alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 1774.10 Applications. ( a ) To file an application, an organization must provide their Unique Entity Identifier (UEI) in accordance with 2 CFR part 25. Instructions for obtaining the UEI are available at *https://sam.gov/ .* To file a complete application, the following should be submitted: ( 1 ) Standard Form 424, “Application for Federal Assistance (For Non-Construction).”
( 2 ) Standard Form 424A & B, “Budget Information—Non-Construction Programs.”
( 3 ) Supporting documentation necessary to make an eligibility determination such as financial statements, audits, organizational documents, or existing debt instruments. The Processing Official will advise applicants regarding the required documents. Applicants that are indebted to RUS will not need to submit documents already on file with the Processing Official as long as such documents are current and valid.
( 4 ) Project narrative detailing the project to be financed with the SEARCH grant funds. The narrative will also provide details on the activities or tasks to be accomplished, objectives, timetables for task completion, and anticipated results.
( 5 ) The applicant's Internal Revenue Service Taxpayer Identification Number (TIN).
( 6 ) Other Forms and certifications. Applicants will be required to submit the following items to the Processing Official, upon notification from the Processing Official to proceed with further development of the full application: ( i ) Form RD 442-7, “Operating Budget”;
( ii ) Form RD 400-1, “Equal Opportunity Agreement”;
( iii ) Form RD 400-4, “Assurance Agreement”;
( iv ) Form AD-1047, “Certification Regarding Debarment, Suspension and other Responsibility Matters”;
( v ) Form AD-1049, Certification regarding Drug-Free Workplace Requirements (Grants) Alternative I For Grantees Other Than Individuals;
( vi ) Certifications for Contracts, Grants, and Loans (Regarding Lobbying); and
( vii ) Certification regarding prohibited tying arrangements. Applicants that provide electric service must provide the Agency a certification that they will not require users of a water or waste facility financed under this part to accept electric service as a condition of receiving assistance.
( b ) Applicants are encouraged to contact the State Office or the Processing Official to find out how to file electronically. The application and supporting documentation must be sent or delivered to the Processing Official, unless it is filed electronically.
[75 FR 35963, June 24, 2010, as amended at 89 FR 34958, May 1, 2024]
Strictly Private & Confidential


 


	 	May 2, 2011


Adam S. Gottbetter


Gottbetter & Partners, LLP


488 Madison Avenue, 12th Floor


New York, NY 10022


 


Re:         Service
Agreement


 


Dear Adam:


 


This letter is to
acknowledge that on December 22, 2010, Gottbetter & Partners, LLP (“G&P”) received from California Gold Corp.
(“CLGL”) $100,000 in cash, as settlement in full of the attached G&P invoices totaling $257,665 (the “G&P
Outstanding Invoices”), in connection with the legal services G&P provided to CLGL from August 15, 2007 through November
30, 2010. G&P agrees to completely release and forever discharge CLGL (together with its employees, agents, parents, subsidiaries,
affiliates or other representatives, heirs, executors, successors and assigns), of and from any and all past, present or future
claims, demands, obligations, actions, causes of action, rights, damages, costs, loss of services, expenses and compensation which
G&P now has, or which may hereafter accrue or otherwise be acquired by G&P, on account of, or in any way growing out of
the G&P Outstanding Invoices, and G&P agrees not to initiate or voluntarily participate in any legal action, charge or
complaint against CLGL with respect to any such debts or obligations.


 


This agreement is limited
specifically to the G&P Outstanding Invoices and does not impact or affect in any way CLGL’s obligations to G&P with
respect to any fees due G&P by CLGL for legal services provided by G&P to CLGL following November 30, 2010.


 


Very truly yours,


 


California Gold Corp.


 


	By: 	/s/ James D. Davidson	 
	Name: James D. Davidson
	Title: President and CEO


 


ACCEPTED AND AGREED to on this 2nd day of May, 2011


Gottbetter & Partners, LLP


 


	By: 	/s/ Adam S. Gottbetter	 
	Name: Adam S. Gottbetter
	Title: Managing Partner
#### In the Matter of Rosetta Patterson, Individually and on Behalf of Her Infant Children, Petitioner, v Barbara Blum, as Commissioner of the New York State Department of Social Services, et al., Respondents.

