alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
March 30, 2011


Moore, Oklahoma


THIS NOTE HAS NOT BEEN REGISTERED OR QUALIFIED UNDER THE SECURITIES ACT OF 1933, AS AMENDED, OR ANY STATE SECURITIES LAW (COLLECTIVELY, THE "SECURITIES LAWS"), AND HAS BEEN ACQUIRED FOR INVESTMENT AND NOT WITH A VIEW TO, OR IN CONNECTION WITH, THE SALE OR DISTRIBUTION THEREOF. THIS NOTE MAY NOT BE SOLD, OFFERED FOR SALE OR OTHERWISE TRANSFERRED UNLESS IT (I) IS REGISTERED OR QUALIFIED UNDER ALL APPLICABLE SECURITIES LAWS OR (II) IS EXEMPT FROM REGISTRATION OR QUALIFICATION UNDER SUCH LAWS AND THE ISSUER IS PROVIDED WITH AN OPINION OF COUNSEL SATISFACTORY TO THE ISSUER THAT SUCH REGISTRATION OR QUALIFICATION IS NOT REQUIRED.


PROMISSORY NOTE


FOR VALUE RECEIVED, Vaughan Foods, Inc., an Oklahoma corporation (“Debtor”), promises to pay to Apollo Biz Solutions, LLC., (“Lender”), at the offices of the Debtor, on the dates listed in Schedule A (the “Maturity Dates”) the principal sum of SEVEN HUNDRED FIFTY EIGHT THOUSAND, TWO HUNDRED FIVE DOLLARS  ($758,205.00), together with interest thereon at the rate of five and one-half percent (5.5%) per annum, compounded weekly.


If this Note, or any payment hereunder, falls due on a Saturday, Sunday or a day that is a public holiday in the State of Oklahoma, this Note shall become due or such payment hereunder, shall be made on the next succeeding business day and such additional time shall be included in the computation of any interest payable hereunder.


Debtor may at its option prepay all or any part of the unpaid principal amount of this Note and accrued interest thereon, without premium or penalty. Any partial prepayment shall be applied first to interest and the remaining balance of such payment, if any, to principal.  If any provision of this Note would require Debtor to pay interest hereon at a rate exceeding the highest rate allowed by applicable law, Debtor shall instead pay interest under this Note at the highest rate permitted by applicable law.


This Note and the indebtedness evidenced thereby is and shall be junior and subordinate in all respects to the payment of all indebtedness of the Debtor for borrowed money, including without limitation, indebtedness evidenced by that certain Loan And Security Agreement entered into as of March 6, 2009, by and between Peninsula Bank Business Funding, a division of The Private Bank of the Peninsula (“Bank”) and Vaughan Foods, Inc. and Wild About Food - Oklahoma LLC., and related loan agreements, as the same may be renewed, amended or extended after the date hereof.


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Debtor has executed this Promissory Note as of the date first above written.  The effective date of this Note is December 31, 2010.


Vaughan Foods, Inc. (“Debtor”)


/s/ Gene P. Jones


By: Gene P. Jones


Secretary, Treasurer and Chief Financial Officer








---




Agreed:


Apollo Biz Solutions, LLC


/s/ Jim Underwood


By: Jim Underwood


Managing Partner & Chief Architect
Subpart 729.4—Contract Clauses    **Parent topic:** PART 729—TAXES729.402-70 Foreign contracts.       (a) The annual Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs Appropriations Act (SFOAA) requires USAID to take certain steps to prevent countries from imposing taxes, including value added tax (VAT) and customs duties, on U.S. foreign assistance, or if imposed, requires the countries to reimburse the assessed taxes or duties. The SFOAA also requires certain reporting to Congress on host country taxation. Because countries imposing such taxes assess them directly on contractors, USAID requires contractors to report annually on whether taxes have been imposed and, if so, whether the foreign government reimbursed the taxes.          (b) The contracting officer must insert the clause at § 752.229–71, Reporting of Foreign Taxes, in solicitations and resulting contracts when:          (1) A contract is fully or partially funded with funds appropriated under titles III through VI of an SFOAA making appropriations for the Department of State, foreign operations, and related programs, and          (2) The contract is to be performed wholly or partly in a foreign country.
Case 2:06-cv-00707-ID-CSC Document 9 Filed 06/28/2007 Page 1 of 3
Case 2:06-cv-00707-ID-CSC Document 9 Filed 06/28/2007 Page 2 of 3
Case 2:06-cv-00707-ID-CSC Document 9 Filed 06/28/2007 Page 3 of 3
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
Company's Consolidated Balance Sheet dated June 30, 1997 and its
Consolidated Statement of Operations covering the period from October 1,
1996 to June 30, 1997 and is qualified in its entirety by reference
to such financial statement and notes thereof.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                            <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                          466173
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    30460
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    7043279
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                         3285833
<DEPRECIATION>                                 2153896
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 9465891
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                        1839522
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                          5918
<OTHER-SE>                                     7335348
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   9465891
<SALES>                                        2442715
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               2442715
<CGS>                                           653320
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   653320
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               1503681
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              149749
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 655019
<INCOME-TAX>                                      7444
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             647575
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    647575
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .19
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .19
        



</TABLE>
#### § 985.14 Part and subpart.

