alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
PROMISSORY NOTE


LOAN


$46,351.72Date: December 31, 2012


 


FOR VALUE RECEIVED, the undersigned, Skinvisible, Inc., of
6320 South Sandhill Road, Suite 10, Las Vegas, NV 89120 promises to pay to the order of Terry Howlett ("Lender"),
whose address is 356 Vincents Hollow Circle, Henderson, NV. 89052, or such other place as the Lender may designate in writing to
the undersigned, the principal sum of Forty Six Thousand Three Hundred and Fifty One Dollars and Seventy Two Cents ($46,351.72),
together with interest thereon from date hereof until paid, at the rate of ten percent (10%) per annum as follows: The entire principal
and interest amount shall be repaid on or before December 31, 2017.


 


All or any part of the aforesaid principal sum may be prepaid
at any time and from time to time without penalty. This note is in regards to a loan made.


 


Upon written request by Lender, the principal of this loan
may be converted to common shares of Skinvisible, Inc. at the price of Three Cents ($0.03) per share at any time
up until December 31, 2017. In addition, the Company will issue a warrant agreement in the name of your designate, which
will give the holder the right to purchase further shares at Four Cents ($0.04) per share if exercised within 3 years
following the conversion date. The warrant agreement will give the holder the right to purchase one share for every two shares
acquired by the holder in this transaction for an aggregate total of Seven Hundred and Seventy Two Thousand Five Hundred and
Fifty Three (772,533) additional shares at the above price.


 


This note is made and executed under, and is in all respects
governed by, the laws of the State of Nevada.


 


	/s/Terry Howlett
	Skinvisible, Inc.
#### Gladys Mary Reardon, appellee, v. Austin John Reardon, appellant.

Gen. No. 33,335.

Opinion filed May 31, 1929.

Rehearing denied June 11, 1929.

William J. Grace, for appellant. Mason S. Sullivan and Andrew Donovan, for appellee.

