alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Waiver Letter



 Exhibit 10.71 
 JP MORGAN CHASE BANK, NA 
 November 8, 2010 

Via Electronic and Regular Mail 
 Plains
Capital Corporation 
 2323 Victory Avenue, Suite 1400 
 Dallas, Texas 75219 
 Attn: Allen Custard 

 

	 	Re:	Amended and Restated Loan Agreement (as amended from time to time, the (“2001 Loan Agreement”) between JP Morgan Chase Bank NA
(“Lender”) as successor to Bank One, NA and Plains Capital Corporation (“Borrower”), dated as of October 1, 2001: Loan Agreement (as amended from time to time, the “2004 Loan
Agreement”) between Lender and Borrower, dated as of September 22, 2004; Loan Agreement (as amended from time to time, the “Term Loan Agreement”), between Lender and Borrower, dated as of October 27,
2004; Credit Agreement (as amended from time to time, the “Revolving Credit Agreement”), between Lender and Borrower, dated as of October 13, 2006 

 Mr. Custard: 
 Prior to the date hereof, Borrower notified Lender that its
Non-Performing Asset Ratio would be in excess of 3.5 to 1 as of September 30, 2010. As a result of the foregoing, Borrower is in default pursuant to Section 5.14 of the 2001 Loan Agreement (the “Known
Default”). For this reason, Borrower has asked lender to waive the Known Default. 
 Based upon the foregoing and
on a one time basis only, Lender hereby notifies you of its decision to waive the Known Default, so long as Borrower strictly complies with all obligations under the Loan Documents and is in compliance with Section 5.14 of
the 2001 Loan Agreement on or before December 31, 2010. 
 ADDITIONALLY, THE DELIVERY OF THIS LETTER DOES NOT CONSTITUTE
NOR SHALL IT BE DEEMED TO BE (I) AN ELECTION OF REMEDIES BY LENDER, (II) A WAIVER OF, OR CONSENT BY LENDER TO ANY DEFAULT OR EVENT OF DEFAULT WHICH EXISTS NOW OR MAY HEREAFTER OCCUR UNDER THE LOAN DOCUMENTS OTHER THAN THE KNOWN DEFAULT, (III) A
WAIVER BY LENDER OF ANY BORROWER’S OR ANY OTHER OBLIGOR’S OBLIGATIONS UNDER THE LOAN DOCUMENTS, OR (IV) A WAIVER BY LENDER OF ANY RIGHTS, REMEDIES, OFFSETS, CLAIMS, OR OTHER CAUSES OF ACTIONS THAT LENDER MAY HAVE AGAINST THE ANY BORROWER
OR OTHER OBLIGOR UNDER THE LOAN DOCUMENTS, ALL OF WHICH LENDER SPECIFICALLY RESERVES. 
  

			
	 JP MORGAN CHASE BANK, NA
 a national banking association

		
	By:	 	/s/ TIMOTHY F. JOHNSON
		 	 Timothy F. Johnson
 Senior
Vice President
### §12106. Surrender of title and number

(a) In General.—A documented vessel may not be titled by a State or required to display numbers under chapter 123 of this title, and any certificate of title issued by a State for a documented vessel shall be surrendered as provided by regulations prescribed by the Secretary.

(b) Vessels Covered by Preferred Mortgage.—The Secretary may approve the surrender under subsection (a) of a certificate of title for a vessel covered by a preferred mortgage under section 31322(d) of this title only if the mortgagee consents.

