alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
pmdx_ex107.htm


EXHIBIT 10.7


 


LOAN AGREEMENT


 


Between


________________________________


(hereinafter referred to as the “Lender”)


 


And


 


Palmdale Executive Homes Corp.


6767 W. Tropicana Ave., Suite 207


Las Vegas, NV 89103 USA . 


(hereinafter referred to as the “Borrower”)


 


The Lender grants to the Borrower a loan in the amount of US$50,000 (fifty thousand US Dollars)


 


On the following terms and conditions:


 


Tenor, interest, maturity, repayments


 


At the request and for the account of the Borrower, the Lender has made available the above-mentioned loan on the terms and conditions stated below.


 


The Borrower shall pay interest on the loan at a rate of 8.00% (in words: eight percent) per annum as from the date of disbursement.


 


Repayment of the loan will be on November 26, 2013.


 


The loan period can be extended by agreement of both parties.


 


The borrower is entitled to repay this loan before the date stated above totally or partially-principal and interest under condition that the Lender will receive in written notice five working days prior to the value date.


 


Default


 


The loan, together with accrued interest, will become due and payable immediately in the event of non-payment of all or only part of principal and/or interest on due date, or through failure of the Borrower to comply with the terms of this loan or if the Borrower should be subject to enforcement proceedings or liquidation or arrangement procedures or have a receiver appointed for any of his assets.


 




  





1











  






 


Expenses


 


All stamp duty and other fiscal charges, if any, payable in respect of this loan or any payments made hereunder and all legal and other expenses incurred by or on connection with this loan shall be for account of the Borrower.


 


Warranty


 


The Borrower warrants that all necessary approvals, if any, have been obtained and that this agreement is legally binding and enforceable obligation.


 


Law and forum selected


 


This agreement shall be governed and construed according to the laws of the State of Nevada. Place of jurisdiction is Reno.


 


Effectiveness


 


This agreement shall become effective upon the receipt of one original copy of this loan agreement by each party.


 


Amendments


 


Any amendments and modifications to this agreement shall be made in writing.


 


November 26, 2012





	
 

	 	 	
 

	 
	
 

	 	 	
Palmdale Executive Homes Corp.

	 
	
(the “Lender”)

	 	 	
(the “Borrower”)

	 
	(Signed by authorized person)	 	 	(Signed by authorized person)	 







 


 


2
-86 -84 -82 -80 -78 -76 -74

36 38 40 42


### ★

▲ ▲ ▲ ▲



### ★ ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲ 500 1000 1500 1000 18 12 06 00 08/02 

### NOAA HYSPLIT MODEL 

## Backward trajectory ending at 2300 UTC 02 Aug 06

EDAS Meteorological DataSource★at 38.90 N 76.65 WMeters AGL
United States District Court

CIVIL MINUTES

In Re: 3M Combat Arms Earplug Date: June 18, 2021

Products Liability Litigation Case No.: 3:19md2885 

Relates to: 7:20cv39 (Baker) Judge M. Casey Rodgers

Magistrate Judge Gary R. Jones 

___

DOCKET ENTRY: Jury Trial (Day 10)

Jury instructions published and closing statements heard. Jury deliberates and returns a verdict in favor of 

the Plaintiff and against the Defendants (see separate verdict form). Attached: Combined Plaintiff’s and 

Defendants’ witness list and exhibit list. Plaintiff and Defendants’ Exhibits admitted (electronic copies 

saved on external hard drive) and placed in clerk’s secured storage. Demonstratives (not for jury) also 

saved on same electronic device.

____ 

PRESENT : HONORABLE M. CASEY RODGERS U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE

Paula Cawby Donna Boland Hillary Dang/Justin Ferraro

Deputy Clerk Court Reporter Law Clerks

APPEARANCES: 

Appearances for Plaintiff: Sean Tracey, David Buchanan, Shelley Hutson, and Michael Sacchet

Appearances for Defendants: Kimberly Branscome, Jay Bhimani, and Charles Beall

PROCEEDINGS:

7:38 am Court in Session – Attorney Conference

Court and counsel discuss objections to closing argument slides

7:54 am Court in Recess

8:03 am Court in Session - Jury Present

8:10 am Court Publishes Instructions to the Jury

8:48 am Plaintiff’s Closing Argument (Buchanan)

