alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 10.3


 


This correspondence confirms the agreement entered into by
and between Arazu, Inc., a Florida Corporation (the “Company”) with and Elliott Polatoff, an individual (the “Service
Provider”).


 


Whereas, the Service Provider shall perform certain services
(the “Services”) rendered to the Company and desires to be compensated for such services in cash and shares of common
stock of the Company (the “Common Shares”) and the Company desires to compensate the Service Provider with cash and
Common Shares as set forth herein. Now therefore, in consideration of the mutual promises and covenants the Company and Service
Provider acknowledge and agree as follows:


 


		1.	Service Provider is to provide the following services to the Company:



 


		a.	Advise on US business operations



 


		b.	Assistance with finding local staff



 


		c.	Assistance in finding suitable local premises



 


		d.	Liason with any US based staff, contractors or interested parties after UK hours



 


		e.	Help is developing business strategy



 


		f.	Project Management Services



 


		2.	The Services Provider is to commence the Services on April 1st 2014 and completed the Services on September 30th
2014.



 


		3.	The Services are to be provided in a professional and workman like manner in accordance with good industry practices.



 


		4.	The Service Provider is an independent contractor and not an employee or agent of the Company.  The Company did not, will
not and is not required to make social security, workers’ compensation, or unemployment insurance payments on behalf of the
Service Provider.



 


		5.	As payment for the services, the Service Provider shall receive 1,020,000 of the Common Shares in total plus $5,000 per month.
The shares shall be issued upon signing. The cash portion is earned monthly, but can be accrued until the contract is complete
by mutual agreement.



 


		6.	Upon issuance the Common Shares shall be validly issued, fully paid and non-assessable.



 


Agreed and Accepted on this 1st day of March 2014.


 


Arazu, Inc.


 


By :________________________     (Signature)


 


       Paul
Clewlow     (Print Name)


 


Service Provider


By : ________________________     (Signature)


        Elliott
Polatoff    (Print Name)
#### In the Matter of the Claim of Frances Scherbner, Respondent, v. Masmil Corp. et al., Appellants. Workmen’s Compensation Board, Respondent.

Cooke, J.

Appeal from a decision of the Workmen’s Compensation Board, filed May 16, 1969, which found that claimant was exposed to carbon tetrachloride in her work activity and that this caused atrophy of the opt.ic nerves resulting in blindness. Claimant, a clerk in a dry cleaning establishment for two years, testified that among her duties was the “ pre-spotting ” of clothing, that from April to June of 1965 she performed this detail of her work four to six hours daily, that thereafter and until December this task was done from one to two hours per day, that the solvent used was carbon tetrachloride, that when applying it she would bend over the material being rubbed and that a rag wet with the excess of the liquid, which had been applied, was kept nearby. Although never previously the victim of eye trouble, on December 2, 1965, while attending a customer, she experienced a visual blackout and two days later was hospitalized and found to be totally blind. Her condition was diagnosed as “ Bi-laterial total optic atrophy secondary to optic neuritis arising as a result of toxicity due to exposure to noxious vapors from cleaning fluids”. One medical specialist testified that he would accept carbon tetrachloride as a possible cause for her blindness (cf. *Matter of Ernest*v. *Boggs Lake Estates,*12 N Y 2d 414; *Turner*v. *City of Newburgh,*109 N. Y. 301, 308; *McGrath*v. *Irving,*24 A D 2d 236, 238). Another stated that there are medical references that carbon tetrachloride has produced optic atrophy and that it is recognized that an overexposure to same could have a toxic effect upon the optic nerves. Although there is testimony indicating the non-exposure to carbon tetrachloride, questions of credibility are strictly within the province of the board *(Matter of Kinds*v. *Western Union Tel. Co.,*33 A D 2d 583, 584; *Matter of Wood*v. *Colonial Tavern é Best.,*22 A D 2d 984, mot. for lv. to app. den. 15 N Y 2d 486) and the mere fact that claimant’s version is supported by her own testimony does not prevent that proof from being credited as substantial evidence in support of the board’s decision *(Matter of Keller*v. *Moskowitz é Lupowitz,*28 A D 2d 581). Decision affirmed, with costs to the Workmen’s Compensation Board. Herlihy, P. J., Reynolds, Greenblott, Cobke and Sweeney, JJ., concur in memorandum by Cooke, J.
Subpart 752.3–70—USAID Clause Matrices

[Reserved]

Parent topic: PART 752—SOLICITATION PROVISIONS AND CONTRACT CLAUSES
U.S DepartmentofTransportation, Docket Operation West Building Ground Floor, Room w12-140 1200 NewJersey Avenue, SE Washington, DC 20590

Aerial Shots is writing pursuantto the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of2012, Public Law 112-95 FEB. 14, 2012, Section 333 and the procedures contained within 14C.F.R.ll, be exempt From the Federal Aviation Regulation as specified and seek exemption from the requirements of 14C.F.R. 

