alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
cr ;•'^~T 

PAUL R. NALVEN* 

ALEXEI SCHACHT 

'MEMUKR o r NEW VORK 

AND NEW JERSEY BANS 

NALVEN a SCHACHT 

ATTORNEYS AT LJVW 

i>nl;Ui> 35 0 FIFTH AVENUE, SUITE 402 2 

NEW YORK, NE W YORK 101 ia 

TELEPHONE: (212) 61 8 • 5B4 0 

FACSIMILE: (212)616-554 3 

F

S' ?;r.r::g ^rtW^ r-- ^ fr* 

m - H 20:3 

NEW JERSEY OFFIC E 

7 0 SOUTH ORANGE AVENUE, SUITE 145 

UVINQSTON, NEW JERSEY 0703 9 

TELEPHONE: (973) 658-1 COO 

FACSIMILf; (S73)992-043 l 

May 25, 2010 

VIA EMAIL 

Yolanda Ayala Bernal, Esq. 

Safety Enforcement Branch 

Office of regional Counsel 

2601 Meacham Blvd. 

Fort Worth, TX 76193-0007 

Yolanda.a.bemal@faa.gov 

Re: FAA Case Number 2008SW2M 98 I^PlDSJ^OObS 

In the Matter of Maria Taveras \ffi(\ t^MO' O 3 iC» 

Dear Ms. Bernal: 

This lav/ firm represents Maria Taveras in the above-referenced case and I 

ask that, pursuant to 14 C.F.R. §13.220, you provide me v^ith the follov^ing 

discovery all of which is necessary to my preparation for the hearing that will be 

held on July 15. 2010 in the matter. 

1. Copies of any and all medical records or documents mentioning or 

relating in any way to the medical or psychological treatment of the 

flight attendant, concerning injuries or harm allegedly caused by my 

client. 

2. Copies of any and all exhibits you intend to Introduce In evidence at 

the hearing. 

3. Copies of any and all physical evidence. Including documents, in your 

possession which relates to this case. 

1 
NALVEN & SCHACHT 

Thank you for your attention to these requests. 

Very truly yours. 

Alexei Schacht 

cc: 

VIA EMAIL 

Hon. Isaac D. Benkin. Administrative Law Judge 

Office of Hearings, M-20 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue. S.E. 

Washington. D.C. 20590 

david.benkin@dot.gov 

VIA U.S. MAIL 

Hearing Docket 

Attn: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue. S.W. 

Wilbur Wright Building. Suite 2W2014 

Washington, D.C. 20591 

VIA U.S. MAIL 

Maria Taveras
# L_2015123EN.01012201.xml

| 19.5.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 123/122 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.5.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 123/122

---

Corrigendum to Regulation (EU) No 375/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 3 April 2014 establishing the European Voluntary Humanitarian Aid Corps (‘EU Aid Volunteers initiative’)

(
  Official Journal of the European Union L 122 of 24 April 2014
  )

On page 15, Article 24(2):

for:

‘2.   The power to adopt delegated acts referred to in Article 7(2), Article 9(2) and Article 20(3) shall be conferred on the Commission for a period of seven years from 25 April 2014.’

read:

‘2.   The power to adopt delegated acts referred to in Article 7(2), Article 9(2) and Article 20(3) and (4) shall be conferred on the Commission for a period of seven years from 25 April 2014.’

---
II 

109TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 2937 

To suspend temporarily the duty on formulations of thiamethoxam, 

difenoconazole, fludioxinil, and mefenoxam. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MAY 23, 2006 

Mr. CARPER introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To suspend temporarily the duty on formulations of 

thiamethoxam, difenoconazole, fludioxinil, and mefenoxam. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. FORMULATIONS OF THIAMETHOXAM, 

4 DIFENOCONAZOLE, FLUDIOXINIL, AND 

5 MEFENOXAM. 

6 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subchapter II of chapter 99 of 

7 the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States is 

8 amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following 

9 new heading: 


hmoore on PROD1PC68 with HMBILLS
2 

•S 2937 IS 

‘‘ 9902.13.31 Formulations of 3-[(2- 

chloro-5- 

thiazolyl)methyl]tetrahydro5-methyl-N-nitro-1,3,5- 

oxadiazin-4-imine) 

(Thiamethoxam) (CAS No. 