*Part* means the order regulating the handling of oil grown in the production area, and all rules and regulations issued thereunder. The order shall be a *subpart* of such part.
#### Jeffry Kennedy, an Infant, by Roddie Kennedy, His Parent, et al., Respondents, v. Robert E. Cromer, Appellant.

Sweeney, J.

Appeal (1) from a judgment of the Supreme Court, entered October 7, 1968 in Fulton County, on a verdict in favor of the infant plaintiff and his father, and (2) from an order of said court, entered March 14, 1969, which denied defendant’s motion to set aside the verdict. This is a negligence action. On April 5, 1965 the infant plaintiff, age six, was crossing Forest Street in a southerly direction at its intersection with Montgomery Street in the City of Gloversville when he was in collision with defendant’s vehicle which was proceeding westerly on Montgomery Street. The boy sustained severe injuries, and the jury awarded *860him $20,000 and his father $2,200 for the derivative action for medical expenses and loss of services. To prove their case the plaintiffs relied strongly on the testimony of the father who testified he saw the accident from a window on the north side of his house, which is located some 160 feet southwest of the intersection. He testified that the defendant was traveling .around 40, 45 miles an hour; that there was no change in the car’s direction until after it hit the boy; that he heard the squealing of brakes and later saw the skid marks; and that he heard no horn. Defendant contends it was physically impossible for the father to see the accident from his position at the window because of the obstruction to his view by a tree. Both sides offered photographs to show the view from the house to the intersection. Defendant testified that his speed was 20, 25 miles an hour, and that the boy ran, head down, into the road and collided with the side of the car. This conflicting evidence presented questions of fact which were for the jury to determine. *(Wilday*v. *King,*33 A D 2d 970.) If the jury believed the father saw the accident and accepted his version, and rejected that of the defendant, which it had a right to do, there is ample proof to substantiate the verdict. It must be kept in mind that a six-year-old infant is required to use only that care and caution expected of a child of his years, experience and intelligence, and whether the infant plaintiff did, or did not, was also a question of fact for the jury to determine. *(Ramirez*v. *Perlman,*284 App. Div. 82.) The jury accepted plaintiff’s testimony and we find no reason to disturb its finding. The defendant also contends that the verdicts are excessive. . The infant plaintiff was seriously injured. He was rendered unconscious; he sustained a compound comminuted skull fracture which necessitated an operation to repair the damage; he also sustained certain permanent scars. While he had a good recovery, we cannot say the verdict was excessive *(Bischert*v. *Limousine Rental Serv.,*33 A D 2d 355.) Judgments and orders affirmed, with costs. Herlihy, P. J., Aulisi, Staley, Jr., Cooke and Sweeney, JJ., concur in memorandum by Sweeney, J.
Document No. 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

VS CASE NO. 5:91cr5008LAC

THOMAS L. STEPHENS

REFERRAL AND ORDER

Referred to Judge Lacey Collier on November 16, 2006

Motion/Pleadings: INDEPENDENT ACTION UNDER RULE 60(b) SAVINGS CLAUSE 

Filed byDEFENDANT PRO SE on 10/23/2006 Doc.# 200

RESPONSES:

GOVERNMENT on 12/1/2006 Doc.# 201

on Doc.#

Stipulated Joint Pldg.

Unopposed Consented

WILLIAM M. McCOOL, CLERK OF COURT

s/Mary Maloy

LC (1 OR 2) Deputy Clerk: Mary Maloy

ORDER

Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is ORDERED this 5th day of

December, 2006, that:

(a) The relief requested is DENIED as untimely and on the merits.