(Pub. L. 109–304, §5, Oct. 6, 2006, 120 Stat. 1494.)

| Revised Section | Source (U.S. Code) | Source (Statutes at Large) |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 12106 | 46:12124. | |

Section

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Prior Provisions

A prior section 12106, Pub. L. 98–89, Aug. 26, 1983, 97 Stat. 586; Pub. L. 98–454, title III, §301(b), Oct. 5, 1984, 98 Stat. 1734; Pub. L. 100–239, §6(a)(2), (3), Jan. 11, 1988, 101 Stat. 1781; Pub. L. 101–225, title III, §301(a)(6), Dec. 12, 1989, 103 Stat. 1921; Pub. L. 101–380, title IV, §4205, Aug. 18, 1990, 104 Stat. 533; Pub. L. 104–324, title VII, §743, title XI, §1113(d), Oct. 19, 1996, 110 Stat. 3942, 3971; Pub. L. 108–293, title VI, §608(a), Aug. 9, 2004, 118 Stat. 1054, originally derived from section 65i of former Title 46, Shipping, related to coastwise endorsements, prior to the general amendment of this chapter by Pub. L. 109–304. See sections 12102, 12112, 12116, 12117, and 12119 of this title.
-----------------,------------------------------

SERVED JULY 31,2012 

. - ,_-__ :i' ~·-_-_ ·:··'.i .. ,_,., .. Jih'. ,.ll·~ wj~~.. ~.~-N·l· or· ~ .. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION,.:/:: :~f:~l)ORl'AJidN 

OFFICE-OF HEARINGS :·.v:f:T Clf-Y:f:IA_j_ n'\i(~ '. ' ..... • h L. ,!'\ lLI ,,.) 

WASHINGTON, DC 

In the Matter of 

DIAMOND AIR CHARTER, INC. 

Respondent 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

J'l 

! L .1 I 

Docket No. FAA-2010-0620 

Case No. CPlO EA 0004 

ORDER DISMISSING PROCEEDING 

On July 30,2012, the Complajnant,.the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), 

filed an Agency's Withdrawal of Complaint. There is a Motion Conference and a 

Hearing currently set in this matter. 

It Is Hereby Ordered: 

1) The January 24,2013 Telephone Motion Conference, set for 1:30pm-2:30pm 

EST, is cancelled. 

2) The Hearing set on March 27, 2013 in the Islip, NY area is cancelled. 

3) Pursuant to 14 C.F.R. §13.215, the Complainant, the Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), has Withdrawn its Complaint dated June 17, 2010, and 

this proceeding is dismissed with prejudice. 

Attachment: Service List 
FDMS No. FAA.;2010-0620 

(Civil Penalty Proceeding) 

SERVICE LIST- BY U.S. MAIL 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avt?nue, S.W. 

Washington, DC 205'91 

ORIGINAL & ONE COPY 

Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Wilbur Wright Building - Suite 2W1 0001 

ONE COPY 

Gregory S. Winton, Respondent's Counsel 

Aviation Law Experts 

One Research Court, Suite 450 

Rockville, MD 20850 

TEL: 301-294-8550 

FAX: 301-294-2525 

Zachary M. Berman, Complainant's Counsel 

Attorney, Office of the Regional Counsel, EAL-7 

Federal Aviation Administration 

1 Aviation Plaza 

Jamaica, NY 11434 

TEL: 718-553-3258 

FAX: 718-995-5699 

The Honorable J. E. Sullivan, Administrative Law Judge 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

Office of Hearings, M-20 (E1l-310) 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. 

Washington, DC 20590 

TEL: 202-366-2132 

FAX: 202-366-7536 

., 

1 Service was by U.S. Mail. For service in person or by expedited courier, use the following address: Federal 

Aviation Administration, 600 Independence Avenue, S.W., Wilbur Wright Building- Suite 2Wl000, Washington, 

DC 20591; Attention: ~Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430.
August 6, 2015

Mr. Asim Shahzad Malik

4523 S. Joplin Ave.

Tulsa, OK 74135

Dear Mr. Shahzad:

This letter is to inform you that we are unable to process your petition for an exemption from 

§ xx.xx of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR). It explains why we can not

process your request and what you should do in the next 30 days.

Why We Can Not Process Your Request

We received your May 22, filed in Docket No. FAA-2015-1888, but we are unable to process 

your request any further. Your petition does not comply with the requirements of § 11.81 

(copy enclosed). For us to consider the request any further, you must send us all of the 

following:

 The specific section or sections of 14 CFR from which you seek relief, the extent of the 

relief you seek, and the reason you seek relief.

 The reasons why granting the request would be in the public interest; that is, how it would 

benefit the public as a whole.

