alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 10.39


                         JOINT DISBURSEMENT INSTRUCTIONS
                         FOR CLOSING: SEPTEMBER 15, 2005


The undersigned do hereby:

     1. Acknowledge the acceptance of subscriptions from purchasers representing
gross proceeds of $1,150,000 from the sale of Convertible Debentures of STARTECH
ENVIRONMENTAL CORPORATION, a Colorado corporation (the "Company").

     2. Represent that all conditions precedent to closing of the Company's
offering of Convertible Debentures have been satisfied or deferred; and direct
that David Gonzalez, Esq. disburse the gross proceeds of the offering as the
joint direction of the undersigned as follows:

     To be disbursed via wire transfer in immediately available U.S. funds,
payable to the following parties:

         Gross Proceeds                                          $   1,150,000
         Less Fees:
         To Yorkville Advisors Management
              Commitment Fee (10% of Gross Proceeds)             $    (115,000)
              Structuring Fees (SEDA)                            $     (20,000)
              Structuring Fees (CD)                              $     (10,000)

Net Proceeds to the Company                                      $   1,005,000
                                                                 -------------



STARTECH ENVIRONMENTAL                          CORNELL CAPITAL PARTNERS, LP
CORPORATION                                     By:     Yorkville Advisors, LLC
                                                Its:    General Partner


By:        /s/ Peter J. Scanlon                 By:  /s/ Mark Angelo
           --------------------                      ---------------
Name:      Peter J. Scanlon                     Name: Mark Angelo
Its:       CFO                                  Its:  Portfolio Manager
### §5694. Staff of Foreign Agricultural Service

#### (a) Personnel of Service

To ensure that the agricultural export programs of the United States are carried out in an effective manner, the authorized number of personnel for the Service shall not be less than 900 staff years each fiscal year.

#### (b) Rank of Foreign Agricultural Service officers in foreign missions

Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Secretary of State shall, on the request of the Secretary of Agriculture, accord the diplomatic title of Minister-Counselor to the senior Service officer assigned to any United States mission abroad. The number of Service officers holding such diplomatic title at any time may not exceed twelve.

(Pub. L. 95–501, title V, §504, as added Pub. L. 101–624, title XV, §1531, Nov. 28, 1990, 104 Stat. 3686.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Prior Provisions

Provisions similar to those in subsec. (b) of this section appear in the following appropriation acts:

Pub. L. 101–506, title IV, Nov. 5, 1990, 104 Stat. 1343.

Pub. L. 100–202, §101(k) [title IV, §401], Dec. 22, 1987, 101 Stat. 1329–322, 1329–350.

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

#### Language Proficiency and Evaluation of Foreign Agricultural Service Officers

Pub. L. 101–624, title XV, §1556, Nov. 28, 1990, 104 Stat. 3698, as amended by Pub. L. 104–127, title II, §281(b), Apr. 4, 1996, 110 Stat. 980, provided that:

"(a) Assessment of Foreign Language Competence.—The Foreign Agricultural Service shall revise its evaluation reports for its Foreign Service officers so as to require in a separate entry an assessment of the officer's effectiveness in using, in his or her work, a foreign language or foreign languages tested at the General Professional Speaking Proficiency level or above, in cases where the supervisor is capable of making such an assessment.

"(b) Precedence in Promotion.—The Director of Personnel of the Foreign Agricultural Service shall instruct promotion panels to take account of language ability and, all criteria for promotion otherwise being equal, to give precedence in promotions to officers who have achieved at least the General Professional Speaking Proficiency level in 1 or more foreign languages over officers who lack that level of proficiency."
1415.201 Exchanges with industry before receipt of proposals. ( a ) Use of a presolicitation conference shall be approved at one level above the CO.
( b ) A CO may issue a solicitation for information or planning purposes without a written justification and without obtaining a higher level of approval.
### §1723. Commission on Interoperable Data Sharing

#### (a) Establishment

Not later than one year after October 26, 2001, the President shall establish a Commission on Interoperable Data Sharing (in this section referred to as the "Commission"). The purposes of the Commission shall be to—

(1) monitor the protections described in section 1721(c)(3) of this title;

(2) provide oversight of the interoperable electronic data system described in section 1722 of this title; and

(3) report to Congress annually on the Commission's findings and recommendations.

