alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Featured Grant OpportunitySchool Emergency Response to Violence (Project SERV) (Funding Opportunity) 

Featured Grant OpportunityShare with Youth: NOAA Student Opportunities Database

Featured Grant OpportunityShort Courses in Social Determinants of Health for Research Education in Nursing Research (Funding...

Featured Grant OpportunityComprehensive Partnerships to Advance Cancer Health Equity (CPACHE) Program (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityRisk and Protective Factors of Family Health and Family Level Interventions (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityPersonnel Development to Improve Services and Results for Children with Disabilities--Doctoral...

Featured Grant OpportunityStanding Announcement for Tribal Title IV-E Plan Development Grants (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityProviding Research Education Experiences to Enhance Inclusivity for a Diverse Substance Use and...

Featured Grant OpportunityFY 2024 Research on School-Based Hate Crimes (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityChallenge America (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityResearch and Evaluation on Firearm Violence and Mass Shootings (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityNational Juvenile Court Data Archive (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityGraduate Research Fellowship (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityCommunity Programs for Outreach and Intervention with Youth and Young Adults at Clinical High Risk...

Featured Grant OpportunityPrint and Disseminate Child Victims and Witnesses Support Materials (Funding Opportunity)

## Breadcrumb

            -           Parent Guide: The Ox Cart Man      

# Parent Guide: The Ox Cart Man

This guide will help parents teach their child money management skills while reading “Ox-Cart Man” by Donald Hall. 

https://www.consumerfinance.gov/f/documents/cfpb_book-club_ox-cart-man.pdf
#### § 1752.27 Confidentiality of borrower information.

Borrowers are encouraged to identify and label any confidential and proprietary information contained in their applications. The Agency will protect confidential and proprietary information from public disclosure to the fullest extent authorized by applicable law, including the Freedom of Information Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. 552), the Trade Secrets Act, as amended (18 U.S.C. 1905), the Economic Espionage Act of 1996 (18 U.S.C. 1831 *et seq.*), and Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act (CALEA) (47 U.S.C. 1001 *et seq.*).
Exhibit 32.2

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

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

The undersigned, the Chief Financial Officer of Gladstone Investment Corporation (the Company), hereby certifies on the date hereof, pursuant to
18 U.S.C. §1350(a), as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of The Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended December 31, 2015 (Form 10-Q), filed concurrently herewith by
the Company, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and that the information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

Dated: February 3, 2016



|                                     
|-------------------------------------
|/s/ Julia Ryan                       
|Julia Ryan                           
|Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer
§ 15a.215 Membership practices of certain organizations. ( a ) *Social fraternities and sororities.* This part does not apply to the membership practices of social fraternities and sororities that are exempt from taxation under section 501(a) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954, 26 U.S.C. 501(a), the active membership of which consists primarily of students in attendance at institutions of higher education.
( b ) *YMCA, YWCA, Girl Scouts, Boy Scouts, and Camp Fire Girls.* This part does not apply to the membership practices of the Young Men's Christian Association (YMCA), the Young Women's Christian Association (YWCA), the Girl Scouts, the Boy Scouts, and Camp Fire Girls.
( c ) *Voluntary youth service organizations.* This part does not apply to the membership practices of a voluntary youth service organization that is exempt from taxation under section 501(a) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954, 26 U.S.C. 501(a), and the membership of which has been traditionally limited to members of one sex and principally to persons of less than nineteen years of age.
**Exhibit32.2**

 

**AFFINITYGROUP HOLDING, INC.**

 

**STATEMENTPURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350**

 

 

I,Thomas F. Wolfe, Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of AffinityGroup Holding, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the “Company”), hereby certify asfollows:

 

1.                                       This statement is provided pursuant to 18U.S.C. Section 1350 in connection with the Company’s Quarterly Report on Form10-Q for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2007 (the “Periodic Report”);

 

2.                                       The Periodic Report fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) and 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,as amended; and

 

3.                                       The information contained in the PeriodicReport fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition andresults of operations of the Company as of dates and for the periods indicatedtherein.