 The reasons why the exemption would not adversely affect safety or how the exemption 

would provide a level of safety at least equal to that provided by the rule from which you 

seek an exemption.

 Any additional information, views, or arguments available to support your request.
2

For more detailed information relating to submitting petitions for exemption, please visit 

http://aes.faa.gov/petition/index.html. This website helps the petitioner to meet Federal 

Aviation Administration (FAA) requirements outlines in § 11.81 and helps answer any 

questions you may have.

What You Should Do

If you want us to process your request any further, you must submit the requested information 

within 30 days. Please note that § 11.63(d) requires you to send your petition for exemption at

least 120 days before the proposed effective date of the exemption. 

If We Do Not Hear From You

If we do not receive the information, we will close the docket without notifying you further. If

you have any questions you may call the 333 Information Line (202) 267-2999.

Sincerely,

Brittany Newton

Program Analyst, Airmen and

 Airspace Rules Division

Enclosure
3
§ 881.501 The contract. ( a ) *Contract.* The Housing Assistance Payments Contract sets forth rights and duties of the owner and the contract administrator with respect to the project and the housing assistance payments. The owner and contract administrator execute the Contract in the form prescribed by HUD upon satisfactory completion of the project.
( b ) [Reserved]
( c ) *Housing assistance payments to owners under the contract.* The housing assistance payments made under the Contract are: ( 1 ) Payments to the owner to assist eligible families leasing assisted units, and
( 2 ) Payments to the owner for vacant assisted units (“vacancy payments”) if the conditions specified in § 881.611 are satisfied. The housing assistance payments are made monthly by the contract administrator upon proper requisition by the owner, except payments for vacancies of more than 60 days, which are made semi-annually by the contract administrator upon requisition by the owner.
( d ) *Amount of housing assistance payments to owner.* ( 1 ) The amount of the housing assistance payment made to the owner of a unit being leased by an eligible family is the difference between the contract rent for the unit and the tenant rent payable by the family.
( 2 ) A housing assistance payment will be made to the owner for a vacant assisted unit in an amount equal to 80 percent of the contract rent for the first 60 days of vacancy, subject to the conditions in § 881.611. If the owner collects any tenant rent or other amount for this period which, when added to this vacancy payment, exceeds the contract rent, the excess must be repaid as HUD directs.
( 3 ) For a vacancy that exceeds 60 days, a housing assistance payment for the vacant unit will be made, subject to the conditions in § 881.611, in an amount equal to the principal and interest payments required to amortize that portion of the debt attributable to the vacant unit for up to 12 additional months.
( e ) *Payment of utility reimbursement.* Where applicable, the Utility Reimbursement will be paid to the Family as an additional Housing Assistance Payment. The Contract will provide that the Owner will make this payment on behalf of the contract administrator. Funds for this purpose will be paid to the Owner in trust solely for the purpose of making the additional payment. If the Family and the utility company consent, the Owner may pay the Utility Reimbursement jointly to the Family and the utility company or directly to the utility company.
[45 FR 7085, Jan. 31, 1980, as amended at 49 FR 19944, May 10, 1984; 61 FR 13591, Mar. 27, 1996]
| 1. | The                Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d)                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 conditions and results of operations of                Registrant. |
|----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|                                 |                                          |                            |
|--------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------|---------------------------------|
|                                      |                                     | /s/              Howard B. Katz |
|                                 | Name:              Howard B. Katz             |
|                                 | Title:                Chief Executive Officer |
|                                 |                                          |
| Dated:                March 27, 2008 |                                          |

----
**Exhibit 8.1****Subsidiaries of The9 Limited**   Name    GameNow.net (Hong Kong) Ltd.     China The9 Interactive Limited     City Gamenet Ltd     9Dream Ltd     City Channel Limited     City Smart Ltd     Well City Limited     9City Asia Ltd.     City Rise Investments Ltd.     Global Star International Development Ltd.     Asian Sense Holdings Limited     Asian Development Limited     ASIAN SUCCESS DEVELOPMENT LIMITED     China Crown Technology Limited  
 