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the respondent State commissioner, dated September 25, 1978 and made after a statutory fair hearing, which affirmed a determination of the local agency reducing petitioner’s public assistance grant. Proceeding dismissed, without costs or disbursements. Although the proceeding was improperly transferred here (CPLR 7804, subd [g]), we are dismissing the proceeding because the issue, as limited by petitioner’s brief, is academic. Hopkins, J. P., Lazer, Gibbons and Gulotta, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 32.2


Certification Pursuant to


Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002


(18 U.S.C. Section 1350)


In connection with the accompanying Annual Report of Noble Energy, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2014 (the “Report”), I, Kenneth M. Fisher, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certify that to my knowledge:


|    |                                                                                                                                                
|--- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|(1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and

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

Date:February 19, 2015/s/ Kenneth M. FisherKenneth M. FisherChief Financial Officer
Exhibit 31.2
 Certification of Chief Financial Officer  Pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
      a)
    
    designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls
and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information
relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us
by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is
being prepared;b)
    
    designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internal
control over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to provide
reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation
of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted
accounting principles;c)
    
    evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and procedures
and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure
controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such
evaluation; andd)
    
    disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over
financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter (the
registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially
affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal control
over financial reporting; and
  a)
    
    all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of
internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect
the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information;
andb)
    
    any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who
have a significant role in the registrants internal control over financial reporting.
 Date: September 30, 2009
    By:
    /s/Christopher L. NagelChristopher L. Nagel,Vice President, Finance and
Chief Financial Officer
Exhibit 4.25


 


Mizrahi Tefahot


 


Date: July 23rd 2012


 


Att:
AudioCodes Ltd (hereinafter: “the company”)



 


Dear Sir or Madam,


 


Re: Letter of Undertaking dated December 12th
2011


 


Whereas on December 12th 2011 you signed on a letter
of undertaking for us (hereinafter: “the letter of undertaking”);


 


And whereas in Section 3.3 of the letter of undertaking it was
determined that the operating profit (as defined in that section) accrued for the last 4 quarters shall not be less than a total
of $3 million (hereinafter: “the aforementioned financial index “, “the abovementioned cause”);


 


At your request we confirm that we are suspending the exercise
of our right to of immediate repayment of your debts and undertakings to us due to the aforementioned cause and this until publication
of the reports of December 31st 2013 (hereinafter: “the suspension period”); on condition of compliance
with all the following conditions:


 




    	 



    	 



    

 


		1.	The operating loss (Non GAAP) of the company for 2012 shall not exceed $6 million.



 


		2.	The company shall have operating profit (Non GAAP) in the first quarter of 2013.



 


		3.	You shall pay the bank a one-time payment of $15,000 and your account shall be debited with this sum.



 


		4.	The interest on the existing loans shall be increased from today and until full defrayal by 0.75% (annual).



 


This confirmation is limited to the aforementioned cause only
and for the aforementioned period only and it shall not derogate from our right to consign your debts and undertakings for immediate
defrayal, including during the suspension period, for any other cause.


 


To avoid all doubt it is clarified that our consent should not
be seen as an amendment of the letter of undertaking and that all the terms of the letter of undertaking remain fully in force.
It shall also be clarified that this consent shall not derogate from our rights to you pursuant to any document or pursuant to
law.


 


This letter is subject to your compliance with your undertakings
to maintain any financial indices vis-à-vis any entity that you have made undertakings to or alternatively that you have
received a letter of waiver in the event that you are not complying with those same financial covenants or part of them.


 




    	2



    	 



    

 


That stated in this letter is conditional on your consent in
the margins of this letter.


 


Yours sincerely,


 


Bank Mizrahi Tefahot Ltd


Business Division - Corporations Sector


	(signature)	(signature)
	Alon Egozi	Danny Maor
	Corporations Sector Manager	Hi-tech Department Manager
	 	Commerce and Services


 


We agree to the aforementioned


(signature)


Audiocodes Ltd


 




    	3
#### Edwin Monroe BROWNING, Appellant, v. Ivan W. STEELE, M. D., Warden, U. S. Medical Center, Springfield, Missouri.