153719–23–4 ); 1H-1,2,4- 

triazole, 1-[[2-[2-chloro-4-(4- 

chlorophenoxy)phenyl]-4- 

methyl- 1,3-dioxolan-2- 

yl]methyl]- (Difenoconazole) 

(CAS No. 119446–68–3); 

1H-Pyrrole-3-carbonitrile, 4- 

(2,2-difluoro-1,3-benzodioxol4-yl)- (Fludioxinil) (CAS No. 

131341–86–1); and (R,S)–2- 

[(2,6- 

dimethylphenylmethoxy)acetylamino]-propionic 

acid methyl ester 

(Mefenoxam) (CAS Nos. 

70630–17–0 and 69516–34– 

3) (provided for in subheading 3808.20.15) ............ Free No change No change On or before 

12/31/2009 ’’. 

1 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

2 subsection (a) applies to goods entered, or withdrawn from 

3 warehouse for consumption, on or after the 15th day after 

4 the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


hmoore on PROD1PC68 with HMBILLS
Subpart 231.1 - APPLICABILITY

Parent topic: Part 231 - CONTRACT COST PRINCIPLES AND PROCEDURES

231.100 Scope of subpart.

231.100-70 Contract clause.

Use the clause at 252.231-7000 , Supplemental Cost Principles, in all solicitations and contracts,

which are subject to the principles and procedures described in FAR Subparts 31.1, 31.2, 31.6, and

31.7.

When awarding qualified contracts in conjunction with the conveyance of a utility system under 10

U.S.C. 2688, "Utility Systems: Conveyance Authority," see DoD Class Deviation 2011-O0006, Utilities

Privatization –Class Deviation from FAR Part 31, dated March 31, 2011. This deviation is effective

until incorporated into the DFARS or rescinded.
48.104-4 Sharing alternative-no-cost

settlement method.

In selecting an appropriate mechanism for incorporating a VECP into a contract, the contracting

officer shall analyze the different approaches available to determine which one would be in the

Government’s best interest. Contracting officers should balance the administrative costs of

negotiating a settlement against the anticipated savings. A no-cost settlement may be used if, in the

contracting officer’s judgment, reliance on other VECP approaches likely would not be more costeffective, and the no-cost settlement would provide adequate consideration to the Government.

Under this method of settlement, the contractor would keep all of the savings on the instant

contract, and all savings on its concurrent contracts only. The Government would keep all savings

resulting from concurrent contracts placed with other sources, savings from all future contracts, and

all collateral savings. Use of this method must be by mutual agreement of both parties for individual

VECPs.

Parent topic: 48.104 Sharing arrangements.
### NUMBER 13 - 16 - 00471 - CR COURT OF APPEALS THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

IN RE JESUS HECTOR TORRES LEDEZMA

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.

MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Garza and Longoria

Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam 1
Relator Jesus Hector Torres Ledezma filed a p etition for writ of mandamus in the
above cause on A ugust 23 , 2016, seeking to compel the trial court to provide him with “an informal competency hearing based on linguistic competency.” The Court requested and received a response to the petition for writ of mandamus from the real party in interest, the State of Texas acting by and through the District Attor ney of Cameron County, Texas

.

1 See T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 52.8(d) ( “ When denying relief, the court may hand down an opinion but is not required to do so. ” ); T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 47.4 (distinguishing opinions and memorandum opinions).2

To be entitled to mandamus relief, the relator must establish both that he has no adequate remedy at law to redress his alleged harm, and that what he seeks to compel
is a purely ministerial act not involving a discretionary o r judicial decision. In re Harris , 491 S.W.3d 332, 334 (Tex. Crim. App. 2016) (orig. proceeding); In re McCann , 422 S.W.3d 701, 704 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (orig. proceeding). If the relator fails to meet both of these requirements, then the petition for writ of mandamus should be denied. State ex rel. Young v. Sixth Jud. Dist. Ct

. of App s. at Texarkana , 236 S.W.3d 207, 210 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007). The Court, having examined and fully considered the petition for writ of mandamus , the response, and the applicable law, is of the opinion that the relator has not met his burden to obtain mandamus relief. See State ex rel. Young , 236 S.W.3d at 210. Accordingly, we deny the petitio n for writ of mandamus and all relief sought therein

. See
T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 52.8(a). We dismiss r elator's motion for leave to file his petition for writ of mandamus as moot. The Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure no longer require the relator to file a motion for leave to file an original proceeding. See generally T EX

. R

. A PP

. P . 52 & cmt. ; In re Kellum , 307 S.W.3d 336 (Tex. App.