 

 
     Name    Silver Express Investments Limited     Champ Base Development Limited     China Crown Express limited     The9 Development Center Limited     Asian Way Development Limited     New Star International Development Limited     The9 Computer Technology Consulting (Shanghai) Co., Ltd     9Webzen Limited (Shanghai)     Object Software (Beijing) Co., Ltd     China The9 Interactive (Shanghai) Limited     China The9 Interactive (Beijing) Limited     Jiu Jing Era Information Technology (Beijing) Limited     Ren He Information Technology (Shanghai) Limited     Jiu Tuo (Shanghai) Information Technology Limited     Jiu Chuang Interactive Information Technology (Beijing)Limited Shanghai Branch
§ 960.705 Animals that assist, support, or provide service to persons with disabilities. ( a ) This subpart G does not apply to animals that assist, support or provide service to persons with disabilities. PHAs may not apply or enforce any policies established under this subpart against animals that are necessary as a reasonable accommodation to assist, support or provide service to persons with disabilities. This exclusion applies to such animals that reside in public housing, as that term is used in § 960.703, and such animals that visit these developments.
( b ) Nothing in this subpart G: ( 1 ) Limits or impairs the rights of persons with disabilities;
( 2 ) Authorizes PHAs to limit or impair the rights of persons with disabilities; or
( 3 ) Affects any authority that PHAs may have to regulate service animals that assist, support or provide service to persons with disabilities, under Federal, State, or local law.
#### In the Matter of Ronald Carritue et al., Appellants, v Abraham D. Beame, as Mayor of the City of New York, et al., Respondents, and United States Department of Labor, Intervenor.

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County, entered on January 20, 1977, unanimously affirmed for the reasons stated by Greenfield, J., at Special Term, without costs and without disbursements. Concur—Birns, J. P., Fein, Markewich and Sullivan, JJ. [90 Misc 2d 504.]
#### SCOTT *vs.*THE STATE.

[INDICTMENT FOB ASSAULT WITH INTENT TO BAVISH.]

1. *Indictment for assault with intent to ravish; what prosecutrix can not*slate.— In a prosecution for an assault with intent to ravish, the prosecutrix should not be allowed to say, in giving testimony, that the defendant *attempted to ravish her,*but did not accomplish his purpose. It is a conclusion of law.

2. *Same; what evidence not admissible on trial of.*— Nqr is it competent for a witness for the State, on his examination in chief, to say that the prosecutrix, when making complaint to him, said certain scratches on her neck were made by the accused in attempting to ravish her, unless in corroboration of her testimony, if she be assailed in the matter of her complaint.

Appeal from the Circuit Court of Wilcox.

Tried before Hon. P. O. Harper.

The appellant, Ctesar Scott, was indicted for an assault with intent to ravish Sukey Sams. On the trial, she testified that “in September, 1871, she was attacked by the defendant, who attempted to ravish her, but he failed and did not accomplish his purpose.” The defendant objected to this “answer,” but his objection was overruled, and he excepted.

The State introduced a witness who testified, that “ Sukey, Sams complained to him, and that she had scratches on her neck.”

The solicitor asked this witness “if, at the time of making this complaint, Sukey said how the scratches came on her neck.” The defendant objected to the question, but the court overruled the objection, and defendant excepted. The witness answered, that Sukey told him “the defendant scratched her when he was trying to rape her.” The defendant moved to exclude this answer from the jury, but the court overruled the motion, and he excepted.

*421The defendant was convicted, and sentenced to two years imprisonment in the penitentiary, and hence this appeal.

McCaskill, for appellant.

Attorney-General, *contra.*

B. E. SAEFOLD, J.

Whether or no “ the prosecutrix was attacked by the defendant, who attempted to ravish her, but failed and did not'accomplish his purpose,” was a compound question of law and fact determinable by both the court and the jury. The answer was as if, in a trial for murder, a witness should be allowed to say that the defendant *murdered*the deceased. The facts of the conduct of the accused only should have been stated.

