alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit
32
 
 CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO
 18
U.S.C.  SECTION 1350
 
 
 Michael
V. Shustek, as Chief Executive Officer and Director of the manager of Vestin
Mortgage, Inc., the sole manager of Vestin Fund III, LLC (the “Registrant”), and
Rocio Revollo, as Chief Financial Officer of Vestin Mortgage, Inc., hereby
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350 as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:
 
 (1)
              The
      Registrant’s Report on Form 10-Q for the three months ended March 31,
      2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
      hereof (the “Report”), fully complies with the requirements of Section
      13(a) or Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C.
      78m or 78o(d)); and
 
 (2)
              The
      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
      respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
      Registrant.
 
 Date: May
14, 2009
 
 
 /s/
      Michael V. ShustekMichael
      V. ShustekChief
      Executive Officer and Director of the Manager*of
      Vestin Mortgage, Inc., Manager of the
Registrant
 
 
 
 Date: May
14, 2009
 
 
 /s/Rocio
      RevolloRocio
      RevolloChief
      Financial Officer of the Manager**of
      Vestin Mortgage, Inc., Manager of the
Registrant
 
 
 
 * Michael
V. Shustek functions as the equivalent of the Chief Executive Officer of the
Registrant for purposes of 18 U.S.C. Section 1350.
 
 **Rocio
Revollo functions as the equivalent of Chief Financial Officer of the Registrant
for purposes of 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, pursuant to an accounting services
agreement entered into between Vestin Fund III LLC and her employer, Strategix
Solutions, LLC
July 28, 2015 

MEMORANDUM TO: Mark A. Satorius 

 Executive Director for Operations 

FROM: Annette L. Vietti-Cook, Secretary /RA/ 

SUBJECT: STAFF REQUIREMENTS – COMSECY-15-0019 – CLOSURE 

PLAN FOR THE REEVALUATION OF FLOODING HAZARDS 

FOR OPERATING NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS 

The Commission has approved the Mitigating Strategies and Flooding Hazard Reevaluation 

Action Plan presented in COMSECY-15-0019. 

As discussed in the COMSECY, the staff plans interactions with stakeholders, including the 

public, industry and the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards (ACRS) as guidance is 

developed for integrated assessments and associated regulatory decisionmaking. As such, the 

quantitative risk criteria discussed in the COMSECY should be considered preliminary at this 

stage. The staff should provide the guidance for integrated assessments and associated 

regulatory decisionmaking to the Commission for information prior to implementation.

The staff should work with the Office of Public Affairs and the Office of Congressional Affairs to 

develop an effective communication plan for the issues addressed in COMSECY-15-0019. 

The staff should continue to look for additional opportunities to address any over conservatism 

in the flood hazard evaluations and to streamline the process as additional lessons are learned. 

The staff should keep the Commission informed of the progress on implementation of the 

mitigating strategies and flooding hazard reevaluation action plan and should raise any 

additional policy issues that may be identified to the Commission promptly for resolution. 

cc: Chairman Burns 

 Commissioner Svinicki 

 Commissioner Ostendorff 

 Commissioner Baran 

 OGC 

 CFO 

 OCA 

 OPA 

 Office Directors, Regions, ACRS, ASLBP (via E-Mail) 

 PDR
[Civil No. 298.]

#### H. N. ALEXANDER, Appellant, v. CLARK CHURCHILL, Appellee.

APPEAL from the District Court of the Second Judicial District in and for the County of Maricopa. Joseph H. Kibbey, Judge.

H. B. Lighthizer, for Appellant.

Edwards & Buck, for Appellee.

June 6, 1890.