#### (b) Composition

The Commission shall consist of nine members, who shall be appointed by the President, as follows:

(1) One member, who shall serve as Chair of the Commission.

(2) Eight members, who shall be appointed from a list of nominees jointly provided by the Speaker of the House of Representatives, the Minority Leader of the House of Representatives, the Majority Leader of the Senate, and the Minority Leader of the Senate.

#### (c) Considerations

The Commission shall consider recommendations regarding the following issues:

(1) Adequate protection of privacy concerns inherent in the design, implementation, or operation of the interoperable electronic data system.

(2) Timely adoption of security innovations, consistent with generally accepted security standards, to protect the integrity and confidentiality of information to prevent the risks of accidental or unauthorized loss, access, destruction, use modification, or disclosure of information.

(3) The adequacy of mechanisms to permit the timely correction of errors in data maintained by the interoperable data system.

(4) Other protections against unauthorized use of data to guard against the misuse of the interoperable data system or the data maintained by the system, including recommendations for modifications to existing laws and regulations to sanction misuse of the system.

#### (d) Authorization of appropriations

There are authorized to be appropriated to the Commission such sums as may be necessary to carry out this section.

(Pub. L. 107–173, title II, §203, May 14, 2002, 116 Stat. 551.)
#### HARRELL, Respondent, v. FINCK et al., Appellants.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

October 23, 1903.)

Action by Claudius E. Harrell against George Finck and others.

D. P. Cobb, for appellants. H. B. Twombly, for respondent.

No opinion. Judgment affirmed, with costs, with leave to defendants to withdraw demurrer, and to answer, upon payment of costs in this court and in the court below.
Exhibit 32.1

** **

** **

**Certification of CEO andCFO**

**Pursuant to 18 U.S.C.Section 1350,**

**AsAdopted Pursuant to**

**Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

 

 

 

In connection with theAnnual Report on Form 10-K of Angeles Partners X (the "Partnership"), for thefiscal year ended December 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission on the date hereof (the "Report"), Steven D. Cordes, as theequivalent of the chief executive officer of the Partnership, and Stephen B.Waters, as the equivalent of the chief financial officer of the Partnership,each hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuantto Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of hisknowledge:

 

(1)   The Reportfully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934; and

 

(2)   Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Partnership.

 

 

This certification isfurnished with this Report pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of2002 and shall not be deemed filed by the Partnership for purposes of Section 18of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, asamended.
### **CHAPTER 75—INTERNATIONAL CARRIAGE OF PERISHABLE FOODSTUFFS**

Sec.
4401.
Congressional findings and declaration of purpose.
4402.
Definitions.
4403.
Duties of Secretary of Agriculture.
4404.
Duties of Secretary of State.
4405.
Fees and charges.
4406.
Authorization of appropriations.
### §201. Enforcement of Convention

The Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards of June 10, 1958, shall be enforced in United States courts in accordance with this chapter.

(Added Pub. L. 91–368, §1, July 31, 1970, 84 Stat. 692.)

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

#### Effective Date

Pub. L. 91–368, §4, July 31, 1970, 84 Stat. 693, provided that: "This Act [enacting this chapter] shall be effective upon the entry into force of the Convention on Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards with respect to the United States." The Convention entered into force for the United States on Dec. 29, 1970.
#### Felix Moreno et al., Respondents, v Shell Oil Co., Appellant, et al., Defendant.