Proof of complaint made by the prosecutrix, yes or no, is all that is admissible in the direct examination. The particulars may be inquired into by the defense, or in corroboration of the testimony by the prosecutrix, if she is assailed in the matter of her complaint. Of course it is competent to prove whatever circumstances and signs of injury she showed. — 1 Euss. on Crimes, p. 688, and note c.

The judgment is reversed, and the cause remanded.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Oliver Kimmons, Appellant.

[834 NYS2d 421]—

Appeal from a judgment of the Niagara County Court (Peter L. Broderick, Sr., J.), rendered July 13, 2004. The judgment convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of attempted criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree.

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously modified as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice and on the law by vacating the sentence and as modified the judgment is affirmed, and the matter is remitted to Niagara County Court for resentencing in accordance with the following memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon his plea of guilty of attempted criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree (Penal Law §§ 110.00, 220.39 [1]). Contrary to the contention of defendant, County Court did not abuse its discretion in denying his oral motion to withdraw his plea of guilty without conducting a hearing. “Only in the rare instance will a defendant be entitled to an evidentiary hearing” *(People v Tinsley,*35 NY2d 926, 927 [1974]). Here, defendant’s belated and conclusory allegations of innocence in support of the motion are belied by the plea colloquy *(see People v Jackson,*34 AD3d 1304 [2006], *lv denied*8 NY3d 846 [2007]), and there is no support in the record for defendant’s contention that the informant recanted.

Although defendant failed to preserve for our review his fur*1181ther contention that the court failed to comply with CPL 400.21 in sentencing him as a second felony offender *(see People v Simpson,*35 AD3d 1182, 1183 [2006]; *People v Beu,*24 AD3d 1257 [2005], *lv denied*6 NY3d 809 [2006]; *see also People v Pellegrino,*60 NY2d 636 [1983]), we exercise our power to review that contention as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice *(see*CPL 470.15 [6] [a]). The People concede that they did not file a second felony statement pursuant to CPL 400.21, and we conclude that there was no substantial compliance with the statute *(cf. People v Bouyea,*64 NY2d 1140, 1142 [1985]). We therefore modify the judgment by vacating the sentence, and we remit the matter to County Court for resentencing in compliance with CPL 400.21. Present—Scudder, P.J., Smith, Fahey, Peradotto and Pine, JJ.
**Exhibit 32.1**

**SENECA GAMING CORPORATION**

**CERTIFICATION OF CORPORATE OFFICERS**

(Furnished Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as Adopted Pursuant toSection 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002)

In connection with the Annual Report of Seneca GamingCorporation (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the fiscal year endedSeptember 30, 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission,we, John Pasqualoni, President and Chief Executive Officer, and Patrick M. Fox,Chief Financial Officer, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, asadopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

1.             TheAnnual Report fully complies with the requirements ofSection 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Actof 1934, as amended; and

2.             Theinformation contained in the Annual Report fairly presents, in all materialrespects, the financial condition and results of operation of the Company asof, and for, the periods presented in the Form 10-K.

A signed original of thiswritten statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Companyand will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities andExchange Commission or its Staff upon request.
| December 15, 2006                                                                   |   |         |
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|--------------|
|                                                                                |   |         |
| /s/ John Pasqualoni                                                                 |   |    |
| John Pasqualoni                                                                     |   |         |
| President and Chief Executive Officer (Principal  Executive and Accounting Officer) |   |         |
|                                                                                |   |         |
|                                                                                |   |         |
| /s/ Patrick M. Fox                                                                  |   |    |
| Patrick M. Fox                                                                      |   |         |
| Chief Financial Officer (Principal Financial and  Accounting Officer)               |   |         |
|                                                                                     |        |              |  |

 

The forgoing certification is being furnished as anexhibit to the Form 10-K pursuant to Item 601(b)(32) of Regulation S-K andSection 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and(b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code) and,accordingly, is not being filed as part of the Form 10-K for purposes ofSection 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and is notincorporated by reference into any filing of the Company, whether made beforeor after the date hereof, regardless of any general incorporation language insuch filing.

----