(b) The Court adopts the well stated reasoning presented in the Government’s

response 

 s/L.A. Collier 

LACEY A. COLLIER

Senior United States District Judge

Entered On Docket: By: 

Rules 58 & 79(a) FRCP or 32(d)(1) & 55 FRCRP

Copies sent to:

Case 5:91-cr-05008-WS-CAS Document 202 Filed 12/05/06 Page 1 of 1
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 9
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                          26,490
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                             839
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                 6,047
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                    127,789
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                               0
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                                 0
<LOANS>                                        384,977
<ALLOWANCE>                                      4,572
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 574,709
<DEPOSITS>                                     471,689
<SHORT-TERM>                                    14,156
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                              4,920
<LONG-TERM>                                     27,617
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           519
<OTHER-SE>                                      55,808
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                 574,709
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                 16,877
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                3,984
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                   297
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                21,158
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                               7,851
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               8,846
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                           12,312
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                    1,580
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                 162
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                 10,724
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  3,640
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                       3,640
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     2,432
<EPS-BASIC>                                      .47
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .47
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    4.77
<LOANS-NON>                                      3,260
<LOANS-PAST>                                         0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                    30
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                  8,418
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                 4,291
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                    1,677
<RECOVERIES>                                       378
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                4,572
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                             4,572
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                          2,653


</TABLE>
## Department of Energy Wasninaton, DC 20585 April 21, 1993

Mr. Michael Thompson Director, Government Relations Whirlpool Corporation Mail Drop 3004 2000 M-63 Benton Harbor, MI 49022

Dear Mr. Thompson:
This is in response to your letter of January 15, 1993, requesting clarification of the Department of Energy (Department or DOE) clothes washer test procedure regarding the wash/rinse temperature requirement in section 3.2.2.2 as published in the Federal Register on September 28, 1977 (42 FR 49808) and incorporated into the Code of Federal Regulations at 10 CFR Part 430, Subpart B, Appendix J.
Your letter is similar in content to your earlier letter of October 19, 1992, which requested clarification of essentially the same issue. In DOE's response, dated December 18, 1992 (copy enclosed), the Department stated: "DOE does not agree with Whirlpool's interpretation of having the option to define the normal cycle as excluding the hottest setting and thereby test clothes washers only at cooler temperature settings... DOE believes that Whirlpool must set the temperature switch to the hottest setting available (i.e, hot/warm) after the normal cycle is selected as required in section 3.2.2.2. This is followed by testing at the other wash/rinse temperature selectors available that use hot water (i.e., hot/cold, warm/warm, and warm/cold) as required in section 3.2.2.6 in order to test and certify clothes washers in accordance to the DOE test procedure (Appendix J to Subpart B of Part 430)."

After a second extensive review regarding section 3.2.2.2, the Department affirms its initial determination to reject Whirlpool's proposed test compliance method where clothes washers that offer warm rinse are tested only at cooler temperature settings (i.e., hot/cold and warm/cold). The clothes washer test procedure is intended, inter alia, to provide an estimate of annual energy consumption. To provide comparable annual energy consumption among clothes washers, the Department believes that all of the temperature combinations covered by the Temperature Use Factors (TUFs), and available to the consumer, must be tested. Each TUF combination offered must-be tested using the cycle which is normal or available for that temperature combination. Locking out the warm rinse in the "normal" cycle and then offering it on another cycle does not exempt the Whirlpool Corporation from the compliance requirement in section 3.2.2.2 of the DOE clothes washer test procedure. DOE believes that this "newly-named " cycle becomes the "normal" cycle for those TUF covered temperature combinations that are not offered on the cycle labeled as "normal."2

The Department believes the above interpretation pertaining to the inclusion of all available wash/rinse temperature combinations covered by the TUFs for clothes washer test compliance will provide comparable test results among all clothes washers.

If you should have any additional questions , please contact William Hui of my staff at (202) 586-9127.
Sincerely,

rLr M.i cha,&Yhl . McCabe, Director Office'of Codes and Standards Office of Building Technologies Conservation and Renewable Energy

Enclosure
N OTE : This disposition is nonprecedential. 

# United States **Court of Appeals**  **for the Federal Circuit**

______________________ CG TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT, LLC, INTERACTIVE GAMES LIMITED, INTERACTIVE GAMES LLC, Plaintiffs

- Appellants

v.

FANDUEL, INC., Defendant

- Appellee

______________________

2020

- 1695

______________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Delaware in No. 1:17

- cv

- 01041

- RGA, Judge Richard G. Andrews.

______________________

JUDGMENT

______________________

J ASON L EE R OMRELL
, Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow,Garrett & Dunner, LLP, Washington, DC, argued for plaintiffs

- appellants. Also represented by J AMES R. B ARNEY
, C ORA R ENAE H OLT
, J. M ICHAEL J AKES
, R OB ERT S HAFFER

.