— In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, defendant Shell Oil Co. appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, entered June 30, 1978, which, *inter alia,*(1) denied its motion to dismiss plaintiffs’ action for failure to timely serve a complaint, and (2) granted plaintiffs’ cross motion, *inter alia,*to compel it to answer the complaint. Order reversed, on the law, without costs or disbursements, motion granted, and cross motion denied. The existence of a meritorious *906cause of action is insufficient to overcome the plaintiffs’ failure to serve a complaint upon the appellant until 33 months after receipt of its demand for same, in the absence of any excuse for such delay. The absence of demonstrated prejudice to the appellant, and the absence of demonstrable intent to abandon the case on the part of plaintiffs are relevant considerations, but are not dispositive. Therefore, the denial of appellant’s motion to dismiss the action pursuant to CPLR 3012 (subd [b]) constituted an abuse of discretion. O’Connor, J. P., Rabin, Gulotta and Shapiro, JJ., concur.
§ 935.137 Operating requirements. Each person operating a motor vehicle on Wake Island shall— ( a ) Turn off the highbeam headlights of his vehicle when approaching an oncoming vehicle at night; and
( b ) Comply with any special traffic instructions given by an authorized person.
EXHIBIT A

Case: 1:12-cv-00595 Document #: 1-1 Filed: 01/26/12 Page 1 of 2 PageID #:12
IP Address ISP Date/Time (UTC)

108.90.70.103 AT&T Internet Services 2012-01-12 03:28:30

173.24.69.83 Mediacom Communications 2011-12-14 08:11:35

173.29.134.13 Mediacom Communications 2012-01-07 10:39:03

205.178.120.50 RCN Corporation 2011-12-29 10:18:28

207.229.174.95 RCN Corporation 2012-01-08 22:31:16

208.123.248.157 Genesco Telephone Company 2011-12-13 23:38:14

24.1.187.205 Comcast Cable Communications 2011-12-16 15:21:08

24.12.148.93 Comcast Cable Communications 2011-12-14 03:16:18

24.148.15.18 RCN Corporation 2011-12-14 16:37:27

24.15.171.187 Comcast Cable Communications 2011-12-21 08:31:16

50.129.92.8 Comcast Cable Communications 2011-12-31 05:40:09

67.167.254.149 Comcast Cable Communications 2012-01-12 23:30:33

67.167.49.158 Comcast Cable Communications 2011-12-15 13:08:25

67.173.23.30 Comcast Cable Communications 2011-12-20 00:09:27

67.175.230.174 Comcast Cable Communications 2011-12-22 03:38:42

67.175.3.98 Comcast Cable Communications 2011-12-14 01:03:48

67.184.185.53 Comcast Cable Communications 2011-12-23 21:45:33

67.184.227.4 Comcast Cable Communications 2012-01-24 05:10:59

68.54.219.226 Comcast Cable Communications 2011-12-20 01:27:46

69.245.251.21 Comcast Cable Communications 2011-12-14 01:17:58

71.143.225.151 AT&T Internet Services 2011-12-14 09:40:31

71.194.64.159 Comcast Cable Communications 2011-12-23 02:12:39

71.228.62.14 Comcast Cable Communications 2012-01-07 10:39:50

71.57.12.119 Comcast Cable Communications 2012-01-12 21:23:54

74.199.42.138 WideOpenWest 2012-01-06 11:53:18

75.22.29.158 AT&T Internet Services 2011-12-19 17:20:49

76.16.174.105 Comcast Cable Communications 2011-12-16 15:01:17

96.35.228.17 Charter Communications 2011-12-15 15:47:18

98.206.247.23 Comcast Cable Communications 2011-12-29 19:40:37

98.213.195.222 Comcast Cable Communications 2011-12-22 03:10:32

98.213.209.46 Comcast Cable Communications 2011-12-14 00:04:00

98.214.229.177 Comcast Cable Communications 2011-12-27 19:58:38

98.228.72.146 Comcast Cable Communications 2012-01-17 05:52:25

99.141.221.54 AT&T Internet Services 2012-01-10 07:03:23

99.177.131.220 AT&T Internet Services 2011-12-14 02:31:13

99.41.242.56 AT&T Internet Services 2011-12-15 15:49:09

99.63.51.84 AT&T Internet Services 2012-01-09 02:16:17

Case: 1:12-cv-00595 Document #: 1-1 Filed: 01/26/12 Page 2 of 2 PageID #:13
### §§204a, 204b. Omitted