— San Antonio 2009, orig. proceeding).

PER CURIAM Do not publish. T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 47.2(b).
D elivered and filed this 6th day of September, 2016

.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                         683,171
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                      10,465,777
<DEPRECIATION>                             (5,252,535)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               6,108,171
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                      5,967,218
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 6,108,171
<SALES>                                        558,423
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               567,127
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               473,646
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             138,763
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (45,282)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (45,282)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
Exhibit 35
                                   ----------


<PAGE>

                       COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS SERVICING LP


                              OFFICERS' CERTIFICATE
                     ANNUAL STATEMENT OF THE MASTER SERVICER


                                   CWABS, INC.
                 CWABS ASSET-BACKED CERTIFICATES TRUST 2006-BC4
                   ASSET-BACKED CERTIFICATES, SERIES 2006-BC4


     The undersigned does hereby certify that the undersigned is an officer of
Countrywide GP, Inc., general partner of Countrywide Home Loans Servicing LP
(the "Master Servicer"), and does hereby further certify pursuant to Section
3.17 of the Pooling and Servicing Agreement for the above-captioned Series (the
"Agreement") that:

(i) A review of the activities of the Master Servicer during the preceding
calendar year and of the performance of the Master Servicer under the Agreement
has been made under my supervision; and

(ii) To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Master Servicer has
fulfilled all of its obligations under the Agreement in all material respects
throughout such calendar year.




/s/ Craig Baingo                                    Dated: March 14, 2007
-----------------

Craig Baingo
Executive Vice President, Finance
Supplemental Confirmation



 Exhibit 10.2 
 [UBS Investment Bank logo] 
 SUPPLEMENTAL CONFIRMATION 
 February 18, 2009 
 Electronics For
Imaging, Inc. 
 303 Velocity Way, 
 Foster City, CA
94404 
 (650) 357-3500 
 The
purpose of this Supplemental Confirmation is to confirm the terms and conditions of the Transaction entered into between UBS, AG, London Branch (“Seller”) and Electronics For Imaging, Inc. (“Purchaser”) on the
Execution Date specified below. This Supplemental Confirmation is a binding contract between Seller and Purchaser as of the relevant Execution Date for the Transaction referenced below. 
 This Supplemental Confirmation supplements, forms part of, and is subject to the Master Confirmation dated as of February 18, 2009 (the
“Master Confirmation”) between Seller and Purchaser, as amended and supplemented from time to time. All provisions contained in the Master Confirmation govern this Supplemental Confirmation except as expressly modified below.

 The terms of the Transaction to which this Supplemental Confirmation relates are as follows: 
  

			
		
	 Execution Date:
	  	February 18, 2009.
		
	 Execution Price:
	  	USD 9.00
		
	 Purchase Price:
	  	USD 30,000,000
		
	 Valuation Price Adjustment Amount:
	  	USD [***]
		
	 First Day of the Hedging Period:
	  	February 19, 2009
		
	 Minimum Number of Trading Days in the Averaging Period:
	  	[***]
		
	 Maximum Number of Trading Days in the Averaging Period:
	  	[***]
		
	 Upside Threshold Percentage:
	  	[***]%

 This Supplemental Confirmation may be executed in any number of counterparts, all of which shall
constitute one and the same instrument, and any party hereto may execute this Supplemental Confirmation by signing and delivering one or more counterparts. 
  

   
  

	***  	Note: Confidential treatment has been requested with respect to the information contained within the [***] marking. Such portions have been omitted from this filing and have been
filed separately with the Securities and Exchange Commission. 