### §§ 61.113{a) 

### &(b), 91.7{a),91.121, 91.151{b), 91.405{a),91.407{a)(l), 91.409{a)(l) 

### &(a)(2), And 91.417{a) 

### & (b), to operate an Unmanned Aircraft System pursuantto Section 333 ofthe FAA Modernization and Reform Act of2012 {FMRA).

This exemption request will permitAerial Shots as the ownerof Unmanned AircraftSystem's {UAS) Forthe commercial purpose ofconducting aerial video and photography of Real Estate, perform Home and or business exterior inspections, agricultural inspections, and general photography.

Aerial Shots owns UAS vehicles, consisting of Dji Phantom 3's and their use will be forcommercial Photography and video for hire, namely, Real Estate Photography, home and or business exterior Inspections, wedding and events, increase public knowledge of UAS and promote safe UAS operations, Land and survey appraisals, and agricultural assessments on local farms as needed.

We have experienced pilots with the above mentioned aircraft and have over 10years ofexperience In radio control aircraft

. The above mentioned aircraft are GPS assisted for location based information, And include a "Return to Home" safety feature in case ofsignal loss. We will perform all pre-flight and Post-flight checks, and system/vehicle maintenance. All flights will be L.O.S. And will have a spotteras needed. All flightswill maintain less than 400' A.G.L. the Phantom 3 weighs three pounds. They are battery operated, which are quieteras notto disrupt surrounding neighbors and businesses. The aircrafts also have a safety feature in the software which will notallow itto spool up the motors ifwithin a certain distance ofClass A/B/C, etc

... Airports.

The use ofthese aircraft is financiallyviable as the costto the consumer is much less than hiringa full size aircraft and pilot. The aircraft are also safer and can access areas a full size aircraft can't. For home inspections, they also allow a total roof inspection withoutthe need ofladders and harnesses, which also creates a safer and less costly option tothe client.

James H. Brown Owner Aerial Shots 1306 Chippawa Ln. Pasadena, TX. 77504 (713}542-3256
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                             254
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                     2674
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                      17317
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0<F1>
<PP&E>                                             632
<DEPRECIATION>                                     570
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   25057
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0<F1>
<BONDS>                                          12751
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            30
<OTHER-SE>                                        8095
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     25057
<SALES>                                          14551
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 14626
<CGS>                                            12276
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    12650
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   1976
<INCOME-TAX>                                       270
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               1706
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                      1706
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .61
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .61
<FN>
<F1>The Company does not present a classified balance sheet
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
§ 966.124 Approved receiver. ( a ) *Approved receiver.* Any person who desires to acquire, as an approved receiver, tomatoes for purposes as set forth in § 966.120(a), shall annually, prior thereto, file an application with the committee on a form approved by it, which shall contain, but not be limited to, the following information: ( 1 ) Name, address, contact person, telephone number, and e-mail address of applicant;
( 2 ) Purpose of shipment;
( 3 ) Physical address of where manufacturing or other specified purpose is to occur;
( 4 ) Whether or not the receiver packs, repacks or sells fresh tomatoes;
( 5 ) A statement that the tomatoes obtained exempt from the fresh tomato regulations will not be resold or transferred for resale, directly or indirectly, but will be used only for the purpose specified in the corresponding certificate of privilege;
( 6 ) A statement agreeing to undergo random inspection by the committee;
( 7 ) A statement agreeing to submit such reports as is required by the committee.
( b ) The committee, or its duly authorized agents, shall give prompt consideration to each application for an approved receiver and shall determine whether the application is approved or disapproved and notify the applicant accordingly.
( c ) The committee, or its duly authorized agents, may rescind a person's approved receiver status upon proof satisfactory that such a receiver has handled tomatoes contrary to the provisions established under the Certificate of Privilege. Such action rescinding approved receiver status shall apply to and not exceed a reasonable period of time as determined by the committee or its duly authorized agents. Any person who has been denied as an approved receiver or who has had their approved receiver status rescinded, may appeal to the committee for reconsideration. Such an appeal shall be made in writing.
[70 FR 53540, Sept. 9, 2005]
Page 1 of 10
 

Page 2 of 10
 

 

 

 

 

 

Page 3 of 10
Page 4 of 10
 

 

 

 

 

 

Page 5 of 10
 

Page 6 of 10
 

 

Page 7 of 10
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Page 8 of 10
 

Page 9 of 10
 

Page 10 of 10
#### § 948.88 Agents.