No. 15004.

United States Court of Appeals Eighth Circuit.

Feb. 2, 1954.

Edwin Monroe Browning, pro se.

PER CURIAM.

Appeals from District Court dismissed.
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. §1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2010 (the Report) of Community Bankers Trust Corporation (the Company), the undersigned
Executive Vice President, who is acting as the Companys principal executive officer, and Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to their knowledge:

(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
consolidated financial condition and results of operations of the Company and its subsidiaries as of, and for, the periods presented in the Report.



/s/ Rex L. Smith, IIIRex L. Smith, IIIExecutive Vice President(principal executive officer)/s/ Bruce E. ThomasBruce E. ThomasExecutive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer


Date: November 9, 2010
**UN PUBLISHED** 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 16**  **- 1910** 

YURI J. STOYANOV , Plaintiff

- Appellant ,

v. CHARLES BEHRLE, Individually and in his Official Capacity as the Head of the Carderock Division; GARY M. JEBSEN, Individually and in his Official Capacity as the Head of Code 70; KEVIN M. WILSON, Individually and in his Official Capacity as the Head of Code 74; BRUCE CROCK, Individually and in his Official Capacity as the Head of Code 743; DAVID CARON, Individually a nd in his Official Capacity as Assistant Counsel Code 39; CATHERINE KISSMEIER, Individually and in her Official Capacity as Counsel Code 40; GARTH JENSEN, Individually and in his Official Capacity as Deputy Head Code 70; MARY (CATHY) FOWLER, Individually and in her Official Capacity as Administrative Officer Code 70; KENNETH FORMAN, Individually and in his Official Capacity as Head of Code 73; KENNETH GOLDMAN, Individually and in his Official Capacity as Head of Code 71; ARCHER MACY, Individually and in Hi s Official Capacity as the Head of Naval Surface Warfare Center; RAY MABUS , Defendants

- Appellees

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland , at Baltimore

. Deborah K. Chasanow , Senior District Judge. ( 1:07

- cv
- 0198 5

- DKC )

Submitted : November 22, 2016 Decided: November 29, 2016

Before DIAZ and THACKER , Circuit Judges , and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge

.2 Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.

Yuri J. Stoyanov, Appellant Pro Se. Allen F. Loucks, Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.3 PER CURIAM:
Yuri J. Stoyanov appeals the district court’s order s
entered after the district court dismissed Stoyanov’s c laims
against Defendants, including claims brought pursuant to Title
VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U .S.C.

§§ 2000e to 2000e

- 17 (2012 ), and the Age Discrimination in
Employment Act of 1967, as amended, 29 U.S.C. §§ 621 to 634
( 2012 ). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible
error. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order s . See
Stoyanov v. Behrle , No. 1:07

- cv
- 01985

- DKC (D. Md. Aug. 26, 2015

& June 13, 2 016 ). We dispense with oral argument because the
facts and lega l contentions are adequately presented in the

materials before th is court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.

AFFIRMED
#### DENHARD, Respondent, v. GILBERT et al., Appellants.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.

June 22, 1906.)

Ac-Lion by Adam L. Denhard against Abel H. Gilbert, impleaded with Thomas L. James and others.

No opinion. Judgment reversed, and new trial granted, costs to abide the final award of costs; on the ground that there is no finding of pecuniary injury to the plaintiff's assignor, and no evidence returned from which such a finding could be supplied.
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

**AFFINITY GROUP HOLDING, INC.**

 

**STATEMENT PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350**

 

 

I, Michael A. Schneider, President and Chief Executive Officer ofAffinity Group Holding, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the “Company”),hereby certify as follows:

 

1.                                       This statementis provided pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 in connection with theCompany’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended March 31,2008 (the “Periodic Report”);

 

2.                                       The PeriodicReport fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) and 15(d) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

 

3.                                       The informationcontained in the Periodic Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company as of dates andfor the periods indicated therein.

 

 

Date:  May 9, 2008

 
|   | /s/ Michael A. Schneider               |   |
|--------|----------------------------------------|--------|
|   | Michael A. Schneider                   |
|   | President and Chief  Executive Officer |

 

 

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906,or such other 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 toAffinity Group Holding, Inc. and will be retained by Affinity GroupHolding, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission orits staff upon request.