9:58 am Jury excused from the courtroom

9:59 am Defense argues objection 

10:00 am Court overruled objection

10:01 am Court in Recess 

10:12 am Court in Session – Jury Present

10:13 am Defendants’ Closing Argument (Branscome)

11:44 pm Plaintiff’s Rebuttal Argument (Tracey)

12:07 pm Court provides final instructions to the jury

12:10 pm Counsel have no objections to instructions

12:11 pm Jury excused to begin deliberations

12:12 pm Court addresses defense counsel regarding closing argument

Case 7:20-cv-00039-MCR-GRJ Document 181 Filed 06/21/21 Page 1 of 2
In Re: 3M Combat Arms Earplug Jury Trial

Products Liability Litigation Continued (Day 10) June 18, 2021

Page 2 of 2

12:23 pm Court in Recess (awaiting jury’s verdict)

7:40 pm Court in Session – Attorney Conference

7:41 pm Court discusses Court Order with defense counsel 

8:09 pm Court notifies counsel that there is a Jury Communication

8:11 pm Court provides written response to the jury

8:12 pm Court in Recess

8:56 pm Court in Session – Attorney Conference

Court notifies parties/counsel that the jury has reached a verdict

8:57 pm Jury Present

Clerk Publishes Verdict

Jury finds for the Plaintiff and against the Defendants (see verdict form)

9:02 pm Court polls the jurors individually 

Court states a judgment will be entered according to the verdict returned

9:04 pm Court thanks jurors for their service

9:05 pm Court adjourned

____________________________________________________________________________________

Date: June 18, 2021 Total Court Time: 5 hours, 6 minutes

Case 7:20-cv-00039-MCR-GRJ Document 181 Filed 06/21/21 Page 2 of 2
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 19

- 50528 Summary Calendar

Consolidated with 19

- 50530
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee

v. JOSE ARMANDO NUNEZ

- LOPEZ , Defendant

- Appellant

Appeal s from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 4:18

- CR

- 862

- 1 USDC No. 4:11

- CR

- 376

- 6

Before JOLLY, JONES, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Jose Armando Nunez

- Lopez filed notices of appeal from the order revoking his supervised release and from a new judgment of conviction entered after his guilty plea to illegal reentry. He argues t hat the enhancement of his sentence pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2), which increased the statutory

* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5 , the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED January 23, 2020

Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 19-50528 Document: 00515282865 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/23/2020No. 19

- 50528

2 maximum term of imprisonment to 20 years for his illegal reentry offense , is unconstitutional because of the treatment of the provision as a sentencing fac tor rather than as an element of the offense that must be alleged in the indictment and proved to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt. Nunez

- Lopez concedes that this issue is foreclosed by Almendarez

- Torres v. United States , 523 U.S. 224 (1998). However, he seeks to preserve the argument for possible Supreme Court review because, he argues, subsequent decisions indicate that the Supreme Court may reconsider its holding in Almendarez

- Torres

. In that opinion , the Supreme Court held that for purposes of a statutory sentencing enhancement, a prior conviction is not a fact that must be alleged in an indictment or found by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt. Id. at 239

– 47. This court has held that subsequent Supreme Court decisions did not overrule Almendarez

- Torres

. See United States v. Wallace , 759 F.3d 486, 497 (5th Cir. 2014) (considering the effect of Alleyne v. United States , 570 U.S. 99 (2013)); United States v. Rojas

- Luna , 522 F.3d 502, 505

– 06 (5th Cir. 2008) (considering the effect of Apprendi v. New Jersey , 530 U.S. 466 (2000)). Thus, Nunez

Lopez ’s argument is foreclosed. T he Government’s motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED

. T he Government’s alternative motion for an extension of time to file a brief is DENIED, and the judgment s of the district court are AFFIRMED. Case: 19-50528 Document: 00515282865 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/23/2020
630 S.E.2d 464

#### Casey C. LEWIS, Petitioner v. STATE of South Carolina, Respondent.

Supreme Court of South Carolina.

April 19, 2006.

ORDER

By order dated January 30, 2006, the circuit court issued a conditional order of dismissal in this post-conviction relief case. This order gave petitioner twenty days to show cause why the conditional order should not become final. Instead of filing a reply to this conditional order of dismissal, petitioner has filed a petition for a writ of certiorari with this Court, which we have construed as a notice of appeal.