 

 
| Date:  November 14, 2007 |                       |
|--------------------------|----------------------------|
|                     |                       |
|                     | /s/  Thomas F. Wolfe       |   |
|                     | Thomas  F. Wolfe           |
|                     | Senior  Vice President and |
|                     | Chief  Financial Officer   |

 

 

Asigned original of this written statement required by Section 906, or suchother document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting thesignature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of thewritten statement as required by Section 906, has been provided to AffinityGroup Holding, Inc. and will be retained by Affinity Group Holding, Inc. andfurnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

 

1

----
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Fred Poole, Appellant.

— Judgment unanimously affirmed (see *People v Perel,*34 NY2d 462, 467-468). (Appeal from judgment of Niagara County Court — robbery, second degree, and another charge.) Present — Cardamone, J. P., Simons, Hancock, Jr., Doerr and Moule, JJ.
#### Bank of the Commonwealth vs. Ray &c.

@ase 8Í.

Error to the Breckenridge Circuit; M’Lean, Judge.

*Renewal of notes in Bank.*

April 24.

Judge Nicholas

delivered the opinion of the cou’t*

The Bank sued Ray, Hascall, and Basham, on a note executed by them to the Bank, as sureties, with Absalom Carr as principal.

It appeared in evidence, that after the falling due of this note, a note signed by Hascall and one John *273Carr, and purporting to be signed by Ray, was presented at Bank, to take up the note sued on, that it was received and the note sued on marked in the books of the bank as renewed by the other. In suit brought by the bank on the second note, it was abated as to John Carr, the defendant Ray discharged on the plea of *non est factum,*and judgment by default taken against Ha«eali, on which execution was issued, and part of the money made. On this state of case, the plaintiffs moved the court to instruct the jury:

a renewal note there is executed to ”n<dudes'^ne new obligor, and drops two of theorie;in obligors, notice that gerj\Sthe°r" bank brings *one'l'0f*the obligors, 1-3„es„jeou' ^ake^part of the ..onev, decided that couhTn'ot thereafter recover inn suit

That if they believed from the evidence, that the note discounted in lieu of the note sued on, was a forgery as to any of the sureties, and that any of them were discharged under the plea of *non est factum,*it was no payment, and they must find for the plaintiffs.

This instruction the court refused to give, but at the instance of the defendants, gavethe following:

If the jury believe, from the evidence, that after the note sued on was given, the bank received said second note, as a renewal of the first, in payment thereof, and after they were notified the second note was-a forgery as to Ray, obtained judgment against Hascall, issued a fi. fa. thereon, and made part of the money, they must find for the defendants.

A verdict and judgment were rendered in favor of the defendants, and the bank now alleges error in the giving and refusal of said instructions.

*We have*been referred to the case of the Bank vs. Letcher, III. J. J. Mar. 195, as proving the error complained of. That case is wholly unlike this. .There the note given in renewal, was or purported to have been executed, hv all the parties to the first note-and none other. Here there is not only a new party to the second note, two of the original parties dropped, but suit is brought, and after notice of the forgery, judgment taken, execution issued, and part of the money made out of one of the parties to the second. The two cases have scarcely a feature in cotmnon. Which, if any of the various cireumStances enumerated in this cáse, would singly amount *274¿6 a discharge of the note sued on, we will not Say'i but, taking them all together, we have no hesitation in saving that they amounted to a payment and clis'charge of the first note.

Crittenden, for plaintiffs.

Wherefore, judgment is affirmed.
#### Collateral Factors Corp., Respondent, v Eugene Weiss, Appellant.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County, entered on February 8, 1979, unanimously affirmed. Respondent shall recover of appellant $75 costs and disbursements of this appeal. The record does not contain either the *532order fixing counsel fees or any notice of appeal therefrom. No opinion. Concur—Sandler, J. P., Bloom, Markewich, Lupiano and Silverman, JJ.
#### In the Matter of Two Lincoln Square Associates et al., Respondents, v New York City Conciliation and Appeals Board, Appellant, and Peter C. Hein, Intervenor-Respondent-Appellant.

