 702.408 and 702.409, the employee shall submit to such examination at such place as is designated in the order to report, but the place so selected shall be reasonably convenient for the employee.
( b ) Where an employee fails to submit to an examination required by §§ 702.408 and 702.409, the district director or administrative law judge may order that no compensation otherwise payable shall be paid for any period during which the employee refuses to submit to such examination unless circumstances justified the refusal.
( c ) Where an employee unreasonably refuses to submit to medical or surgical treatment, or to an examination by a physician selected by the employer, the district director or administrative law judge may by order suspend the payment of further compensation during such time as the refusal continues. Except that refusal to submit to medical treatment because of adherence to the tenets of a recognized church or religious denomination as described in § 702.401(b) shall not cause the suspension of compensation.
[42 FR 45303, Sept. 9, 1977, as amended at 50 FR 402, Jan. 3, 1985; 51 FR 4286, Feb. 3, 1986]
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CASE NO. 20-MJ-8171-BER

IN THE MATTER OF

THE EXTRADICTION OF

LUCAS CARVALO ROLLO

___________________________________/

NOTICE OF ASSIGNMENT

The above captioned case has been assigned to the Assistant Federal Public 

Defender specified below.

Please send all notices and inquiries to this attorney at the address listed 

below.

Respectfully submitted,

MICHAEL CARUSO

FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER

By: s/M.Caroline McCrae 

M. Caroline McCrae

Assistant Federal Public Defender

Attorney for Defendant

Florida Bar No. 72164

450 S Australian Avenue, Suite 500

West Palm Beach, Florida 33401

(561) 833-6288 - Telephone

caroline_mccrae@fd.org - Email

Case 9:20-mj-08171-BER Document 11 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/06/2020 Page 1 of 2


CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY certify that on May 6, 2020, I electronically filed the foregoing 

document with the Clerk of the Court using CM/ECF. I also certify that the 

foregoing document is being served this day on all counsel of record via transmission 

of Notices of Electronic Filing generated by CM/ECF or in some other authorized 

manner for those counsel or parties who are not authorized to receive electronically 

Notices of Electronic Filing.

s/M. Caroline McCrae 

M. Caroline McCrae

Case 9:20-mj-08171-BER Document 11 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/06/2020 Page 2 of 2
326 P.2d 367

#### STATE of New Mexico, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Warren T. BAIZE and Pauline Criqui, Defendants-Appellants.

No. 6375.

Supreme Court of New Mexico.

June 4, 1958.

*169Hartley, Buzzard & Patton, Clovis, for appellants.

Fred M. Standley, Atty. Gen., Robert F. Pyatt, Hilton A. Dickson, Jr., Asst. Attys. Gen., for appellee.

McGHEE, Justice.

The appellants were convicted of the offense of selling alcoholic liquor (Coors beer) without having a license permitting them to do so.

The sole ground urged for reversal is that the trial court committed fundamental error when it failed on its own motion to instruct the jury they must find beyond a reasonable doubt the beer claimed to have been sold contained more than one-half of one percent of alcohol which is the statutory definition of alcoholic liquor as it relates to beer set out in sec. 46-1-1 1953 N.M.S.A.

Instruction No. 5 given to the jury reads:

> “5. The material allegations contained in the information which must be proved to your satisfaction and beyond a reasonable doubt by the evidence introduced in this case, are:

> “(a) That Warren T. Baize and Pauline Criqui sold alcoholic liquor, to-wit: ten cans of beer, without a license so to do;

> “(b) That this occurred in Curry County, New Mexico between the hours of 10:00 pm and 11:25 pm on the 14th day of May, 1957, or at some other time within two years next preceding May 16, 1957, that being the date the information was filed in this court.”

The appellants did not request the jury be instructed as to the percentage of alcohol in the beer, and stated in answer to a question by the court that they had no objections to the instructions as prepared, although they did except to the refusal of the court to give certain requested instructions.

*170We have held time and again a defendant must call the attention of the trial court to any claimed error in the instructions by appropriate objection before they may obtain a reversal on account of such error. See State v. Compton, 57 N.M. 227, 257 P.2d 915.

The defendants themselves in their requested instruction No. 3 repeatedly referred to the beer taken by the officers from the tables in the club where the beer was sold and which was introduced in evidence as alcoholic liquor. The entire case was tried on the theory the beer was in fact alcoholic liquor. One of the witnesses to whom beer was served lived in Texas and testified that he had drank 3.2 beer there, and that the beer served him by the appellants contained more alcohol than the Texas beer.

We have said a number of times the doctrine of fundamental error is for the protection of the innocent, and we do not believe this case is one to which it should be applied, even if we felt the instruction was erroneous for failure to refer to the necessary alcoholic content. The evidence clearly establishes the guilt of the defendants.