*631Under Rule 227, SCACR, and S.C.Code Ann. § 17-27-100 (2003), only a final decision or judgment in a post-conviction relief action is subject to review. “Any judgment or decree, leaving some further act to be done by the court before the rights of the parties are determined, is interlocutory; but if it so completely fixes the rights of the parties that the court has nothing further to do in the action, then it is final.” *Adickes v. Allison & Bratton,*21 S.C. 245 (1884); *see also Mid-State Distributors, Inc. v. Century Importers, Inc.,*310 S.C. 330, 426 S.E.2d 777 (1993).

In our opinion, a conditional order of dismissal is not the final judgment in a post-conviction relief case since there is another act to be done before the rights of the parties are finally determined — the issuance of an order following the filing of a reply or the issuance of an order based on the default in filing a reply. S.C.Code Ann. § 17-27-70(b) (2003). Accordingly, this matter is dismissed without prejudice.

s/ Jean H. Toal, C.J.

s/ James E. Moore, J.

s/ John H. Waller, Jr„ J.

s/ E.C. Burnett, III, J.

s/ Costa M. Pleicones, J.
#### Joseph Mazzuka, as Administrator of the Estate of Marie Mazzuka, Deceased, v Long Island Rail Road et al., Respondents, et al., Defendants.

— In a wrongful death action, plaintiff appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, entered December 8, 1976 in favor of the defendants, upon the trial court’s dismissal of the complaint at the close of the plaintiff’s case, upon a jury trial. Judgment affirmed, without costs or disbursements. Although a plaintiff in a wrongful death action is entitled to the benefit of every favorable inference which can reasonably be drawn from the evidence *(Swensson v New York, Albany Desp. Co.,*309 NY 497), not every case raises a factual issue which must be submitted to the jury *(Scurti v City of New York,*40 NY2d 433). Affording the instant plaintiff the benefit of every favorable and reasonable inference, there is no proof that the defendants were negligent. Furthermore, the facts clearly demonstrate that the decedent was contributorily negligent. Mangano, J. P., Rabin, Gulotta and Margett, JJ., concur.
EXHIBIT 23.a.


CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS


     We  hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in  the
Registration  Statements Nos. 333-76616, 333-65013  and  333-6103
each on  Form  S-8 and to Registration Statement No. 333-45218 on
Form  S-3, and in  the  Annual  Report  on  Form  10-KSB of Igene
Biotechnology, Inc. for the year ended December 31,  2003 of  our
report   dated   March 25, 2004, relating  to  the   consolidated
financial  statements  of  Igene Biotechnology, Inc.


                                      /s/ STEGMAN & COMPANY
                                      ___________________________
                                          STEGMAN & COMPANY

Baltimore, Maryland
March 30, 2004
*Thursday, September 24, 1998*

MOTION DOCKET

97-98.

#### State v. Madrigal.

Lucas App. No. CR965761. This cause is pending before the court as an appeal from the Court of Common Pleas of Lucas County. Upon consideration of appellee’s motion for release of portion of record under seal,

IT IS ORDERED by the court that the motion for release of portion of record under seal be, and hereby is, denied.

Moyer, C.J., concurs and would also strike the sealed portion from the record.

Douglas, J., concurs and would also strike the sealed memo.

Lundberg Stratton, J., concurs and notes that the court should not consider the portion of record under seal as not part of the record.

Pfeifer, J., would review the sealed record and consider releasing then.
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1988 Introduced in House (IH)]

113th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1988

To amend title 38, United States Code, to provide authority for certain 
   members of the Armed Forces to transfer entitlement to Post-9/11 
              Educational Assistance to their dependents.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 15, 2013

 Mr. Alexander (for himself and Mr. Connolly) introduced the following 
     bill; which was referred to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend title 38, United States Code, to provide authority for certain 
   members of the Armed Forces to transfer entitlement to Post-9/11 
              Educational Assistance to their dependents.

    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 ``Education Assistance to Realign New 
Eligibilities for Dependents (EARNED) Act of 2013''.