Appeal from a judgment, Supreme Court, New York County, entered in this CPLR article 78 proceeding on December 14, 1978, which granted an application for review by petitioners-respondents (Landlord), and partially annulled an order of appellant New York City Conciliation and Appeals Board (C.A.B.), which had found that valet service at the building in question was a required service under the Rent Stabilization Law and directed the owner to restore same, unanimously dismissed, as moot, without costs. Respondent Landlord does not oppose this appeal because it agrees that valet service at the building is a required service under the Rent Stabilization Law, and the parties have entered into a settlement covering the hours of such service, under which it will be in substantial compliance with the order of the C.A.B., thereby rendering this appeal moot. The effect of our dismissal is "to erase the whole case from the books”. *(Matter of Park East Corp. v Whalen,*43 NY2d 735.) Concur—Kupferman, J. P., Sullivan, Lupiano, Bloom and Carro, JJ.
STEVEN BEASLEY,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO 

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND 

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D14-3585

_____________________________/

Opinion filed April 9, 2015.

An appeal from the Circuit Court for Bay County.

James B. Fensom, Judge.

Steven H. Beasley, pro se, Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Jennifer J. Moore, Assistant Attorney 

General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

THOMAS and WETHERELL, JJ., and SOUD, ADRIAN G., ASSOCIATE 

JUDGE, CONCUR.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Joe Webb, Appellant.

'Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County, rendered August 2, 1965, convicting him, on his plea of guilty, of petit larceny and sentencing him under article 7-A of the Correction Law to an indefinite term in the New York City Penitentiary, to be served consecutively to another indefinite term therein which defendant was then serving. Judgment reversed on the law and defendant remanded to the trial court for resentencing. No questions of fact have been considered. In our opinion it was error for the sentencing court to sentence defendant to an indeterminate term under article 7-A of the Correction Law to be served *consecutively*to another indeterminate term which the defendant was serving at the time of sentence (see *People ex rel. Gordon*v. *Ashworth,*290 N. Y. 285, 288-290; *People*v. *Cioffi,*1 N Y 2d 70, 72; *People ex rel. Bernard*v. *Ashworth,*43 N. Y. S. 2d 366). Beldock, P. J., TJghetta, Rabin, Benjamin and Munder, JJ., concur.
#### § 15b.25 Procedural safeguards.

A recipient that provides a public elementary or secondary education shall establish and implement, with respect to action regarding the identification, evaluation, or educational placement of persons who, because of handicap, need or are believed to need special instruction or related services, a system of procedural safeguards that includes notice, an opportunity for the parents or guardian of the person to examine relevant records, an impartial hearing with opportunity for participation by the person's parents or guardian and representation by counsel, and a review procedure. Compliance with the procedural safeguards of section 615 of the Education of the Handicapped Act is one means of meeting this requirement.

[47 FR 25470, June 11, 1982, as amended at 68 FR 51343, Aug. 26, 2003]
#### § 160.11 Quality requirements.

The several standards for spirits of turpentine, as defined in §§ 160.8 to 160.10, inclusive, shall be deemed to mean the respective kinds of spirits of turpentine having properties that conform with the standard specifications adopted therefor by the American Society for Testing Materials, contained in appendix A to this part.
#### UNITED STATES of America v. Chester Allen POWELL et al.

No. 4768.

United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.

Jan. 8, 1954.

Frank D. McSherry, U. S. Atty., and Harry G. Fender, Asst. U. S. Atty., Muskogee, Okl., for appellant.

Lonnie W. Brown and Ellis M. Brown, McAlester, Okl., for appellees.

Before PHILLIPS, Chief Judge, and PICKETT, Circuit Judge.

PER CURIAM.