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Sections related to natives of Virgin Islands residing in foreign countries on June 22, 1932, and were based on act June 28, 1932, ch. 283, §§1, 2, 47 Stat. 336. Former section 204b of this title provided that section 204a should not apply after June 28, 1934.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-7714

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

JERMAINE CHAPMAN,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Newport News. Henry Coke Morgan, Jr., Senior District Judge. (4:07-cr-00022-WDK-JEB-1)

Submitted: December 16, 2008 Decided: December 24, 2008

Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jermaine Chapman, Appellant Pro Se. Eric Matthew Hurt, Assistant United States Attorney, Newport News, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM:

Jermaine Chapman appeals the district court’s order

denying his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c) (2006) motion. We have reviewed

the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm

for the reasons stated by the district court. United States v.

Chapman , No. 4:07-cr-00022-WDK-JEB-1 (E.D. Va. July 23, 2008)

.
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
### Part II—Nationality Through Naturalization
### §8203. Assistance

Subject to section 8204 of this title, the assistance provided by the Secretary to eligible orchardists for losses described in section 8202 of this title shall consist of—

(1) reimbursement of 75 percent of the cost of replanting trees lost due to a natural disaster, as determined by the Secretary, in excess of 15 percent mortality (adjusted for normal mortality); or

(2) at the option of the Secretary, sufficient seedlings to reestablish a stand.

(Pub. L. 107–171, title X, §10203, May 13, 2002, 116 Stat. 491.)
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 529 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

115th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 529

To prohibit the use of eminent domain in carrying out certain projects.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             March 6, 2017

Mr. Boozman (for himself and Mr. Cotton) introduced the following bill; 
   which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and 
                           Natural Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To prohibit the use of eminent domain in carrying out certain projects.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Assuring Private Property Rights 
Over Vast Access to Land Act'' or the ``APPROVAL Act''.

SEC. 2. PROHIBITION ON EMINENT DOMAIN FOR CERTAIN PROJECTS.