SEC. 2. AUTHORITY OF CERTAIN MEMBERS OF THE ARMED FORCES WHO HAVE 
              SERVED 20 YEARS ON ACTIVE DUTY TO TRANSFER ENTITLEMENT TO 
              POST-9/11 EDUCATIONAL ASSISTANCE TO THEIR DEPENDENTS.

    (a) Transfer Authorized.--Section 3319(b) of title 38, United 
States Code, is amended--
            (1) in paragraph (1), by striking ``or'';
            (2) in paragraph (2), by striking the period and inserting 
        ``; or''; and
            (3) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
            ``(3) any period of service in the Armed Forces, as of any 
        date between September 11, 2001, and September 30, 2011, 
        including at least 90 days of such service after September 10, 
        2001.''.
    (b) Opportunity To Transfer Entitlement.--Notwithstanding any other 
provision of law, during the period beginning on the date of the 
enactment of this Act and ending on December 31, 2015, an individual 
who is entitled to educational assistance under chapter 33 of title 38, 
United States Code, and who completed any period of service in the 
Armed Forces and was discharged or released from such service under 
honorable conditions before September 30, 2011, may transfer all or 
part of the individual's entitlement to an eligible dependent under 
section 3319 of title 38, United States Code.
    (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this Act shall take 
effect as if included in the enactment of the Post-9/11 Veterans 
Educational Assistance Act of 2008 (title V of Public Law 110-252).
                                 <all>
```
2005-2307.

#### State v. Cline.

Champaign App. No. 2002-CA-5, 164 Ohio App.3d 228, 2005-Ohio-5779. Reported at 108 Ohio St.3d 1510, 2006-1329, 844 N.E.2d 855. On motion for reconsideration. Motion denied.

Resnick and O’Donnell, JJ., dissent.
H. R. 1813 

One Hundred Thirteenth Congress 

of the 

United States of America 

AT THE SECOND SESSION 

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Friday, 

the third day of January, two thousand and fourteen 

An Act 

To redesignate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 162 

Northeast Avenue in Tallmadge, Ohio, as the ‘‘Lance Corporal Daniel Nathan 

Deyarmin, Jr., Post Office Building’’. 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 

the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. LANCE CORPORAL DANIEL NATHAN DEYARMIN, JR., POST 

OFFICE BUILDING. 

(a) REDESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States Postal 

Service located at 162 Northeast Avenue in Tallmadge, Ohio, shall 

be known and designated as the ‘‘Lance Corporal Daniel Nathan 

Deyarmin, Jr., Post Office Building’’. 

(b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, regulation, 

document, paper, or other record of the United States to the facility 

referred to in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference 

to the ‘‘Lance Corporal Daniel Nathan Deyarmin, Jr., Post Office 

Building’’. 

Speaker of the House of Representatives. 

Vice President of the United States and

President of the Senate.
#### §§ 1773.22-1773.29 [Reserved]
Exhibit 10.4 Q2 FY2013






        
TWENTY-SECOND AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT






This Twenty-Second Amendment to Employment Agreement is made and entered into as of January 1, 2013, by and between PriceSmart, Inc., a Delaware Corporation ("Employer") and John Hildebrandt ("Executive").




Recitals


		
	A)
	On June 1, 2001 an Employment Agreement was made and entered into by and between Employer and Executive.




		
	B)
	Said Employment Agreement has been amended on twenty-one prior occasions;




		
	C)
	Employer and Executive now desire to further amend the Employment Agreement, as set forth hereinbelow:






Agreement


1. Section 2.1 of the Agreement which provides:


		
	1.
	Salary.  For Executive's services hereunder, Employer shall pay as base salary to Executive the amount of $310,000 during each year of the Employment Term.  Said salary shall be payable in equal installments in conformity with Employer's normal payroll period. Executive shall receive such salary increases, if any, as Employer, in its sole discretion, shall determine.


 
is hereby amended, effective January 1, 2013, to provide as follows:


		
	1.
	Salary.  For Executive's services hereunder, Employer shall pay as base salary to Executive the amount of $316,200 during each year of the Employment Term.  Said salary shall be payable in equal installments in conformity with Employer's normal payroll period. Executive shall receive such salary increases, if any, as Employer, in its sole discretion, shall determine.




		