The judgment will be affirmed, and it is so ordered.

LUJAN, C. J., and SADLER, COMPTON and SHILLINGLAW, JJ., concur.
Checklist for Biosecurity Auditing 

If you participate in the National Poultry Improvement Plan (NPIP), meet certain flock size 

requirements, and wish to be eligible for maximum indemnity if highly pathogenic avian influenza 

ever strikes your flock, you will need to complete regular biosecurity audits. These paper-based 

audits with your NPIP Official State Agent ensure you have a solid biosecurity plan in place and 

are following it.

Though auditing is not required for other flocks, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) 

encourages all poultry producers to follow NPIP biosecurity guidance. It’s one of the best ways 

to reduce the risk of introducing diseases to your flock.

Check the list on the back for tips 

to help keep your flocks healthy. √

If you see signs of illness, take action right away! Phone Number

Veterinarian 

Cooperative Extension Office 

State Veterinarian/Animal or Poultry Diagnostic Lab 

USDA 866.536.7593

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service

Report Sick Birds
Biosecurity Auditing: What to Expect 

USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer, and lender.

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service

Program Aid No. 2235-15 | Issued March 2020

If you are an NPIP participant and eligible to be audited based on your flock size, here’s 

an overview of what you can expect during the audit.

√

A biosecurity audit is a paper-based audit.

Maintain your biosecurity plan and all related 

documentation in a place that’s easy for you 

and/or the auditor to access. The NPIP Official 

State Agent will decide whether to complete the 

audit in person (with the records) or electronically.

The auditor will look at the biosecurity plan, 

the training materials, documentation that the 

NPIP principles are being carried out, records of 

any corrective actions taken, and the biosecurity 

coordinator’s annual review.

Audits will take place at least once every 

2 years, or a sufficient number of times during 

that period for the NPIP Official State Agent to 

ensure compliance.

For more information about how to keep your flocks healthy, follow Defend the Flock on 

Facebook and Twitter and visit www.aphis.usda.gov/animalhealth/defendtheflock.

If you fail the initial audit, you can request a “check 

audit.” This onsite audit would be conducted by a team, 

including a USDA poultry expert, the NPIP Official State 

Agent, and a licensed, accredited poultry veterinarian 

familiar with your type of operation.

After completing a check audit and showing you’ve 

taken corrective actions, you would be reinstated as 

compliant with NPIP biosecurity principles.
### Subpart A—Tax Imposed

Sec.
801.
Tax imposed.
##### 



Exhibit 32.2
 Certification Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
As Adopted Pursuant To
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
  (1)
    
    The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and(2)
    
    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and result of operations of the Company for the periods presented
therein.
 /s/ DAVID I. ROSENTHALDavid I. RosenthalChief Financial Officer, Executive Vice President of Finance and Administration, Secretary and Treasurer(Principal Financial Officer)November 9, 2005
#### § 3585.4-3 Relinquishment of claims.

Prior to the issuance of a lease, the applicant shall relinquish in writing any right or interest in his/her mining claim(s) as of the date the lease covering such claim(s) becomes effective.
#### In the Matter of the Claim of Serene Aldor, Respondent, against Atlas Commissary Co., Inc., Respondent, and Central Surety & Insurance Company, Appellant. State Industrial Board, Respondent.

*929All concur.
NASA LogoNTRSNTRS - NASA Technical Reports ServerSearchmore_vertCollectionsAboutNewsHelpLogin Back to ResultsEffects of switch leakages upon Nimbus-7 SMMR calibrationA calibration model for the Nimbus 7 Scanning Multichannel Microwave Radiometer (SMMR) is studied. This model not only removes major drawbacks of the current calibration model but also helps in the understanding of the performance degradation of the aging instrument. The current Nimbus 7 SMMR calibration algorithm was derived without considering the interference effect between the two orthogonally polarized signals merging at a ferrite polarization selector switch. The resulting calibrated brightness temperatures, considered as a function of scan angle, are not symmetric around scan angle = 0. However, neither the origin of the asymmetry nor the manner in which the two orthogonal components are mixed has been fully understood. The new calibration model proposed incorporates all the leakage factors associated with the ferrite switches along the signal paths. The resulting calibration equations clarify how the orthogonal components of surface brightness are coupled at radiometers. As a consequence, the origin of the asymmetry is clearly identified and explained. In addition, the feasibility of absolute calibration using in-orbit data is discussed.Document ID19910007223Acquisition SourceLegacy CDMSDocument TypeTechnical Memorandum (TM)AuthorsHan, Daesoo*(NASA Goddard Space Flight Center Greenbelt, MD., United States)*Kim, Seung T.*(ST Systems Corp. Lanham, MD., United States)*Date AcquiredSeptember 6, 2013Publication DateJune 1, 1988Subject CategoryOceanographyReport/Patent NumberNASA-TM-100705REPT-88B0238NAS 1.15:100705Accession Number91N16536Funding Number(s)PROJECT: RTOP 665-10-70CONTRACT_GRANT: NAS5-29386Distribution LimitsPublicCopyrightWork of the US Gov. Public Use Permitted.Available DownloadsNameType19910007223.pdfSTIcloud_downloadcontent_copyvisibilityRelated RecordsThere are no records associated with this record.visibility_offNo Preview Available
 No Fear Act | Freedom of Information Act | Office of the Inspector General | Agency Financial ReportsNASA Web Privacy Policy and Important Notices | NASA Guidelines for Quality of InformationDisclaimers, Copyright, Terms of Use | Accessibility | NASA OCIO | USA.gov | NASA.govContact Us | Site MapSTI LogoNASA Official: JoAnne R. Calhoun Site Curator: STI Compliance and Distribution Services Last Modified: September 12, 2024
#### Bernard Abrams et al. v. Theodore F. Allen et al., Impleaded with James G. Blaine et al.