Affirmed.
§ 180.1 Prohibition on the employment, or attempted employment, of manipulative and deceptive devices. ( a ) It shall be unlawful for any person, directly or indirectly, in connection with any swap, or contract of sale of any commodity in interstate commerce, or contract for future delivery on or subject to the rules of any registered entity, to intentionally or recklessly: ( 1 ) Use or employ, or attempt to use or employ, any manipulative device, scheme, or artifice to defraud;
( 2 ) Make, or attempt to make, any untrue or misleading statement of a material fact or to omit to state a material fact necessary in order to make the statements made not untrue or misleading;
( 3 ) Engage, or attempt to engage, in any act, practice, or course of business, which operates or would operate as a fraud or deceit upon any person; or,
( 4 ) Deliver or cause to be delivered, or attempt to deliver or cause to be delivered, for transmission through the mails or interstate commerce, by any means of communication whatsoever, a false or misleading or inaccurate report concerning crop or market information or conditions that affect or tend to affect the price of any commodity in interstate commerce, knowing, or acting in reckless disregard of the fact that such report is false, misleading or inaccurate. Notwithstanding the foregoing, no violation of this subsection shall exist where the person mistakenly transmits, in good faith, false or misleading or inaccurate information to a price reporting service.
( b ) Nothing in this section shall be construed to require any person to disclose to another person nonpublic information that may be material to the market price, rate, or level of the commodity transaction, except as necessary to make any statement made to the other person in or in connection with the transaction not misleading in any material respect.
( c ) Nothing in this section shall affect, or be construed to affect, the applicability of Commodity Exchange Act section 9(a)(2).
#### In the Matter of the Claim of Madge C. Bethge, for Herself and Nancy C. Bethge, an Infant, Respondent, against Buffalo Eastern Motor Lines, Inc., et al., Appellants. Workmen’s Compensation Board, Respondent.

This is an appeal by the employer and insurance carrier from an award made by the Workmen’s Compensation Board for death benefits arising out of the death of Arthur Bethge. Upon a previous appeal, after a similar award, this court reversed and remitted the ease to the board for further proof as to causal relation between the decedent’s work and his death. (281 App. Div. 781.) The decedent, a truck driver, unable to back his truck to a delivery platform because another truck was there, drove to a point where the rear of the truck was about forty-five feet from the dock. He then carried two parcels, weighing 138 pounds to the loading dock, went into the office where his bills were checked and returned to his truck. Approximately ten minutes thereafter he was found dead in the cab of the truck which had not been moved from its location near the dock. Though three of appellants’ medical experts testified that, on the basis of the hypothetical questions asked them, they could not determine the cause of decedent’s death, there is substantial medical proof in the present record that the exertion and effort necessarily expended by decedent in lifting and carrying these heavy packages to the loading dock were unusual for him and resulted in a coronary occlusion which caused his death. The issue of causal relation is consequently one of fact and, as to it, the determination of the Workmen’s Compensation Board is final and conclusive. Award unanimously affirmed, with costs to the Workmen’s Compensation Board. Present — Foster, P. J., Coon, Halpern, Imrie and Zeller, JJ.
§ 301.2 General requirements. ( a ) Each and every fur product, except those exempted under § 301.39 of this part, shall be labeled and invoiced in conformity with the requirements of the act and rules and regulations.
( b ) Each and every fur, except those exempted under § 301.39, shall be invoiced in conformity with the requirements of the act and rules and regulations.
( c ) Any advertising of fur products or furs, except those exempted under § 301.39, shall be in conformity with the requirements of the act and rules and regulations.
[17 FR 6075, July 8, 1952, as amended at 79 FR 30458, May 28, 2014]
#### § 238.1 Bait advertisement.

No advertisement containing an offer to sell a product should be published when the offer is not a bona fide effort to sell the advertised product. [Guide 1]
#### Neil P. Cullom, as a Director, Individually and as a Stockholder of R. Hoe *&*Co., Inc., Suing on Behalf of Himself and All Other Stockholders of Said Corporation and for the Benefit of Said Corporation, Respondent, v. Albert C. Simmonds, Jr., et al., Appellants, et al., Defendant.