Mr. Presiding Justice Gridley

delivered the opinion of the court.
§ 1709.106 Eligible applicants. ( a ) Eligible applicants for grants to fund projects serving eligible extremely high energy cost communities include Persons, States, political subdivisions of States, and other entities organized under the laws of States.
( b ) Eligible applicants may be for-profit or non-profit business entities including but not limited to corporations, associations, partnerships, limited liability partnerships (LLPs), cooperatives, trusts, and sole proprietorships.
( c ) Eligible government applicants include State and local governments, and agencies and instrumentalities of States and local governments.
( d ) Indian tribes, other tribal entities, and Alaska Native Corporations are eligible applicants.
( e ) Individuals are also eligible applicants under this program, however the proposed grant project must provide community benefits and not be for the sole benefit of the individual applicant or an individual household.
( f ) As a condition of eligibility, the applicant must demonstrate the capacity: ( 1 ) to enter into a binding grant agreement with the Federal Government at the time of the award approval; and
( 2 ) to carry out the proposed grant project according to its terms.
§ 1780.35 Processing office review. Review of the application will usually include the following: ( a ) *Nondiscrimination.* Boundaries for the proposed service area must not be chosen in such a way that any user or area will be excluded because of race, color, religion, sex, marital status, age, handicap, or national origin. This does not preclude construction of the project in phases as noted in § 1780.11 as long as it is not done in a discriminatory manner.
( b ) *Grant determination.* Grants will be determined by the processing office in accordance with the following provisions and will not result in EDU costs below similar system user cost. ( 1 ) *Maximum grant.* Grants may not exceed the percentages in § 1780.10(c) of the eligible RUS project development costs listed in § 1780.9.
( 2 ) *Debt service.* Applicants will be considered for grant assistance when the debt service portion of the average annual EDU cost, for users in the applicant's service area, exceeds the following percentages of median household income: ( i ) 0.5 percent when the median household income of the service area is equal to or below 80% of the statewide nonmetropolitan median income.
( ii ) 1.0 percent when the median household income of the service area exceeds the 0.5 percent requirement but is not more than 100 percent the statewide nonmetropolitan household income.
( 3 ) *Similar system cost.* If the grant determined in paragraph (b)(2) of this section results in an annual EDU cost that is not comparable with similar systems, the Agency will determine a grant amount based on achieving EDU costs that are not below similar system user costs.
( 4 ) *Wholesale service.* When an applicant provides wholesale sales or services on a contract basis to another system or entity, similar wholesale system cost will be used in determining the amount of grant needed to achieve a reasonable wholesale user cost.
( 5 ) *Subsidized cost.* When annual cost to the applicant for delivery of service is subsidized by either the state, commonwealth, or territory, and uniform flat user charges regardless of usage are imposed for similar classes of service throughout the service area, the Agency may proceed with a grant in an amount necessary to reduce such delivery cost to a reasonable level.
( c ) *User charges.* The user charges should be reasonable and produce enough revenue to provide for all costs of the facility after the project is complete. The planned revenue should be sufficient to provide for all debt service, debt reserve, operation and maintenance, and, if appropriate, additional revenue for facility replacement of short-lived assets without building a substantial surplus. Ordinarily, the total debt service reserve will be equal to one average annual loan installment which will accumulate at the rate of one-tenth of the total each year.
[62 FR 33478, June 19, 1997, as amended at 64 FR 29946, June 4, 1999]
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> UT
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
consolidated statement of income, the consolidated balance sheet, the
consolidated statement of capitalization, the consolidated statement of
common equity and the consolidated statement of cash flows and is
qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<BOOK-VALUE>                                  PER-BOOK
<TOTAL-NET-UTILITY-PLANT>                        1,618
<OTHER-PROPERTY-AND-INVEST>                        114
<TOTAL-CURRENT-ASSETS>                             465
<TOTAL-DEFERRED-CHARGES>                             0
<OTHER-ASSETS>                                     168
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   2,365
<COMMON>                                           119
<CAPITAL-SURPLUS-PAID-IN>                            0
<RETAINED-EARNINGS>                                640
<TOTAL-COMMON-STOCKHOLDERS-EQ>                     759
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                6
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-NET>                               521
<SHORT-TERM-NOTES>                                   0
<LONG-TERM-NOTES-PAYABLE>                           37
<COMMERCIAL-PAPER-OBLIGATIONS>                     235
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-CURRENT-PORT>                        1
<PREFERRED-STOCK-CURRENT>                            0
<CAPITAL-LEASE-OBLIGATIONS>                          0
<LEASES-CURRENT>                                     0
<OTHER-ITEMS-CAPITAL-AND-LIAB>                     806
<TOT-CAPITALIZATION-AND-LIAB>                    2,365
<GROSS-OPERATING-REVENUE>                        1,465
<INCOME-TAX-EXPENSE>                                61
<OTHER-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                       1,257
<TOTAL-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                       1,318
<OPERATING-INCOME-LOSS>                            147
<OTHER-INCOME-NET>                                  16
<INCOME-BEFORE-INTEREST-EXPEN>                     163
<TOTAL-INTEREST-EXPENSE>                            47
<NET-INCOME>                                       116
<PREFERRED-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                          0
<EARNINGS-AVAILABLE-FOR-COMM>                      116
<COMMON-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                            71
<TOTAL-INTEREST-ON-BONDS>                           37
<CASH-FLOW-OPERATIONS>                             368
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     2.43
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     2.42
        

</TABLE>
§ 1767.67 General. ( a ) Rural Development endorses the guidelines as described by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (FERC) “Regulations to Govern the Preservation of Records of Public Utilities and Licensees.” The FERC guidelines can be found in 18 CFR part 125.
( b ) The regulations prescribed in this part apply to all books of account, contracts, records, memoranda, documents, papers, and correspondence prepared by or on behalf of the borrower as well as those which come into its possession in connection with the acquisition of property by purchase, consolidation, merger, etc.
( c ) The regulations prescribed in this part shall not be construed as excusing compliance with any other lawful requirements for the preservation of records.
Hummingbird

Springs Wilderness

Big Horn

Mountains

Wilderness

Harquahala

Mountains

Wilderness

Hells Canyon

Wilderness

Hassayampa

River Canyon

Wilderness

Castle Creek

Wilderness

Mohave County

Yavapai County

Yavapai

Marico

County

pa County

La Paz County

Maricopa County

!"a$

!"c$

!"c$

!"a$ White Tank

Mountains

Regional Park

Lake

Pleasant

Regional

Park

Prescott

Prescott

Valley

Cordes

Junction

Yarnell

BLACK

CANYON

CITY

NEW

RIVER

WICKENBURG

PEORIA

SURPRISE

BUCKEYE

GOODYEAR

PHOENIX

GLENDALE

Bureau of Land Management

Phoenix District Office

Phoenix, AZ

October 2006

Note: The Bureau of Land Management (BLM)

conducts land use planning only in the areas administered

by BLM. BLM has no planning authority under the

municipal or county planning legislation of the State

of Arizona.