Present—Martin, P. J., Untermyer, Dore, Cohn and Callahan, JJ.
Exhibit 32.1



CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





I, Joshua Ralston, 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 on Form 10-Q of
General Enterprise Ventures, Inc. for the quarterly period ending March 31, 2019 fully complies with the requirements
of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in the Quarterly Report on Form
10-Q fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of operations of General Enterprise Ventures
Inc.





|Date: April
10, 2023 |  |  | /s/ Joshua Ralston                      | 
|-------------------- |  |  | --------------------------------------- | 
|                     |  |  | Joshua Ralston, Chief Financial Officer |
_________________________________________ 

 

________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

June 8, 2007 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

133939 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan IN RE JESSE JAMES LUCKING, Minor. Robert P. Young, Jr. 

________________________________________ Stephen J. Markman,

 Justices 

DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES,

Petitioner-Appellee, 

v SC: 133939 

 COA: 273705

 Oakland CC

 Family Division: 05-704707-NA 

HOLLY MARIE WALTERS, 

Respondent-Appellant, 

and 

JAMES MICHAEL LUCKING, 

Respondent. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the April 24, 2007 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court. 

s0605 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

June 8, 2007 

 Clerk
### §5235. Bottling of alcohol for industrial purposes

Alcohol for industrial purposes may be bottled, labeled, and cased on bonded premises of a distilled spirits plant prior to payment or determination of tax, under such regulations as the Secretary may prescribe.

(Added Pub. L. 85–859, title II, §201, Sept. 2, 1958, 72 Stat. 1369; 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)(36), July 26, 1979, 93 Stat. 286; Pub. L. 98–369, div. A, title IV, §454(c)(8), July 18, 1984, 98 Stat. 821.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Prior Provisions

Provisions similar to those comprising this section were contained in prior section 5305, act Aug. 16, 1954, ch. 736, 68A Stat. 657, prior to the general revision of this chapter by Pub. L. 85–859.

#### Amendments

1984—Pub. L. 98–369 struck out "stamped," before "labeled," and struck out provision that section 5205(a)(1) shall not apply to alcohol bottled, stamped, and labeled as such under this section.

1979—Pub. L. 96–39 substituted "section 5205(a)(1) shall not apply" for "sections 5178(a)(4)(A), 5205(a)(1), and 5233 (relating to the bottling of distilled spirits in bond) shall not be applicable".

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

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

#### Effective Date of 1984 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 98–369 effective July 1, 1985, see section 456(b) of Pub. L. 98–369, set out as an Effective Date note under section 5101 of this title.

#### 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.
### **Subchapter E—Records of Manufacturers and Importers of Tobacco Products and Cigarette Papers and Tubes, and Export Warehouse Proprietors**

Sec.
5741.
Records to be maintained.

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

**1987**—Pub. L. 100–203, title X, §10512(f)(1), Dec. 22, 1987, 101 Stat. 1330–449, redesignated subchapter D as E.

**1976**—Pub. L. 94–455, title XXI, §2128(d)(1), Oct. 4, 1976, 90 Stat. 1921, inserted "and Importers" in subchapter heading.

**1965**—Pub. L. 89–44, title V, §502(b)(7), (8), June 21, 1965, 79 Stat. 151, struck out former subchapter D, consisting of §§5731 and 5732 relating to operations by dealers in tobacco materials, redesignated subchapter E as D and, in heading for subchapter D, as redesignated, struck out reference to dealers in tobacco materials.

**1958**—Pub. L. 85–859, title II, §202, Sept. 2, 1958, 72 Stat. 1423, substituted "Manufacturers of Tobacco Products and Cigarette Papers and Tubes, Export Warehouse proprietors, and" for "Manufacturers of Articles and" in heading of subchapter.