The amended complaint alleges that in July, 1953, a “Stockholders Protective Committee” was organized by three of the defendants for the purpose of expelling four directors from office. This was to be accomplished by preferring charges against them at a special meeting of stockholders. Expenses were incurred by the committee in the solicitation of proxies for the special meeting. Legal action was required in order to compel the president of the corporation to hold the special meeting. *(Matter of Auer*v. *Dressel,*306 N. Y. 427.) The special meeting was never held because, apparently, the purpose of the special meeting was accomplished at the annual meeting by the defeat of sufficient of the old directors to give the then insurgents control of the corporation. A majority of the new board of directors thereupon reimbursed the members of the “ Stockholders Protective Committee” in the sum of $113,654.24 for the expenses incurred in the solicitation of proxies for the special meeting. This stockholders’ action is to recover that sum from the directors who voted for the reimbursement and the directors who received the payment on the grounds that (1) the expenses were unnecessarily incurred in connection with the special meeting, when the business could have been transacted at the annual meeting; (2) the special meeting for which the greater part of the expenses were incurred was abandoned and the order directing it was vacated; (3) the stockholders of the corporation did not approve the payment; (4) the expenses were incurred in connection with a false campaign against plaintiff personally, and not in connection with matters of corporate principle or policy, and (5) a number of the items of the expenses were excessive and improper. Order denying motion of the individual defendants to dismiss the amended complaint for insufficiency affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements. The amended complaint is sufficient. It alleges that the expenditures were not incurred in connection with a matter of corporate policy, *1052but in a campaign directed to a change of personnel and to defame some of the directors personally. *(Everett*v. *Phillips,*288 N. Y. 227; *Points*v. *Wabash B. B. Go.,*207 2ST. Y. 113; *Steinberg*v. *Adams,*90 F. Supp. 604; ef. *Bosenfeld*V. *Fairchild Engine & Airplane Gorp.,*284 App. Div. 201.) In any event, attack is here made on the reasonableness of specific expenditures, which alone would make the complaint sufficient. *(Lawyers’ Adv. Co.*v. *Consolidated By. Lighting <& Befrig. Co.,*187 N. Y. 395; see, also, *Bosenfeld*v. *Fairchild Engine & Airplane Gorp., supra.)*Nolan, P. J., Schmidt, Beldock, Murphy and Ughetta, JJ., concur.
### §1395w–6. Empowering beneficiary choices through continued access to information on physicians' services

#### (a) In general

On an annual basis (beginning with 2015), the Secretary shall make publicly available, in an easily understandable format, information with respect to physicians and, as appropriate, other eligible professionals on items and services furnished to Medicare beneficiaries under title XVIII of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395 et seq.).

#### (b) Type and manner of information

The information made available under this section shall be similar to the type of information in the Medicare Provider Utilization and Payment Data: Physician and Other Supplier Public Use File released by the Secretary with respect to 2012 and shall be made available in a manner similar to the manner in which the information in such file is made available.

#### (c) Requirements

The information made available under this section shall include, at a minimum, the following:

(1) Information on the number of services furnished by the physician or other eligible professional under part B of title XVIII of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395j et seq.), which may include information on the most frequent services furnished or groupings of services.

(2) Information on submitted charges and payments for services under such part.

(3) A unique identifier for the physician or other eligible professional that is available to the public, such as a national provider identifier.

#### (d) Searchability

The information made available under this section shall be searchable by at least the following:

(1) The specialty or type of the physician or other eligible professional.

(2) Characteristics of the services furnished, such as volume or groupings of services.

(3) The location of the physician or other eligible professional.

#### (e) Integration on physician compare

Beginning with 2016, the Secretary shall integrate the information made available under this section on Physician Compare.

#### (f) Definitions

In this section:

#### (1) Eligible professional; physician; Secretary

The terms "eligible professional", "physician", and "Secretary" have the meaning given such terms in section 1395w–5(i) of this title.

#### (2) Physician compare

The term "Physician Compare" means the Physician Compare Internet website of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (or a successor website).

(Pub. L. 114–10, title I, §104, Apr. 16, 2015, 129 Stat. 132.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

The Social Security Act, referred to in subsecs. (a) and (c)(1), is act Aug. 14, 1935, ch. 531, 49 Stat. 620. Title XVIII of the Act is classified generally to this subchapter. Part B of title XVIII of the Act is classified generally to this part. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see section 1305 of this title and Tables.

#### Codification

Section was enacted as part of the Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act of 2015, and not as part of the Social Security Act which comprises this chapter.
!’

. . . . .I’ . l I . ë, OFFICE OFTHE ATORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS AUSTIN :.