No warranty is made by BLM for the use of this map

for purposes not intended by BLM, or to the accuracy,

reliability or completeness of the information shown.

Spatial information may not meet National Map Accuracy

standards. This information may be updated without

notification.

± Note: Land Status legend located on Map 1-1

?¿

?Â

Aã

?3⁄4

Iz

I}

Iv

Iv

Iz

Map 3-9

Agua Fria National

Monument / BradshawHarquahala Planning Area

Riparian Resources

0 5 10 15

Miles

BLM Wilderness

USFS Wilderness

Interstate

Major Road

Major River, Streams or Wash

Highway

Agua Fria National

Monument Planning Area

Bradshaw Harquahala

Planning Area

Riparian

Riparian
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 218 (Friday, November 12, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 69457]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-28432]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Land Management

[F-19155-08; LLAK964000-L14100000-KC0000-P]


Alaska Native Claims Selection

AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, Interior.

ACTION: Notice of decision approving lands for conveyance.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: As required by 43 CFR 2650.7(d), notice is hereby given that 
the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) will issue an appealable decision 
to Doyon, Limited. The decision will approve the conveyance of the 
surface and subsurface estates in the lands described below pursuant to 
the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act. The lands are in the vicinity 
of Eagle, Alaska, and are located in:

Fairbanks Meridian, Alaska

T. 1 S., R. 31 E.,
    Sec. 36.

    Containing 640 acres.

    Notice of the decision will also be published four times in the 
Fairbanks Daily News-Miner.

DATES: Any party claiming a property interest in the lands affected by 
the decision may appeal the decision within the following time limits:
    1. Unknown parties, parties unable to be located after reasonable 
efforts have been expended to locate, parties who fail or refuse to 
sign their return receipt, and parties who receive a copy of the 
decision by regular mail which is not certified, return receipt 
requested, shall have until December 13, 2010 to file an appeal.
    2. Parties receiving service of the decision by certified mail 
shall have 30 days from the date of receipt to file an appeal.
    Parties who do not file an appeal in accordance with the 
requirements of 43 CFR part 4, subpart E, shall be deemed to have 
waived their rights.

ADDRESSES: A copy of the decision may be obtained from: Bureau of Land 
Management, Alaska State Office, 222 West Seventh Avenue, <greek-i>13, 
Anchorage, Alaska 99513-7504.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, CONTACT: The BLM by phone at 907-271-5960, by 
e-mail at <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#a8c9c386cac4c586cbc7c6decdd1c9c6cbcde8cac4c586cfc7de"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="99f8f2b7fbf5f4b7faf6f7effce0f8f7fafcd9fbf5f4b7fef6ef">[email protected]</span></a>, or by telecommunication device 
(TTD) through the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-
877-8339, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.

Linda L. Keskitalo,
Land Law Examiner, Land Transfer Adjudication II Branch.
[FR Doc. 2010-28432 Filed 11-10-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-JA-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1995
<CASH>                                       6,761,516
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,693,093
<ALLOWANCES>                                 (596,156)
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                      65,884,142
<DEPRECIATION>                            (21,255,141)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              54,217,223
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                     23,097,459
<COMMON>                                             0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                54,217,223
<SALES>                                      7,568,361
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             7,726,442
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            11,640,942
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           1,148,546
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (5,063,046)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (5,063,046)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
#### §§ 1753.31-1753.35 [Reserved]
#### NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD v. VOLNEY FELT MILLS, Inc.

No. 11982.

United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.

Feb. 23, 1954.

Bernard Dunau, Washington, D. C., George J. Bott, David P. Findling A. Norman Somers, Bernard Dunau, H. Herrick, Washington, D. C., on the brief, for petitioner.

*560Samuel Lang, New Orleans, La., Kull-man & Lang, New Orleans, La., on the brief, for respondent.

Before SIMONS, Chief Judge, and MARTIN and MILLER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

The respondent assails the validity of an order of the Board directing it to bargain with a union of its employees and for other remedial measures on the ground that a consent election agreement entered into by the respondent was obtained by fraud, that the Regional Director’s decisions upon challenged ballots were arbitrary and capricious, that the certification of the union as bargaining agent was not in conformity with the policies of the Board and the requirements of the Labor Act, 29 U.S.C.A. § 141 et seq., and because the respondent was not granted a hearing upon the record of the investigation of the challenges.