    Section 1222 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (42 U.S.C. 16421) is 
amended--
            (1) by redesignating subsections (d) through (g) as 
        subsections (f) through (i), respectively; and
            (2) by inserting after subsection (c) the following:
    ``(d) Prohibition on Eminent Domain.--Notwithstanding any other 
provision of law (including regulations), the Secretary, SWPA, and WAPA 
may not carry out any Project under this section through the use of 
eminent domain, unless the use of eminent domain is explicitly 
authorized by--
            ``(1) the Governor and the head of each applicable public 
        utility commission or public service commission of the affected 
        State; and
            ``(2) the head of the governing body of each Indian tribe 
        the land of which would be affected.
    ``(e) Siting Requirement.--To the maximum extent practicable, a 
Project carried out under this section shall be sited on--
            ``(1) an existing Federal right-of-way; or
            ``(2) Federal land managed by--
                    ``(A) the Bureau of Land Management;
                    ``(B) the Forest Service;
                    ``(C) the Bureau of Reclamation; or
                    ``(D) the Corps of Engineers.''.
                                 <all>
```
#### § 536.48 Federal employee requirement.

To be payable, a claim under any subpart except subpart K of this part, §§ 536.153 through 536.157 (Claims involving tortfeasors other than nonappropriated fund employees), must be based on the acts or omissions of a member of the armed forces, a member of a foreign military force within the United States with which the United States has a reciprocal claims agreement, or a federal civilian employee. This does not include a contractor of the United States. Apply federal case law for interpretation. See parallel discussion at DA Pam 27-162, paragraph 2-46.
#### 1371.118 Changes—ship repair.

Insert clause 1352.271-87, *Changes—Ship Repair,* in all solicitations and contracts for ship repair.
#### 1352.239-71 Electronic and information technology.

As prescribed in 48 CFR 1339.270(a), insert the following provision:

# Electronic and Information Technology (APR 2010)

(a) To be considered eligible for award, offerors must propose electronic and information technology (EIT) that meet the applicable Access Board accessibility standards at 36 CFR 1194 designated below:

______ 1194.21 Software applications and operating systems

______ 1194.22 Web-based intranet and internet information and applications

______ 1194.23 Telecommunications products

______ 1194.24 Video and multimedia products

______ 1194.25 Self-contained, closed products

______ 1194.26 Desktop and portable computers

______ 1194.31 Functional performance criteria

______ 1194.41 Information, documentation and support

(b) The standards do not require the installation of specific accessibility-related software or the attachment of an assistive technology device, but merely require that the EIT be compatible with such software and devices so that it can be made accessible if so required by the agency in the future.

(c) Alternatively, offerors may propose products and services that provide equivalent facilitation. Such offers will be considered to have met the provisions of the Access Board standards for the feature or components providing equivalent facilitation. If none of the offers that meet all applicable provisions of the standards could be accepted without imposing an undue burden on the agency or component, or if none of the offerors propose products or services that fully meet all of the applicable Access Board's provisions, those offerors whose products or services meet some of the applicable provisions will be considered eligible for award. Awards will not be made to an offeror meeting all or some of the applicable Access Board provisions if award would impose an undue burden upon the agency.

(d) Offerors must submit representation information concerning their products by completing the VPAT template at *http://www.Section508.gov.*

(End of clause)

[75 FR 10570, Mar. 8, 2010; 75 FR 14496, Mar. 26, 2010]
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

ALWANNA KNIGHT, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) No. 12 C 11

)

AURORA LOAN SERVICES, LLC, )

)

Defendant. )

MEMORANDUM ORDER

Alwanna Knight (“Knight”) has filed a document that she captions: MOTON [sic] FOR

RECONSIDERATION VACATE ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT DUE TO ERROR, AND

OR MISUNDERSTANDING OF CASE BEFORE THE COURT, RESET HEARING DATE,

APPOINT COUNSEL. Unfortunately Knight has again failed to understand the basis for this

Court’s actions in her case. This Court had no knowledge whatever of the litigation involving

her godson Joe Louis Lawrence, who appeared in her absence at the scheduled May 16 1

hearing, and a copy of whose filing in the Court of Appeals she has attached as Group Ex. A to

her current filing. Instead this Court’s references to Knight’s lawsuit, both before and during the

May 16 hearing, have always been reflective of her submissions in this action.

To avoid having to reinvent the wheel, this Court attaches copies of its January 5 and

February 1 memorandum orders and its March 5 memorandum, all entered in this action. It is

Knight’s own initial filing that failed the requirement of the assertion of a non-frivolous claim (in

the legal sense) that is a precondition to the granting of in forma pauperis treatment under

Seventh Circuit law. This Court did not order Knight to pay the $350 filing fee as she asserts –

Indeed, this Court was unaware of the godson relationship until it received Knight’s current 1

filing.

Case: 1:12-cv-00011 Document #: 30 Filed: 05/30/12 Page 1 of 2 PageID #:178
it is rather that this Court applied this Circuit’s principle that in the absence of a grant of in forma

pauperis status a plaintiff can proceed with litigation only upon such a payment.

Meanwhile, on March 22 the Court of Appeals dismissed Knight’s attempted appeal for

nonpayment of the required docketing fee, eliminating any jurisdictional block to this Court’s

jurisdiction. This memorandum order therefore turns to Knight’s most recent filing.

As before, Knight’s current submission is littered with assertions and arguments that are

wholly beside the mark. Because she has not shown any rational ground for reconsideration,

Knight’s motion for reinstatement of her Complaint and for reconsideration of her motion for

appointment of counsel are denied. And because she has made no effort toward payment of

the filing fee in this District Court, this action is dismissed (as the January 5 memorandum order

had warned.)

___________________________________

Milton I. Shadur

Senior United States District Judge

Date: May 30, 2012

2

Case: 1:12-cv-00011 Document #: 30 Filed: 05/30/12 Page 2 of 2 PageID #:179