alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 31.1

                    SECTION 302 CERTIFICATION IN RELATION TO
                 INTERSTAR SECURITISATION MANAGEMENT PTY LIMITED


I, Andrew Twyford, certify that:

1.   I have reviewed  this annual  report on Form 10-K,  and all reports on Form
     6-K  containing  distribution  or  servicing  reports  filed in  respect of
     periods  included in the year covered by this annual  report,  of Interstar
     Millennium Series 2003-3G Trust;

2.   Based on my knowledge,  the information in these reports, taken as a whole,
     does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a
     material  fact  necessary  to make  the  statements  made,  in light of the
     circumstances  under which such  statements were made, not misleading as of
     the last day of the period covered by this annual report;

3.   Based on my knowledge,  the distribution or servicing  information required
     to be  provided  to the  trustee  by the  servicer  under the  pooling  and
     servicing,  or  similar,  agreements,  for  inclusion  in these  reports is
     included in these reports;

4.   I am  responsible  for reviewing the  activities  performed by the servicer
     under the pooling and servicing,  or similar,  agreements and based upon my
     knowledge and the annual  compliance  review required under that agreement,
     and except as  disclosed in the reports,  the  servicer has  fulfilled  its
     obligations under that agreement; and

5.   The  reports  disclose  all  significant   deficiencies   relating  to  the
     servicer's  compliance with the minimum servicing  standards based upon the
     report provided by an independent  public  accountant,  after  conducting a
     review in  compliance  with the  Uniform  Single  Attestation  Program  for
     Mortgage  Bankers or similar  procedure,  as set forth in the  pooling  and
     servicing, or similar, agreements, that is included in these reports.





/s/ Andrew Twyford
--------------------------
Name:    Andrew Twyford
Title:   Chief Financial Officer, Interstar Securitisation Management Limited
Date:    October 13, 2004
# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

May 15, 2015

N o. 04

- 15

- 00182

- CR

EX PARTE Juan TORRES

,

From the 38th Judicial District Court, Uvalde County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2012

- 04

- 12006

- CR The Honorable Camile G. Dubose, Judge Presiding



### ORDER

The Appellant ’ s Motion for Extension of Time to File Brief is hereby GRANTED. The Appellant ’ s brief is due June 8, 2015.

_________________________________ Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice

IN WITNESS WH EREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said

court on this 15th day of May, 2015

.

___________________________________ Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
Federal Depository Library ProgramPersistent URL Home Page      

# Target for /GPO/LPS898 lost

The target resource for this PURL can no longer be traced. The following is a list of the targets this PURL was previously assigned to.

Powered by the Federal Depository Library Program.                A service of the U.S. Government Publishing Office.
UNITED STAT ES DIS TRICT COURT F OR THE D ISTRIC T OF CO LU M BIA KENN ETH JAMES NEILS ON, P la in t if f, v. Ci vilAc ti on N o. 08 -2 05 9 ( JD B) UNITED STAT ES, et al., De fend ant s. OR DE R Upon consider ation of [#2] defe ndants' motion to di smiss t he complaint, and the entire re c or d h e re in, and

fo r t he re a so ns state d in

the me mor and

um o pin ion

iss ue d o n th is d a te , it

is here by OR

DE RE D that de fe nd ants ' mot ion to d ism iss is G RA NT ED . / s / J OHN D. B ATES Un i t edS t at es Di s tri ct J u d ge Dated: De cembe r 17, 2009
#### § 26.38 Commencement of action.

Proceedings under subpart B of this part shall commence with the Government's filing of a complaint, as that term is defined in § 26.29, with the Docket Clerk. The respondent's response to the complaint shall be timely filed with the Docket Clerk and served upon the Government in accordance with the procedures set forth in the complaint. If the respondent fails to submit a response to the Docket Clerk, then the Government may file a motion for a default judgment in accordance with § 26.41.
Exhibit 10.1


 


 


AMENDMENT
TO ASSET PURCHASE AGREEMENT


This Amendment
No. 4 (“Amendment No. 4”) is made as of October 31, 2022 to the Asset Purchase Agreement (the “Agreement”),
dated as of December 2, 2021, by and between WonderLeaf, LLC, a Colorado limited liability company (“Seller”), and
Bespoke Extracts Colorado, LLC (“Buyer”). Capitalized terms not herein defined shall have the meaning ascribed thereto
in the Agreement.


WHEREAS,
pursuant to Section 10.2 of the Agreement, The Parties may amend any provision of this Agreement only by a written instrument signed
by the Parties; and


WHEREAS,
the parties wish to amend the Agreement; and


NOW, THEREFORE,
in consideration of the promises and other good and valuable consideration, the parties hereby agree as follows:


1. Amendment
to Section 1.1 Section 1.1, “Termination Date” is hereby deleted in its entirety and replaced with the following:


“Termination
Date” means November 30, 2022


IN WITNESS
WHEREOF, this Amendment No.4 has been duly executed and delivered by the Parties as of the date first above written.