 Purchaser hereby agrees (a) to check this Supplemental Confirmation carefully and immediately upon receipt so that
errors or discrepancies can be promptly identified and rectified and (b) to confirm that the foregoing correctly sets forth the terms of the agreement between Seller and Purchaser with respect to this Transaction, by manually signing this
Supplemental Confirmation or this page hereof as evidence of agreement to such terms and providing the other information requested herein and immediately returning an executed copy to Equities Legal, 677 Washington Boulevard, Stamford, Connecticut,
06901, Facsimile No: (203) 719-5627, with a copy to Structured Equity Capital Markets Group, 299 Park Avenue, New York, New York, 10171, Facsimile No: (212) 821-4610 
  

			
	Yours sincerely,
	
	UBS AG, LONDON BRANCH
		
	By: 	 	/s/ Mark Dalton
		 	Name: Mark Dalton
		 	Title: Executive Director
		
	By: 	 	/s/ Michael Harris
		 	Name: Michael Harris
		 	Title: Executive Director


 Agreed and Accepted: 
  

			
	ELECTRONICS FOR IMAGING, INC.
		
	By:	 	/s/ John Ritchie
	Name:	 	John Ritchie
	Title:	 	Chief Financial Officer
# L_2016330DE.01001101.xml

| 3.12.2016 | DE | Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union | L 330/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.12.2016

DE

Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union

L 330/11

---

Berichtigung der Verordnung (EU) Nr. 1300/2013 des Europäischen Parlaments und des Rates vom 17. Dezember 2013 über den Kohäsionsfonds und zur Aufhebung der Verordnung (EG) Nr. 1084/2006

(
  Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union L 347 vom 20. Dezember 2013
  )

Auf Seite 284, Artikel 5 Absätze 2 und 3:

Anstatt:

„(2)   Für gemeinsame und programmspezifische Outputindikatoren werden die Ausgangswerte auf Null gesetzt. Für das Jahr 2023 werden kumulative quantifizierte Zielwerte für diese Indikatoren festgelegt.

(3)   Bei den programmspezifischen Ergebnisindikatoren mit Bezug auf die Investitionsprioritäten werden die Ausgangswerte aufgrund der neuesten verfügbaren Daten und Ziele für das Jahr 2023 festgelegt. Die Zielvorgaben können quantitativ oder qualitativ formuliert sein.“

muss es heißen:

„(2)   Für gemeinsame und programmspezifische Outputindikatoren werden die Ausgangswerte auf Null gesetzt. Für das Jahr 2023 werden kumulative quantifizierte Sollvorgaben für diese Indikatoren festgelegt.

(3)   Bei den programmspezifischen Ergebnisindikatoren mit Bezug auf die Investitionsprioritäten werden für die Ausgangswerte die neuesten verfügbaren Daten verwendet, und die Sollvorgaben werden für das Jahr 2023 festgelegt. Die Sollvorgaben können quantitativ oder qualitativ formuliert sein.“

---
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

August 6, 2020

No. 04-20-00226-CV

Abelardo G. GONZALEZ, Individually and as Next Friend of M.A.G. and Z.A.G.,

Appellant

v.

Alberto J. GONZALEZ, Sergio R. Gonzalez, Rosalinda Gonzalez, and Diana Gonzalez,

Appellees

From the 341st Judicial District Court, Webb County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2018CVH001007D3

Honorable Karen H. Pozza, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

Appellant, pro se, has filed a motion requesting access to the clerk's record. We grant the 

motion. We order the clerk of this court to make a copy of the clerk's record and send it to 

appellant.

_________________________________

Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 6th day of August, 2020.

___________________________________

MICHAEL A. CRUZ, Clerk of Court
---

Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the annual report on Form 10-K of Yellowcake
Mining Inc. for the period ended July 31, 2009, the undersigned, William Tafuri,
hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to his
knowledge:

| | 1. | The Form 10-K fully complies with the requirements of
      Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
      amended; and                             
| | -- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| |    |                                                                                                                                                                              
| | 2. | the information contained in the Form 10-K fairly
      presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
      operations of Yellowcake Mining Inc.

October 29, 2009



| | /s/
      William Tafuri                               
| | -------------------------------------------------------
| | William Tafuri                                         
| | President, Chief Financial Officer, Secretary,         
| | Treasurer, and Director                                
| | (Principal Executive Officer, Principal
      Financial
| | Officer and Principal Accounting Officer)              

A signed original of this written statement required by Section
906 has been provided to Yellowcake Mining Inc. and will be retained by
Yellowcake Mining Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission
or its staff upon request.

---
EX-10.2






Exhibit 10.2




May 6, 2009




STRICTLY CONFIDENTIAL




Premier Exhibitions, Inc.