The Secretary may, by designation in writing, name any person, including any officer or employee of the United States or name any agency in the United States Department of Agriculture, to act as his agent or representative in connection with any of the provisions of this subpart.
Subpart 925.1 - Buy American Act - Supplies

Parent topic: PART 925 - FOREIGN ACQUISITION

925.103 Exceptions.

(b) Nonavailabilty - (2)(i) Individual determinations. Contracting officers may make the

determination required by 48 CFR 25.103(b)(2)(i), provided such determination is factually

supported in writing. If the contract is estimated to exceed $1 million, the Head of the Contracting

Activity must approve the determination.

(ii) Proposals to add an article to the list of nonavailable articles at 48 CFR 25.104, with appropriate

justifications, must be submitted for approval by the Senior Procurement Executive and submission

to the appropriate council.
II 

109TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 3285 

To suspend temporarily the duty on wide-range high sensitivity color zoom 

digital security camera with optical lens zoom power 23x magnification. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MAY 26, 2006 

Mrs. FEINSTEIN introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 

referred to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To suspend temporarily the duty on wide-range high sensitivity color zoom digital security camera with optical 

lens zoom power 23x magnification. 

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

3 SECTION 1. WIDE-RANGE HIGH SENSITIVITY COLOR ZOOM 

4 DIGITAL SECURITY CAMERA WITH OPTICAL 

5 LENS ZOOM POWER 23X MAGNIFICATION. 

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: 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with BILLS
2 

•S 3285 IS 

‘‘ 9902.85.25 Wide-range high sensitivity high resolution color zoom digital security camera 

module with 360 viewing radius and custom designed digital signal processor 

(DSP) chip for automatic focus functions; 360,000 to 450,000 pixels image 

sensor, optical lens zoom power 23x magnification (provided for in subheading 

8525.30.90) ............................................. 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 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with BILLS
1406.502 Duties and responsibilities.

PAM is responsible for preparing and submitting the annual report required by FAR 6.502(b)(2).

Bureau Competition Advocates shall furnish certain information, as may be required, to assist PAM

in preparing the report.

Parent topic: Subpart 1406.5 - Competition Advocates
Case 2:06-cr-00169-WKW-SRW Document 431 Filed 10/22/2007 Page 1 of 1
#### § 923.16 Pack.

*Pack* means the specific arrangement, size, weight, count, or grade of a quantity of cherries in a particular type and size of container, or any combination thereof.
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

August 8, 2016

No. 04-16-00367-CV

IN RE A.B.C., A CHILD,

407th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2015-PA-01083

Honorable Richard Garcia, Judge Presiding

ORDER

The State’s Motion for Extension of Time to File Brief is GRANTED. The State’s brief 

is due on August 9, 2016.

_________________________________

Jason Pulliam, Justice

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

court on this 8th day of August, 2016.

___________________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 12**  **- 6036** 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,
v. LIONEL RAY HAIRSTON , Defendant

- Appellant
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia , at Roanoke
. Samuel G. Wilson , District Judge. ( 7:11

- cv - 80387

- SGW

- RSB; 7:98

- cr - 00097

- SGW

- RSB

- 1 )

Submitted : March 15, 2012 Decided: March 20, 2012

Before DUNCAN and FLOYD , Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion
. Lionel Ray Hairston, Appellant Pro Se. Donald Ray Wolthuis, Assistant United States Attorney, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Lionel Ray Hairston seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. A. § 2255 ( West Supp. 2011 ) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (B) (200 6 ). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (200 6 ). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by d emonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller

- El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336

- 38 (2003). When the distric t court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack , 529 U.S. at 484

- 85. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Hairston has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Hairston’s motion for a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the3 materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
###### Editorial Note on Part 982

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 982 appear at 61 FR 17559, Apr. 22, 1996.