SELLER:


WONDERLEAF,
LLC





By:
/s/ Roxanne Burns


Name:
Roxanne Burns


Title: Manager


 


BUYER:





BESPOKE
EXTRACTS COLORADO, LLC





By:
/s/ Michael Feinsod


Name:
Michael Feinsod


Title: Manager
NO. C 09-01479

ORDER

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California 

*E-Filed 04/05/2010* 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION 

PERDANA CAPITAL (LABUAN) INC., a 

Malaysian Corporation, 

 Plaintiff, 

 v. 

MOHAMMAD AKRAM CHOWDRY, an 

individual; HI-TECH VENTURE 

PARTNERS, LLC, a Delaware Limited 

Liability Company; HI-TECH 

ASSOCIATES, a California Limited 

Liability Company; and DOES 1-50, 

 Defendants. 

____________________________________/

No. C 09-01479 RS 

ORDER CONTINUING MOTION 

HEARING 

 The parties request a continuance of the hearing on plaintiff’s motion for appointment of a 

provisional receiver, in order to complete mediation. Good cause appearing, it is therefore ordered 

that the motion will be continued from May 6, 2010, to June 24, 2010, at 1:30 p.m. in Courtroom 

3, 17th Floor, United States Courthouse, San Francisco, California. 

 IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: 04/05/2010 

RICHARD SEEBORG 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Case 3:09-cv-01479-RS Document 49 Filed 04/05/10 Page 1 of 1
,

[

fAA,2010-02-2-q

Contacts, With whom outside the FAA has this proposal been discussed?

Organization Person Contacted Date Response

Transport Canada Anthony Wan 5/28/09 No objection

Bombardier Christina Yung, 4127/09 No objection

Aerospace Aaron Tsang

Regional Airline Dave Lotterer 4/28/09 No objection

Assoc (RAA)
§ 3285.605 Fuel supply system. ( a ) *Proper supply pressure.* The gas piping system in the home is designed for a pressure that is at least 7 inches of water column [4oz./in.2 or 0.25 psi] and not more than 14 inches of water column [8 oz./in.2 or 0.5 psi]. If gas from any supply source exceeds, or could exceed this pressure, a regulator must be installed if required by the LAHJ.
( b ) *Crossovers.* ( 1 ) Multi-section homes with fuel supply piping in both sections require crossover connections to join all sections of the home. The crossover design requirements are located in, and must be designed in accordance with, § 3280.705 of this chapter.
( 2 ) Tools must not be required to connect or remove the flexible connector quick-disconnect.
( c ) *Testing procedures.* The gas system must be inspected and tested for leaks after completion at the site. The installation instructions must provide testing requirements that are consistent with § 3280.705 of this chapter.
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SANDISK CORPORATION,

Plaintiff,

 v.

LSI CORPORATION,

Defendant. /

AND RELATED COUNTERCLAIMS.

 /

No. C 09-02737 WHA

SUPPLEMENTAL ORDER 

REGARDING RULE 706 EXPERT

The Court apologizes if its prior order regarding the appointment of a Rule 706 expert was

unclear. Under Rule 706, the undersigned seeks a testifying expert who is one of ordinary skill in

the art. While the two candidates proposed by the parties are excellent lawyers, they do not meet

this requirement — they are not persons having ordinary skill in the art relevant to the subject

matter and time frame of the patents-in-suit. Please jointly submit BY NOON ON WEDNESDAY,

FEBRUARY 3, 2010, two candidates that meet this criteria. Subject to motion practice, the Court

envisions that this Rule 706 expert will testify not only at trial, but potentially at claim

construction as well. As such, the two candidates should have qualifications of the type being

considered by counsel for their own use in this litigation.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 25, 2010. WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:09-cv-02737-WHA Document 75 Filed 01/25/10 Page 1 of 1
### **CHAPTER 45—STATE CONTROL OF NOXIOUS PLANTS ON FEDERAL LANDS**