We have carefully reviewed the evidence presented by the respondent and given consideration to its brief and oral argument. There is no proof of fraud in obtaining from the respondent the execution of the agreement consenting to the holding of an election by its employees. Fraud will not lightly be inferred and in its absence or in the absence of such gross mistakes as would necessarily imply bad faith or a failure to exercise an honest judgment, a government contract committing final decision to an administrative officer with the right of appeal to the head of an agency may not be set aside or repudiated, United States v. Wunderlich, 342 U.S. 98, 72 S.Ct. 154, 96 L.Ed. 113; United States v. Moorman, 338 U.S. 457, 70 S.Ct. 288, 94 L.Ed. 256.

The rulings of the Regional Director were not arbitrary or capricious since they were based upon reasonable grounds, including family relationship of challenged voters to supervisory employees, one of such supervisory employees being' the general superintendent of the respondent, and it is to- be noted that unless there was infirmity in each of the challenges the union would still have prevailed and a mistake of honest judgment does not constitute an arbitrary or capricious decision.

It is clear that the right to a hearing conferred by the Act may be waived, National Labor Relations Board v. Standard Transformer Company, 6 Cir., 202 F.2d 846, 849. The difficulties perceived in prior cases, in determining whether the hearing had been waived, is not here encountered for the right to a hearing was specifically waived by the consent election agreement executed by the parties herein.

The decree may be presented for the enforcement of the Board’s order.
#### § 1786.150 Purpose.

This subpart sets forth the policies and procedures of RUS whereby borrowers may prepay, with private financing or internally generated funds, outstanding RUS Notes evidencing electric loans at the Discounted present value of the RUS Notes, pursuant to the provisions of section 306(B) of the RE Act as amended by Public Law 102-428, 106 Stat. 2183, adopted October 21, 1992.
Court of Appeals

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A24A0465. LUZ ALVAREZ v. U.S. BANK NATIONAL TRUST NATIONAL

ASSOCIATION, AS TRUSTEE OF LS49 MASTER PARTICIPATION

TRUST.

In December 2022, U.S. Bank National Trust National Association, as Trustee

of LSF9 Master Participation Trust (“U.S. Bank”) obtained title to certain real

property located in Gwinnett County at a judicial foreclosure sale. U.S. Bank then

filed a dispossessory action in Gwinnett County Magistrate Court, naming as

defendantsthe property’sformer owner and “all others” who might be residing at the

property. Luz Alvarez answered the complaint, stating that she was renting the

property pursuant to a two-year lease agreement. The magistrate court granted U.S.

Bank’s petition and issued it a writ of possession for the property. Following a de

novo appeal by Alvarez, the superior court affirmed the magistrate court’s decision.

Alvarez then filed this direct appeal, seeking to challenge the writ of possession. We,

however, lack jurisdiction.

An appeal from a superior court order disposing of a de novo appeal from a

magistrate court decision must be initiated by filing an application for discretionary

appeal. OCGA § 5-6-35 (a) (11), (b); Bullock v. Sand, 260 Ga. App. 874, 875 (581

SE2d 333) (2003). “Compliance with the discretionary appeals procedure is

jurisdictional.” Hair Restoration Specialists v. State of Ga., 360 Ga. App. 901, 903

(862 SE2d 564) (2021) (punctuation omitted).

November 28, 2023
Thus, Alvarez’s failure to follow the proper procedure deprives us of

jurisdiction over this appeal, which is hereby DISMISSED. 

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________

I certify that the above is a true extract from

the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court

hereto affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

11/28/2023
§ 1717.651 General. ( a ) *Policy.* RUS electric borrowers are encouraged to utilize their own funds to participate in the economic development of rural areas, provided that such activity does not in any way put government funds at risk or impair a borrower's ability to repay its indebtedness to RUS and other lenders. In considering whether to make loans, investments, or guarantees, borrowers are expected to act in accordance with prudent business practices and in conformity with the laws of the jurisdictions in which they serve. RUS assumes that borrowers will use the latitude afforded them by section 312 of the RE Act primarily to make needed investments in rural community infrastructure projects (such as water and waste systems, garbage collection services, etc.) and in job creation activities (such as providing technical, financial, and managerial assistance) and other activities to promote business development and economic diversification in rural communities. Nonetheless, RUS believes that borrowers should continue to give primary consideration to safety and liquidity in the management of their funds.
( b ) *Applicability of this subpart.* This subpart applies to all distribution and power supply borrowers regardless of when their loan contract or mortgage was executed.