3340 Peachtree Road, NE, Suite 2250

Atlanta, GA 30326




Dear Mr. Adams:




     Reference is made to the Note Purchase Agreement, dated May 6, 2009 (the “Purchase
Agreement”), by and between Premier Exhibitions, Inc. (the “Company”) and Sellers
Capital Master Fund, Ltd. (“Sellers Capital”), the Convertible Note, Warrant, Registration
Rights Agreement and other Transaction Documents (collectively, the “Financing Documents”).
Capitalized terms appearing herein but not defined herein have the meanings ascribed to such terms
in Purchase Agreement or the Warrant, as applicable.



     If on or prior to 5:00 p.m. on Wednesday, May 20, 2009, the Board of Directors of the Company
(the “Board”) approves a transaction with Rick Kraniak, the proceeds of which will be used
to prepay the Convertible Note, in full, in accordance with its terms, then notwithstanding
anything to the contrary set forth in the Financing Documents, Sellers Capital shall only be
permitted to exercise the Warrant for up to fifty percent (50%) of that number of shares of Common
Stock for which the Warrant would, but for this letter agreement, have been exercisable in
accordance with its terms.



     This letter agreement, shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the internal laws
(and not the law of conflicts) of the State of New York. This letter shall agreement shall be
deemed to be a Transaction Document for purposes of the Purchase Agreement.



     This letter agreement may be signed in counterparts and delivered by facsimile or portable
document format (pdf).



	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	Very truly yours,	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	SELLERS CAPITAL MASTER FUND, LTD.	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 

	 	By:

Name:
	 	/s/ Samuel S. Weiser
 

Samuel S. Weiser
	 	 
	 

	 	Title:
	 	Chief Operating Officer	 	 






	 	 	 	 	 
	Accepted as of the date written above:	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 
	PREMIER EXHIBITIONS, INC.	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 
	By:

	 	/s/ Christopher J. Davino
 

Mr. Christopher J. Davino
	 	 
	 

	 	Interim President & Chief Executive Officer
#### In the Matter of Elliot Saltzman, as Judgment Creditor of Bert Liebman, et al., Appellants-Respondents, v Robert Nova, Respondent-Appellant, and Hamilton Equities, Inc., et al., Respondents.

Order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, New York County, entered January 16, 1979, insofar as appealed from, denying Saltzman’s application for judgment against Hamilton Equities, Inc., and Hamilton Equities Company, modified, on the law, by directing judgment against Hamilton Equities, Inc., and by granting Saltzman leave to renew the branch of the application as against Hamilton Equities Company at Special Term upon presentation of the proper proof, or to take such other action as is appropriate and, as modified, affirmed, without costs. Cross appeal of Robert Nova from that same order and judgment dismissed as abandoned, without costs. The agreement of May 15, 1974 was assigned by the Pullmans to Hamilton Equities, Inc. (Hamilton) prior to the agreement of March 21, 1975. The latter agreement recognizes this assignment and is, in fact, executed by Alan Pullman in his capacity as vice-president of Hamilton. Because Hamilton is a party to the agreement of March 21, 1975, it is obligated under paragraph one thereof to indemnify the Liebmans for Saltzman’s claims arising prior to the agreement of May 15, 1974. Hence, Hamilton is liable for the unsatisfied judgment obtained by Saltzman against the Liebmans. In view of the fact that Hamilton was not a party to the agreement of July 21, 1975, this last agreement could not affect Hamilton’s continuing obligation of indemnification under the agreement of March 21, 1975. Saltzman did not adequately establish in his present papers that Hamilton Equities Company is the "alter ego” of Robert Nova. Nonetheless, since there is some indication in the record that Saltzman may be able to establish that fact, the branch of the application seeking recovery against Hamilton Equities Company is denied with leave to renew at Special Term upon the presentation of proper proof in that matter, or to take such other action as is appropriate. Concur —Murphy, P. J., Sullivan, Silverman, Bloom and Yesawich, JJ.
#### § 52.10 When application may be rejected.

An application for inspection service may be rejected by the Administrator (a) for non-compliance by the applicant with the regulations in this part, (b) for non-payment for previous inspection services rendered, (c) when the product is not properly identifiable by code or other marks, or (d) when it appears that to perform the inspection service would not be to the best interests of the Government. Such applicant shall be promptly notified of the reason for such rejection.