Appeal dismissed pursuant to stipulation of the parties.
Exhibit 4.30.1.2


PROMISSORY NOTE EXTENSION AGREEMENT


 


This Promissory Note
Third Extension Agreement, hereinafter referred to as “Third Extension Agreement”, entered into this Fourteenth day
of December, 2012, by and among GLOBALWISE INVESTMENTS, INC. hereinafter called “Maker” and Roy Haddix, hereinafter
called “Lender”.


 


WHEREAS, Maker and
Lender have entered into a Promissory Note and subscription Agreement dated July 16, 2012 for the amount of NINETY FIVE THOUSAND
00/100 DOLLARS ($95,000), hereinafter referred to as “Note”. Said Note was originally due forty five days from its
issuance. An extension on said Note was executed on August 29, 2012 for an additional forty five days to November 16, 2012. On
November 16, 2012, a Second Extension Agreement was executed for an additional 30 days to December 16, 2012.


 


WHEREAS, Maker and
Lender desire to enter into this Third Extension Agreement in order to extend the due date of the Note an additional thirty days
to January 15, 2013.


 


NOW, THEREFORE, it
is dually agreed by both Maker and Lender to extend the due date of the Note to January 15, 2013.


 


All other provisions
of the original Promissory Note and Subscription shall prevail unless otherwise written.


 


IN WITNESS WHEREOF,
the undersigned Maker and Lender has duly executed this Second Extension Agreement extending the due date of the Note as of the
day and year above first written.


 


	 	GLOBALWISE INVESTMENTS
    INC.
	 	 
	 	By: /s/William J. Santiago
	 	 
	 	Roy Haddix
	 	 
	 	BY: /s/Roy Haddix
Exhibit 10.29 - Independent Contractor's Agreement Amendment 2


		
			EXHIBIT 10.29
		

		
			DNP FINANCIAL, LLC
		

		
			INDEPENDENT CON'TRACTOR'S AGREEMENT
AMENDMENT #2
		

		
			WHEREAS, Company and DNP Financial Strategies entered into that certain INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR'S AGREEMENT effective April 23, 2010 (the "Agreement"), as Amended effective February 1, 2011, and as assigned to DNP Financial, LLC effective September 29, 2011,
		

		
			WHEREAS, the scope and complexity of the Company's operations have increased extensively since the Agreement was previously Amended, and
		

		
			WHEREAS, Company wishes to retain the ongoing services of Advisor,
		

		
			NOW, THEREFORE, the parties mutually agree to amend the Independent Contractor's Agreement, as amended, as follows:
		

		
			Section 2 of Amendment 1 to the Agreement effective February 1, 2011, is hereby further amended to provide an increase in compensation to Advisor to $25,000 per month, plus an annual award of not less than 200,000 common shares, options, or a combination thereof at the discretion of Advisor, on each anniversary date of the original INDEPENDANT CONTRACTORS AGREEMENT made
effective April 23, 2010. This modification is effective February 1, 2013.
		

		
			All other terms, conditions, rights, and responsibilities contained in the Independent Contractor's Agreement effective April 23, 2010, as amended and assigned, remain unchanged.
		

		
			DNP Financial, LLC                                       Calpian, Inc.
		

		
			By: /s/ David N. Pilotte                            By: /s/ Harold H. Montgomery
		

		
			David N. Pilotte, Principal                       Harold H. Montgomery
		

		
			                                                                  Effective Date January 25, 2013
FILED

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

AUGUST 28, 2007

THOMAS K. KAHN

CLERK

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 07-11183

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D. C. Docket No. 06-60700-CV-FAM

NORA SUE TINGLE, 

an individual, 

JAMES MICHAEL TINGLE, 

an individual, 

Plaintiffs-Appellants, 

versus 

WALTER LEE BANKS, 

an individual, 

LAGO MAR REALTY, INC., 

a Florida corporation, 

COCOS DEL PARAISO SA, 

a foreign corporation, 

Defendants-Appellees. 