	1.
	All other terms of the Employment Agreement, as amended, shall remain unaltered and fully effective.






Executed in San Diego, California, as of the date first written above.








EXECUTIVE                        EMPLOYER
PriceSmart, INC.


John Hildebrandt                    By:                 











______________________                Name:     Jose Luis Laparte    


		
	Its: 
	CEO and President
**Exhibit 23.2**

** **

**Consent of Independent Registered Public AccountingFirm**

** **

**We consent to the incorporation by reference in theRegistration Statements on Form S-3 (No. 33-13793) and in the relatedProspectus and on Form S-8 (Nos. 333-103677, 333-55556, 333-88295, and333-15113) pertaining to various stock option and stock purchase plans ofCandela Corporation of our report dated September 2, 2004, with respect to theconsolidated financial statements and schedule of Candela Corporation as ofJune 28, 2003 and for the two year period then ended included in this AnnualReport (Form 10-K) for the year ended July 3, 2004.**

** **

** **
|   | /s/  Ernst & Young LLP |   |
|--------|----------------------------|--------|

 

Boston, Massachusetts

September 9, 2004

 

----
EXHIBIT A 

Case 3:19-md-02885-MCR-HTC Document 3666-1 Filed 02/14/23 Page 1 of 2
On behalf of JULIO A. CASTILLO, Clerk of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals,

the District of Columbia Bar does hereby certify that

Michael Mestitz

was duly qualified and admitted on June 5, 2017 as an attorney and counselor entitled to

practice before this Court; and is, on the date indicated below, an Active member in good

standing of this Bar.

In Testimony Whereof,

I have hereunto subscribed my

name and affixed the seal of this

Court at the City of

Washington, D.C., on January 30, 2023.

JULIO A. CASTILLO

Clerk of the Court

Issued By:

David Chu - Director, Membership

District of Columbia Bar Membership

For questions or concerns, please contact the D.C. Bar Membership Office at 202-626-3475 or email

memberservices@dcbar.org.

Case 3:19-md-02885-MCR-HTC Document 3666-1 Filed 02/14/23 Page 2 of 2
Editorial Note on Part 2
Editorial Notes: 1. Nomenclature changes to part 2 appear at 83 FR 22178, May 14, 2018. 2. Nomenclature changes to part 2 appear at 83 FR 61310, Nov. 29, 2018 3. Nomenclature changes to part 2 appear at 85 FR 65504, Oct. 15, 2020. 4. Nomenclature changes to part 2 appear at 87 FR 44266, July 26, 2022.

Editorial Note on Subpart D of Part 2
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to subpart D of part 2 appear at 60 FR 66713, Dec. 26, 1995.

§ 2.30 Director, Office of Budget and Program Analysis. ( a ) The following delegations of authority are made by the Secretary of Agriculture to the Director, Office of Budget and Program Analysis: ( 1 ) Serve as the Department's Budget Officer and exercise general responsibility and authority for all matters related to the Department's budgeting affairs including: ( i ) Resource administration, including all phases of the acquisition, and distribution of funds and staff years.
( ii ) Legislative and regulatory reporting and related activities.
( 2 ) Provide staff assistance for the Secretary, general officers, and other Department and agency officials.
( 3 ) Formulate and promulgate Departmental budgetary, legislative and regulatory policies and procedures.
( 4 ) Represent the Department in contacts with the Office of Management and Budget, the Government Accountability Office, the Department of the Treasury, Congressional Committees on Appropriations, and other organizations and agencies on matters related to his or her responsibility.
( 5 ) Coordinate and/or conduct policy and program analyses on agency operations and proposals to assist the Secretary, general officers and other Department and agency officials in formulating and implementing USDA policies and programs.
( 6 ) Review and analyze legislation, regulations, and policy options to determine their impact on USDA programs and policy objectives and on the Department's budget.
( 7 ) Monitor ongoing studies with significant program or policy implications.
( 8 ) Exercise responsibility for coordinating and overseeing the implementation of the Government Performance and Results Act of 1993, Public Law 103-62, and the GPRA Modernization Act of 2010, Public Law 111-352, at the Department.
( 9 ) Administer the Departmental forms, reports, and directives management programs.
( b ) The following authority is reserved to the Secretary of Agriculture: Final approval of the Department's program and financial plans.
[79 FR 44111, July 30, 2014, as amended at 87 FR 44269, July 26, 2022]