‘.g~tztorablo **F.** L. Wilson, Pago 2 In your fn~ulr~ you odvieo that **the p&on**  **in** gusa$ion $0 opc+ratltlg

a motor vehicle upon the hzL$ha!ya of this State end 1shaul3ns (jravol

therein. !Chwo can **be** no doubt but$hat this poraon.ocmez

within'tho doflnltion of the term "oommer&l oper&or" @oos ho is oxmpt from procurln, * a license undor th* terns- of goation 3, hrtblo 6537b, Vernonla Annotcrtod civil Ststutes;i,An oxaminstionof 6aid SeCtiOn 3, 8uqvaj does not rovoal that tho **J,&SlAtUPO** mode.provieio~ for .tho exemption of ~.nployeea of the gtato cf Toxae, ;- ve are 9kustinp: t&t tha f.or~soinC fully’an~wers your inquiry,

. .I

# .

. J?XiST

ASSISTANT ATTOFUSF?L

GXNERAL :

. . **Asslit&&.**
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-6718

JERVON L. HERBIN,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

JANET C. HOEFFEL, Staff Attorney, D.C. Public

Defender Service; JO-ANN WALLACE, Director,

D.C. Public Defender Service; ANITA M. JOSEY,

Deputy Director, D.C. Public Defender Service;

MICHELLE A. ROBERTS, Chairperson, D.C. Public

Defender Service Board of Trustees; CONSTANCE

T. O'BRYANT, Vice Chairperson, D.C. Public Defender Service Board of Trustees; FRANCIS D.

CARTER, Member, D.C. Public Defender Service

Board of Trustees; ANTHONY MATTHEWS, Staff

Attorney, D.C. Public Defender Service; KARIN

H. CATHER, Assistant Commonwealth's Attorney,

Loudoun County, Virginia; OWEN D. BASHAM, Deputy Commonwealth's Attorney, Loudoun County,

Virginia; STEVE SIMPSON, Sheriff, Loudoun

County, Virginia; KENNETH FOGNANO, Detective/

Investigator, Loudoun County Sheriff's Department; JEROME L. HICKMAN, Lieutenant, Loudoun

County Sheriff's Department; JOHN BUCKMAN,

Sergeant, Loudoun County Sheriff's Department;

MARK DAVIS, Lieutenant, Loudoun County Sheriff's Department,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, District

Judge. (CA-98-233-AM)
2

Submitted: November 5, 1998 Decided: November 19, 1998

Before ERVIN, LUTTIG, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jervon L. Herbin, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM:

Jervon Herbin appeals from the district court’s order denying

relief on his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 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. Herbin v. Hoeffel, No. CA-98-233-AM (E.D. Va. Mar.

25, 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
[Civil No. 256.

Filed April 18, 1890.]

[73 Pac. 398.]

#### THE SANTA RITA LAND AND MINING COMPANY, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. T. LILLIE MERCER, Defendant and Appellee.

1. Appeal and Error—Defective Record—Rev. Stats. Ariz. 1887, p. 185; Par. 842, Cited—Objections Raised for First Time on Appeal Will not be Considered.—Where the reeord contains neither motion for new trial, exceptions to the findings, ■ exceptions to conclusions of law, statements of facts, nor bill of exceptions, there is no question presented for the consideration of an appellate court. The assignment of errors cannot be considered as the objections raised thereby are made here for the first time.

2. Same—Failure to Allege Error—Judgment Supported by Pleadings—Affirmed.—Where error alleged cannot be reviewed and the judgment is fully supported by the pleadings an appellate court cannot search further for errors, and the judgment must be affirmed.

APPEAL from a judgment of the District Court of the First Judicial District in and' for the County of Pima. W. H. Barnes, Judge.

Affirmed.

The facts are stated in the opinion.

Haynes & Mitchell, for Appellant.

Hereford & Lovell, for Appellee.

KIBBEY, J.

The reeord in this cause presents no question for our consideration. The action was to recover possession of real estate. There was a trial by the court and judgment for the appellee, the defendant below.

The findings of the court, which are voluminous and elaborate, are copied into the transcript, but there was no exception reserved to them.