Sec.
2701.
Control of noxious plants on Federal lands; State programs; terms of entry.
2702.
Reimbursement of States for expenses.
2703.
Authorization of appropriations.
§ 241.880 Items to be delivered on submitting claim. Within 30 days after the filing of the notice of intention to assign the loan to the Commissioner, or within such further period as may be agreed upon by the Commissioner in writing, the lender shall deliver to the Commissioner: ( a ) The fiscal data pertaining to the loan transactions;
( b ) Receipts covering all disbursements as required by the fiscal data form;
( c ) The original note and any security instrument or instruments which shall be assigned to the Commissioner without recourse or warranty, except that the lender must warrant that no act or omission of the lender has impaired the validity and priority of such security instrument or instruments that the security instrument or instruments are prior to all mechanics' and materialmen's liens filed of record subsequent to the recording of such security instrument or instruments regardless of whether such liens attached prior to such recording date, and prior to all liens and encumbrances which may have attached or defects which may have arisen subsequent to the recording of such security instrument or instruments, except such liens or other matters as may be approved by the Commissioner, that the amount stated in the instrument of assignment is actually due and owing under the security instrument or instruments, that there are no offsets or counterclaims thereto, and that the lender has a good right to assign such note and security instrument or instruments;
( d ) The assignment to the Commissioner of all rights and interests arising under the note and security instrument or instruments so in default and all claims of the lender against the borrower or others arising out of the loan transaction;
( e ) All policies of title or other insurance or surety bonds, or other guarantees and any and all claims thereunder; including evidence satisfactory to the Commissioner that the original title coverage has been extended to include the assignment of the note and security instrument or instruments to the Commissioner;
( f ) All records, ledger cards, documents, books, papers and accounts relating to the loan transaction;
( g ) Any additional information or data which the Commissioner may require;
( h ) The following cash items, held in connection with the loan insured under this subpart, shall either be retained by the lender or delivered to the Commissioner at the time the insurance claim is filed. ( 1 ) Any cash held by the lender or its agents or to which it is entitled including deposits made for the account of the borrower and which have not been applied in reduction of the principal the loan indebtedness.
( 2 ) All funds held by the lender for the account of the borrower received pursuant to any other agreement.
( i ) On the date the assignment of the note and security instrument or instruments are filed for record, the lender shall notify the Commissioner and the Office of Finance and Accounting by telegram of such recordation.
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

R.C. FISCHER AND COMPANY,

Plaintiff,

 v.

CHARLES CARTWRIGHT,

Defendant. /

No. C-09-02316 EDL

ORDER CONTINUING TRIAL DATE

AND SETTING PRETRIAL DATES

On August 10, 2010, the parties filed a stipulated request to continue pretrial and trial dates

in this matter. Good cause appearing, the Court grants the request as follows. The trial date is

continued to February 17, 2011 at 8:30 a.m. The length of the trial shall not be more than two days. 

The pretrial conference is scheduled for February 1, 2011 at 2:00 p.m. The last day for hearing

dispositive motions shall be November 23, 2010. 

If the parties believe that a settlement conference with a magistrate judge would be helpful at

some point in the future, they may ask the Court for a referral, keeping in mind that settlement

conferences are normally scheduled approximately three months in advance. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 11, 2010 

ELIZABETH D. LAPORTE

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:09-cv-02316-EDL Document 43 Filed 08/11/10 Page 1 of 1
### §472. Installments on entries or applications made after August 13, 1914, and prior to December 5, 1924

Any person whose lands, after August 13, 1914, and prior to December 5, 1924, became subject to the terms and conditions of the Act approved June seventeenth, nineteen hundred and two, entitled "An Act appropriating the receipts from the sale and disposal of public lands in certain States and Territories to the construction of irrigation works for the reclamation of arid lands," and Acts amendatory thereof or supplementary thereto, hereafter to be referred to as the reclamation law, and any person who, after August 13, 1914, and prior to December 5, 1924, made entry thereunder shall pay the balance of said charge after the initial payment in fifteen annual installments, the first five of which shall each be five per centum of the construction charge and the remainder shall each be seven per centum until the whole amount shall have been paid.

(Aug. 13, 1914, ch. 247, §1, 38 Stat. 686.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

Act approved June seventeenth, nineteen hundred and two, referred to in text, is act June 17, 1902, ch. 1093, 32 Stat. 388, popularly known as the Reclamation Act, which is classified generally to this chapter. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see Short Title note set out under section 371 of this title and Tables.

#### Codification

References to December 5, 1924, were inserted in conformity with provisions of act Dec. 5, 1924, ch. 4, §4, subsec. F, 43 Stat. 702, which changed the method of paying the annual installments after such date. Such provisions, which were classified to sections 473 and 474 of this title, were repealed by act May 25, 1926, ch. 383, §47, 44 Stat. 650. See sections 423 to 423g of this title.

Section comprises part of section 1 of act Aug. 13, 1914. Remainder of section 1 is set out as section 471 of this title.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Elizabeth A. Weaver

Maura D. Corrigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway, Justices

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. 