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Florida

_________________________

(August 28, 2007)
2

Before BIRCH, MARCUS and WILSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Plaintiffs Nora and Michael Tingle appeal the district court order dismissing

their case on forum non conveniens grounds. This case arises out of an injury to

Nora Tingle which occurred when she fell from a cliff while on vacation in Costa

Rica. The Tingles allege that the vacation was arranged by Walter Lee Banks as

an agent for Lago Mar Realty and the injury occurred on land owned by Cocos Del

Paraiso SA. We review a dismissal on these grounds for an abuse of discretion. 

SME Racks, Inc. v. Sistemas Mecanicos Para Electronica, S.A., 382 F.3d 1097,

1100 (11th Cir. 2004). Under this standard, a district court’s decision deserves

deference where it has considered all relevant public and private interest factors

and its balancing is reasonable. Id. 

Here we can find no abuse of discretion because the district court considered

all the relevant factors including the presumption in favor of the plaintiff’s choice

of forum in making its determination. The moving party has the burden to

“demonstrate that (1) an adequate alternative forum is available, (2) the public and

private factors weigh in favor of dismissal, and (3) the plaintiff can reinstate his

suit in the alternative forum without undue inconvenience or prejudice.” Leon v.

Million Air, Inc., 251 F.3d 1305, 1311 (11th Cir. 2001). Costa Rica provides an
3

adequate forum and the Tingles can reinstate their lawsuit there without prejudice,

given that the defendants have agreed to submit to the court’s jurisdiction and the

defendants are amenable to process there. See Leon, 251 F.3d at 1311. 

Furthermore, the district court engaged in a reasonable analysis of the public and

private interests involved, and applied the presumption in favor of the plaintiff’s

choice of forum. Therefore, we affirm the district court's order dismissing this

action for forum non conveniens.

AFFIRMED.
#### Charles Caldwell, plaintiff in error, v. Chicago Title & Trust Company, as administrator de bonis non with the will annexed of Hugh A. Cole, deceased, defendant in error.

Gen. No. 33,662.

Opinion filed January 6, 1930.

Rehearing denied January 20, 1930.

*629James Rosenthal, for plaintiff in error; Howard M. Oberndorf, of counsel. Lucius, Buehler & Lucius, for defendant in error; Edward B. Lucius, Ernst Buehler and Philip Horton Newman, of counsel.

Mr. Presiding Justice McSurely

delivered the opinion of the court.
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350**

 

In connection with thequarterly report on Form 10-Q of Advanced Life Sciences Holdings, Inc.(the “Company”) for the fiscal quarter ending September 30, 2008 (the “Report”),I, Michael T. Flavin, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of the Company,certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:

 

(1)           TheReport fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934 to the extent applicable; and

 

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

 
|        |   | Date: November 6, 2008                |
|--------|--------|--------------------------------------------|
|   |   |                                       |
|   |   |                                       |
|   |   | /s/ Michael T. Flavin                      |
|   |   | Michael T. Flavin                          |
|   |   | Chief Executive Officer                    |
|   |   | Advanced Life Sciences Holdings, Inc. |

 

1

----
CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS AND ADMINISTRATIVE ACTIONS

*June 1, 2006*

[Cite as *06/01/2006 Case Announcements,*2006-Ohio-2702.]

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

2006-0878.

#### State ex rel. Evans v. Blackwell.

Franklin App. No. 06AP-6, 2006-Ohio-2076. This cause is pending before the court as an appeal from the Court of Appeals for Franklin County. Upon consideration of appellant’s amended motion for immediate expedited consideration,

IT IS ORDERED by the court that the motion is denied.

Moyer, C.J., would grant the amended motion for immediate expedited consideration and issue an order accelerating the record transmission and briefing schedule.

Resnick and O’Donnell, JJ., not participating.
#### Diamond National Corporation *v.*Edwin R. Dwelle et al.

The motion by the defendants to dismiss the appeal from the Court of Common Pleas in Fairfield County at Stamford is granted unless an assignment of errors is filed on or before November 1, 1971.

*595
      *James B. Fogarty, Jr.,*for the appellees (named defendant et al.).

*Boceo B. P. Perna,*for the appellant (plaintiff).

Argued October 5

decided October 5, 1971