M EGAN J OANNA R EDMOND
, Erise IP, P.A., Overland Park, KS, argued for defendant

- appellee. Also represented by C AROLINE A. B ADER
, E RIC A LLAN B URESH

. Case: 20-1695 Document: 49 Page: 1 Filed: 09/10/2021______________________

T HIS C AUSE ha ving been heard and considered, it is

O RDERED and A DJUDGED :

P ER C URIAM (N EWMAN
, O’M ALLEY
, and T ARANTO
, Circuit Judges ).

AFFIRMED. See Fed . Cir. R. 36.

E NTERED BY O RDER OF THE C OURT

September 10, 2021 Date /s/ Peter R. Marksteiner Peter R. Marksteiner Clerk of Court Case: 20-1695 Document: 49 Page: 2 Filed: 09/10/2021
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND

CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

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 accompanying annual Report on Form 10-K of General Automotive Company for the year ended
December 31, 2008, I certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to my knowledge, that:



|1. | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) 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 of the Company as of the dates presented and the consolidated
result of operations of the Company for the periods presented.
|-- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



By:

/s/ Joseph DeFrancisciName:

Joseph DeFrancisciTitle:

Chief Executive OfficerDate:

April 15, 2009By:

/s/ Harry ChristensonName:

Harry ChristensonTitle:

Chief Financial OfficerDate:

April 15, 2009


This certification has been furnished solely pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to General Automotive Company and will be retained by General
Automotive Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Case 1:06-cr-00187-DRB Document 1 Filed 08/08/2006 Page 1 of 2
Case 1:06-cr-00187-DRB Document 1 Filed 08/08/2006 Page 2 of 2
Case 1:06-cv-00643-MHT-SRW Document 40 Filed 08/13/2007 Page 1 of 2
Case 1:06-cv-00643-MHT-SRW Document 40 Filed 08/13/2007 Page 2 of 2
#### § 97.1 General.

Certificates of protection are issued by the Plant Variety Protection office for new, distinct, uniform, and stable varieties of sexually reproduced, tuber propagated, or asexually reproduced plants. Each certificate of plant variety protection certifies that the breeder has the right, during the term of the protection, to prevent others from selling the variety, offering it for sale, reproducing it, importing or exporting it, conditioning it, stocking it, or using it in producing a hybrid or different variety from it, as provided by the Act.

[85 FR 430, Jan. 6, 2020]
§ 956.63 Handling for specified purposes. Upon the basis of recommendations and information submitted by the committee, or other available information, the Secretary may issue special regulations, or modify, suspend, or terminate requirements in effect pursuant to §§ 956.42 and 956.62 or any combination thereof, in order to facilitate the handling of onions for the following purposes: ( a ) Shipments of Walla Walla Sweet Onions for relief or to charitable institutions;
( b ) Shipments of Walla Walla Sweet Onions for livestock feed;
( c ) Shipments of Walla Walla Sweet Onions for planting and for plants;
( d ) Shipments of Walla Walla Sweet Onions as salad onions;
( e ) Shipments of Walla Walla Sweet Onions for all processing uses including, pickling, peeling, dehydration, juicing, or other processing;
( f ) Shipments of Walla Walla Sweet Onions for disposal;
( g ) Shipments of Walla Walla Sweet Onions for seed;
( h ) Shipments of Walla Walla Sweet Onions for packing or storing within the production area or outside the production area, but within specified locations in the States of Oregon and Washington; and
( i ) Shipments of Walla Walla Sweet Onions for other purposes which may be specified.
#### In the Matter of the Claim of George H. McNeill, Appellant. Martin P. Catherwood, as Industrial Commissioner, Respondent.

Greenblott, J.

Appeal 'by the claimant from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed October 2, 1968, which held him ineligible for unemployment insurance ¡benefits on the ground he voluntarily left his employment without good cause by provoking his discharge. Appellant was a cook in a restaurant and when his superior, the chef, summoned the assistant manager to deal with his loud and disruptive behavior in the kitchen, and the assistant manager tried to ascertain the cause of the -difficulty, appellant refused to talk with him. The findings as to the reason for appellant’s separation from employment and that such separation was without “ good cause”, within the meaning of section 593 (subd. 1, par. [a]) of the Labor Law, are factual determinations within the sole province of the board if supported by substantial evidence *(Matter of Hasbrouck [Catherwood],*28 A D 2d 621). While appellant advances various explanations for his discharge, the board properly found that he provoked his discharge as he “knew or should have known that his refusal to speak to the assistant manager con*718stituted insubordination for which his discharge could ensue.” Decision affirmed, without costs. Gibson, P. J., Herlihy, Reynolds, Staley, Jr., and Greenblott, JJ., concur in memorandum by Greenblott, J.