 _________________________________________ 

 Clerk

March 23, 2009 

d0316 

Order 

 

March 23, 2009 

136982(56) 

GWENDOLYN MINGO, CITIZENS OF BRUSH 

PARK, REVEREND MARY GAUSE, WARREN 

GAITHER, DOROTHY ROBINSON, MARCIA 

BURNETTE NICHOLS, PATTY BURNETTE 

JONES, and ANDREW J. BURNETTE, JR., 

Plaintiffs-Appellants, 

and 

BRUSH PARK CITIZENS DISTRICT COUNCIL, 

KEITH NOBLE, LEON THOMAS, RUTH 

DIGGS, QUENTIN MINGO, ERNESTINE 

NOBLE, DEACON LEON THOMAS, MARILYN 

REED, GRACE DAVIS, DR. BARBARA 

WOMACK, FAYE DAVIS, MABEL NORA, 

REVEREND VELMA ROSEMUND, DOUGLAS 

FULLER, FRANK FULLER, ANNIE JACKSON, 

NATHANIEL JACKSON, and REVEREND ORA 

MARIE CLAY, 

 Plaintiffs, 

v SC: 136982 

 COA: 277403 

Wayne CC: 00-013030-CZ 

CITY OF DETROIT, 

Defendant-Appellee. 

_________________________________________/ 

 On order of the Court, the motion for reconsideration of this Court’s November 

25, 2008 order is considered, and it is DENIED, because it does not appear that the order 

was entered erroneously.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1
<CURRENCY>                                     U.S.
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                   MAR-31-1999
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                1
<CASH>                                         477,896
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  14,764,528
<ALLOWANCES>                                   202,500
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               0
<PP&E>                                         447,704
<DEPRECIATION>                                 0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 17,276,832
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          1,477,585
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    631,757
<COMMON>                                       1,484,740
<OTHER-SE>                                     0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   17,276,832
<SALES>                                        0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               371,457
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  228,066
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               32,500
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             39,950
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                143,391
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            143,391
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   143,391
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  .003
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  .003
        

</TABLE>
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3122 Introduced in House (IH)]

109th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 3122

    To exempt the natural aging process in the determination of the 
   production period for distilled spirits under section 263A of the 
                     Internal Revenue Code of 1986.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             June 29, 2005

Mr. Lewis of Kentucky introduced the following bill; which was referred 
                   to the Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
    To exempt the natural aging process in the determination of the 
   production period for distilled spirits under section 263A of the 
                     Internal Revenue Code of 1986.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. EXEMPTION OF NATURAL AGING PROCESS IN DETERMINATION OF 
              PRODUCTION PERIOD FOR DISTILLED SPIRITS UNDER SECTION 
              263A.

    (a) In General.--Section 263A(f) of the Internal Revenue Code of 
1986 (relating to general exceptions) is amended by adding at the end 
the following new paragraph:
            ``(5) Exemption of natural aging process in determination 
        of production period for distilled spirits.--For purposes of 
        this subsection, the production period for distilled spirits 
        shall be determined without regard to any period allocated to 
        the natural aging process.''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section shall apply 
to production periods beginning after the date of the enactment of this 
Act.
                                 <all>
```
### §761. Repayment of excess of deposits to cover cost of surveys of mineral lands

The Secretary of the Treasury is authorized and directed to pay, out of the moneys heretofore or hereafter covered into the Treasury from deposits made by individuals to cover cost of work performed and to be performed in the offices of such agency as the Secretary of the Interior may designate in connection with the survey of mineral lands, any excess in the amount deposited over and above the actual cost of the work performed, including all expenses incident thereto for which the deposits were severally made or the whole of any unused deposit; and such sums, as the several cases may be, shall be deemed to be annually and permanently appropriated for that purpose. Such repayments shall be made to the person or persons who made the several deposits, or to his or their legal representatives, after the completion or abandonment of the work for which the deposits were made, and upon an account certified by the office of such agency of the district in which the mineral land surveyed, or sought to be surveyed, is situated and approved by the Secretary of the Interior or such officer as he may designate.

(Feb. 24, 1909, ch. 180, 35 Stat. 645; Mar. 3, 1925, ch. 462, 43 Stat. 1144; 1946 Reorg. Plan No. 3, §403, eff. July 16, 1946, 11 F.R. 7876, 60 Stat. 1100.)

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

#### Abolition of Office of Surveyor General and Transfer of Functions

Act Mar. 3, 1925, abolished office of surveyor general and transferred administration of all activities in charge of surveyors general to Field Surveying Service under jurisdiction of United States Supervisor of Surveys.

#### **Executive Documents**

#### Transfer of Functions

For transfer of functions of other officers, employees, and agencies of Department of the Interior, with certain exceptions, to Secretary of the Interior, with power to delegate, see Reorg. Plan No. 3 of 1950, §§1, 2, eff. May 24, 1950, 15 F.R. 3174, 64 Stat. 1262, set out under section 1451 of this title.

References to "the United States Field Surveying Service" and "the Field Surveying Service" changed to "such agency as the Secretary of the Interior may designate", and "the office of such agency", respectively; and "Commissioner of the General Land Office" changed to "Secretary of the Interior or such officer as he may designate", on authority of section 403 of Reorg. Plan No. 3 of 1946. See note set out under section 1 of this title.