 

----
Editorial Note on Part 1948
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 1948 appear at 80 FR 9888, Feb. 24, 2015.

§ 1948.67 Procedure for designation. ( a ) Local governments may request the Governor of the State in which they are located to designate an area served by them as an energy impacted area.
( b ) The Governor will define the geographic area of a designated area consistent with the nature of the impact and the socio-economic integration of the area.
( c ) The Governor may designate an area as an energy impacted area based on the criteria contained in this subpart.
#### Matthew Blei, Respondent-Appellant, v Inter-Maritime Forwarding Company, Inc., Appellant-Respondent.

In an action to recover attorney’s fees under a retainer agreement, defendant appeals, as limited by its notice of appeal and brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, dated February 27, 1979, as granted the branch of plaintiff’s motion which sought dismissal of defendants second and third affirmative defenses, and plaintiff cross-appeals from so much of the same order as denied the branch of his motion which sought dismissal of the fourth and fifth affirmative defenses. Order modified, on the law, by deleting therefrom the provision which denied the branch of the motion seeking dismissal of the fourth and fifth affirmative defenses and substituting therefor a provision granting the said branch of plaintiff’s motion. As so modified, order affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements, and with leave to defendant to replead as to the second, third, fourth and fifth affirmative defenses. Defendant’s time to replead is extended until 20 days after service upon it of a copy of the order to be entered hereon, together with notice of entry thereof. The affirmative defenses in question are replete with mere conclusory allegations. As such, they fail to comport with the requirements of CPLR 3013 (see *Foley v D’Agostino,*21 AD2d 60) and, in the case of the affirmative defense predicated upon fraud, it fails to comport with CPLR 3016 as well (see *Lanzi v Brooks,*54 AD2d 1057). We do not suggest, however, that the defendant was required to make any factual showing in support of the facial adequacy of its defenses in the context of a motion pursuant to CPLR 3211 (subd [b]) (see *Raine v Allied Artists Prods.,*63 AD2d 914). Defendant is granted leave to replead its second through fifth affirmative defenses in accordance with the mandates of procedural law (see CPLR 3013, 3016, subd [b]). Lazer, J. P., Gulotta, Cohalan and Gibbons, JJ., concur.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision **

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

KAMALJIT SINGH,

 Petitioner,

 v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 08-70459

Agency No. A098-846-598

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted January 10, 2011** 

Before: BEEZER, TALLMAN, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.

Kamaljit Singh, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the

Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration

judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal,

and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have

FILED

JAN 20 2011

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 08-70459

jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence factual

findings, Singh v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 1100, 1105 (9th Cir. 2006), and we deny the

petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s adverse credibility determination

based on the discrepancy between Singh’s testimony that the temple was a five

minute walk from his home and the fact that the nearest temple was several miles

away. See Chebchoub v. INS, 257 F.3d 1038, 1043 (9th Cir. 2001) (sustaining

adverse credibility determination where claims “were implausible in light of the

background evidence”). Substantial evidence also supports the IJ’s adverse

credibility determination based on Singh’s lack of knowledge of the Shiromani

Akali Dal party. See Singh v. Ashcroft, 367 F.3d 1139, 1143 (9th Cir. 2004)

(approving an adverse credibility conclusion based in part on an expectation that

one who claims active participation in a party has a deeper understanding of that

party’s beliefs). In the absence of credible testimony, Singh’s asylum and

withholding of removal claims fail. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156

(9th Cir. 2003).
3 08-70459

Because Singh’s CAT claim is based on the same testimony found to be not

credible, and he points to no other evidence the IJ should have considered,

substantial evidence also supports the denial of CAT relief. See id. at 1156-57.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
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   In connection with the Report of Castle Arch Real Estate Investment Company, L.L.C. a California limited liability company (the Company) on Form 10-QSB for the period ending September 30, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report) I, Douglas W. Child, Chief Financial Officer (Principal Financial Officer) hereby certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that, to my knowledge:  a. The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and  b. The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.   /s/ Douglas W. Child Douglas W. Child, Chief Financial Officer (Principal Financial Officer)  Dated November 13, 2006