The minute entries of the clerk transcribed into the record before us refer to, and inferentially indicate, that there was .a motion for a new trial.

The motion -is not in the record in any way.. Section 842 *182of the Revised Statutes of 1887 prescribes that the motion for a new trial may be made a part of the record and the manner in which it may be done.

Appellant did not except to the conclusion of law by the court upon the facts found.

Neither motion for a new trial, exception to the findings, exception to the conclusion of law, statement of facts, nor hill of exceptions are in the record.

"We cannot consider the assignment of errors, as the objections raised thereby are made here for the first time. *Tudor*v. *Hodges,*71 Tex. 392, *9*S. W. 443; *Insurance Co.*v. *Milliken,*64 Tex. 48; *Crowford*v. *McGinty,*11 S. W. (Tex.) 1066.

The judgment is fully supported by the pleadings, and we cannot search further for errors.

The judgment must therefore be affirmed.

Wright, C. J., and Sloan, J., concurring.
(June 15, 1949.)

#### Max Weinstein, Appellant, v. Louis Berry, Respondent.

No opinion. Settle order on notice. Present — Peck, P. J., Dore, Callahan, Van Voorhis and Shientag, JJ.
§ 1130.5 Requirements for registration forms. The registration form required under § 1130.3(a)(1) shall: ( a ) Comply with the format and text requirements set forth in § 1130.6 as shown in figures 1 and 2 of this part;
( b ) State all information required by this part 1130 in the English language;
( c ) Be attached to the surface of each durable infant or toddler product so that, as a practical matter, the consumer must notice and handle the form after purchasing the product;
( d ) Include the manufacturer's name, model name and number for the product, and the date of manufacture;
( e ) Include an option for consumers to register through the Internet;
( f ) Include the statement required in § 1130.6(c)(1) that information provided by the consumer shall not be used for any purpose other than to facilitate a recall of or safety alert regarding that product.
[74 FR 68676, Dec. 29, 2009, as amended at 77 FR 9524, Feb. 17, 2012]
### §14092. Transferred

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section 14092 was editorially reclassified as section 12552 of Title 34, Crime Control and Law Enforcement.
<PAGE>
                                                                   Exhibit 10.19

                          AMENDMENT TO PROMISSORY NOTE

               AMENDMENT, dated as of January 26, 2001 (this "Amendment"), to
the Promissory Note, dated as of January 31, 2000 (the "Note"), between the
undersigned (the "Borrower"), and Western Multiplex Corporation, a Delaware
Corporation ("WMC" or the "Lender").

                              W I T N E S S E T H:
                              - - - - - - - - - -

               WHEREAS, pursuant to the Note, the Lender has agreed to make, and
has made, extensions of credit to the Borrower; and

               WHEREAS, the Borrower has requested, and, upon this Amendment
becoming effective, the Lender has agreed, that certain provisions of the Note
be amended in the manner provided for in this Amendment;

               NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises and the
agreements hereinafter set forth, the parties hereto hereby agree as follows:

               SECTION 1. AMENDMENT TO SECTION 3(b) OF THE NOTE. Section 3(b) of
the Note is hereby amended by deleting all of the language contained in such
section and the caption is hereby amended to omit the words "Limited Recourse".

               SECTION 2. COUNTERPARTS. This Amendment may be executed in any
number of counterparts, all of which together shall constitute a single
instrument.

               SECTION 3. GOVERNING LAW. This Amendment and the rights and
obligations of the parties hereto shall be governed by, and construed and
interpreted in accordance with, the law of the State of California.

                     [Rest of Page Intentionally Left Blank]


<PAGE>


               IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Amendment
to be duly executed and delivered by their proper and duly authorized officers
as of the day and year first above written.

                                            WESTERN MULTIPLEX CORPORATION


                                            By: /s/ Nancy Huber
                                               _________________________________
                                               Name: Nancy Huber
                                               Title: Chief Financial Officer


                                            EMPLOYEE


                                            By: /s/ Joseph Tavormina
                                               _________________________________
                                               Name:  Joseph Tavormina


                                            SPOUSE


                                            By: /s/ Thomasine Tavormina
                                               _________________________________
                                               Name: Thomasine Tavormina