#### § 982.1 Secretary.

*Secretary* means the Secretary of Agriculture of the United States, or any other officer or employee of the United States Department of Agriculture who is, or who may be, authorized to perform the duties of the Secretary of Agriculture of the United States.
Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter VIII
Authority: 7 U.S.C. 71-87K, 1621-1627.

Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter VIII
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to subchapter A appear at 84 FR 45645, Aug. 30, 2019.

§ 800.126 How to request reinspection or review of weighing services. ( a ) *General.* Requests shall be made with the agency or field office that performed the original service. All requests shall include the information specified in § 800.46. Verbal requests shall be confirmed in writing when requested by official personnel. Copies of request forms may be obtained from the agency or field office. If at the time the request is filed the documentation required by § 800.46 is not available, official personnel may, at their discretion, withhold services pending the receipt of the required documentation. A reinspection certificate or the results of a review of weighing service shall not be issued unless ( 1 ) the documentation requested under § 800.46 has been submitted or
( 2 ) official personnel determine sufficient information has been made available so as to perform the requested service. A record that sufficient information was made available shall be included in the record of the official service.
( b ) *Request requirements.* Requests will be considered filed on the date they are received by official personnel. A record shall be maintained for all requests. ( 1 ) *Reinspection services.* Requests shall be received ( i ) before the grain has left the specified service point where the grain was located when the original inspection was performed;
( ii ) no later than the close of business on the second business day following the date of the original inspection; and
( iii ) before the identity of the grain has been lost. If a representative file sample, as prescribed in § 800.82, is available, official personnel may waive the requirements pursuant to this subparagraph. The requirements of paragraph (b)(1)(i) of this section may be waived only upon written consent of the applicant and all interested persons. The requirements of paragraph (b)(1)(ii) and (iii) of this section may be waived at the request of the applicant or other interested persons. The requirement of paragraph (b)(1)(ii) of this section may also be waived upon satisfactory showing by an interested person of evidence of fraud or that because of distance or other good cause, the time allowed for filing was not sufficient. A record of each waiver shall be included in the record of the reinspection service.
( 2 ) *Review of weighing services.* Requests shall be received no later than 90 calendar days after the date of the original Class X or Class Y weighing service.
(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control number 0580-0012) [50 FR 45394, Oct. 31, 1985]
# Fourth Court of Appeals
San Antonio, Texas

December 20, 2021

No. 04

- 21

- 00325

- CV

ISI CONTRACTING, INC. and Guerra Construction,

Appellants

v.

Naomi MARKHAM, Carrie Markham, and Trevor Markham, Individually and as the

Administrator of the Estate of Joslyn Markham, Deceased,

Appellees

From the 73rd Judicial District Court

, B exar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2017CI01166 Honorable Antonia Arteaga , Judge Presiding



### O R D E R

Appellant s ’ reply brief

s are due on Dec ember 2 1

, 2021

. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 38.6(c).
Before t he due date , Appellant s filed a n unopposed motion for a n exten sion of time to file their reply brief

s

. Appellant s ’ motion is GRANTED

. Appellant s ’ reply briefs are due on January 12, 2022

. See id. R. 38.6(d).

_________________________________ Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said court on this 20th day of December, 2021

.

___________________________________ MI CHAEL A. CRUZ

, Clerk of Court
Case 2:06-cv-00714-MHT-WC Document 19 Filed 01/10/2007 Page 1 of 9
Case 2:06-cv-00714-MHT-WC Document 19 Filed 01/10/2007 Page 2 of 9
Case 2:06-cv-00714-MHT-WC Document 19 Filed 01/10/2007 Page 3 of 9
Case 2:06-cv-00714-MHT-WC Document 19 Filed 01/10/2007 Page 4 of 9
Case 2:06-cv-00714-MHT-WC Document 19 Filed 01/10/2007 Page 5 of 9
Case 2:06-cv-00714-MHT-WC Document 19 Filed 01/10/2007 Page 6 of 9
Case 2:06-cv-00714-MHT-WC Document 19 Filed 01/10/2007 Page 7 of 9
Case 2:06-cv-00714-MHT-WC Document 19 Filed 01/10/2007 Page 8 of 9
Case 2:06-cv-00714-MHT-WC Document 19 Filed 01/10/2007 Page 9 of 9
Case 2:06-cv-00714-MHT-WC Document 19-2 Filed 01/10/2007 Page 1 of 1
1334.202 Integrated baseline reviews.       An Integrated Baseline Review shall be conducted when an Earned Value Management System is required.    **Parent topic:** Subpart 1334.2 - Earned Value Management System