alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**Exhibit 10.95****AMENDMENT TO PROMISSORY NOTE**     This Amendment to the Promissory Note (the “Note”), dated as of September 27, 2006, executedby Sedona Corporation (the “Borrower”) payable to the order of David Vey (the “Lender”), in theprincipal amount of Five Hundred Thousand Dollars and 00/100 Cents ($500,000.00), is entered intoas of August 17, 2007.     **Whereas,** the Note was originally due to mature on August 17, 2007 (the “MaturityDate”); and     **Whereas,** Borrower has made no payments under the Note to date; and     **Whereas,**Lender and the Borrower desire to further extend the Maturity Date;     **Now Therefore,**for good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency ofwhich is hereby acknowledged, the parties agree to amend the Note as follows:1. The Maturity Date of the Note shall be further extended until February 18, 2008.2. To effectuate the foregoing, the paragraph in the Note entitled “Payment” shall be replaced inits entirely by the following:     “**PAYMENT**. The Line shall be payable by the application of the proceeds of the Receivables (asherein defined) of the Borrower as and when same are collected by the Borrower, together withaccrued interest at the rate of eight (8%) per annum. The Line will mature on February 18, 2008, onwhich date all unpaid sums of principal and interest will be due and payable. Borrower will pay, ona quarterly basis, all accrued and unpaid interest on the line, in amounts which will varydepending on the outstanding principal balance of the line. Unless otherwise agreed or required byapplicable law, payments will be applied first to accrued unpaid interest, then to principal, andany remaining amount to any unpaid collection costs and late charges. The annual interest rate forthis Note is computed on a 365/360 basis; that is, by applying the ratio of the annual interestrate over a year of 360 days, multiplied by the outstanding principal balance, multiplied by theactual number of days the principal balance is outstanding. Borrower will pay Lender at Lender’saddress shown above or at such other place as Lender may designate in writing.”3. Capitalized terms not defined herein shall have the meanings ascribed to them in the Note.4. Except as amended by this Amendment, the Note shall remain in full force and effect, enforceablein accordance with its terms and Borrower hereby reaffirms and acknowledges all of its obligationsthereunder.
 

 
     In witness whereof, the parties have executed this Amendment as of the date first writtenabove.        David Vey         Sedona Corporation          By: Marco Emrich, President  
-2-
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER TO HARRIS COUNTY DISTRICT CLERK 

TO PREPARE, CERTIFY, AND FILE

SUPPLEMENTAL CLERK’S RECORD 

Appellate case name: Andrew Patterson v. Transcontinental Insurance Co.

Appellate case number: 01-15-00464-CV

Trial court case number: 2013-01531

Our complete review of the above-referenced appeal requires a supplemental clerk’s 

record including the following document: 

Notice of Appeal filed by the appellant Andrew Patterson on or about May 14, 2015.

This supplemental clerk’s record is due to be filed in the First Court of Appeals no later 

than September 11, 2015.

Judge's signature: /s/ Jane Bland

 Jane Bland, acting individually

Date: August 27, 2015
§ 110.81 Written comments. ( a ) The Commission encourages written comments from the public regarding export and import license applications. The Commission will consider and, if appropriate, respond to these comments.
( b ) These comments should be submitted within 30 days after public notice of receipt of the application on the NRC Web site or in the Federal Register and addressed to the Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, Attention: Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff.
( c ) The Commission will provide the applicant with a copy of the comments and, if appropriate, a reasonable opportunity for response.
[43 FR 21641, May 19, 1978, as amended at 62 FR 27495, May 20, 1997; 75 FR 44093, July 28, 2010]
§ 451.5 Where and when to apply. ( a ) *Pre-application and notification.* ( 1 ) An applicant may submit at any time a pre-application, containing the information described in § 451.8 (a) through (e), to obtain a preliminary and conditional determination of eligibility.
( 2 ) To assist DOE in its budget planning, the owner or operator of a qualified renewable energy facility is requested to provide notification at least 6 months in advance of when a facility is expected to be first used, providing projected information specified in § 451.8 (a) through (e).
( b ) *Application.* ( 1 ) An application for an incentive payment for electric energy generated and sold in a fiscal year must be filed during the first quarter (October 1 through December 31) of the next fiscal year, except as provided in paragraph (b)(2) of this section.
( 2 ) For facilities whose date of first use occurred in the period October 1, 2003, through September 30, 2005, applications for incentive payments for electric energy generated and sold in fiscal year 2005 must be filed by August 31, 2006.
( 3 ) Failure to file an application in any fiscal year for payment for energy generated in the preceding fiscal year shall disqualify the owner or operator from eligibility for any incentive payment for energy generated in that preceding fiscal year.
( c ) *Where.* Applications and notifications to the Department shall be submitted to the Renewable Energy Production Incentive Program, U.S. Department of Energy, Golden Field Office, 1617 Cole Boulevard, Golden, CO, 80401.
[60 FR 36964, July 19, 1995, as amended at 71 FR 46387, Aug. 14, 2006]
#### ST. LOUIS SOUTHWESTERN RY. CO. OF TEXAS v. UNITED STATES.

(Circuit Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

November 27, 1912.)

No. 2,304.

In Error to the District Court of the United States for the Western District of Texas; Thos. S. Maxey, Judge.

E. B. Perkins, of Dallas, Tex., and S.-P. ;Ross,:of .Waco, Tex., for plaintiff in. error.

Chas. A. Boynton, of Waco, Tex.,. and Philip J. Doherty, Sp. Ass’t. U. S. Atty., of Washington, D. C., for the United States.

Before PARDEE and SHELBY, Circuit Judges, and- FOSTER, District JUdge.

PER CURIAM.

The judgment of the District Court (189 Fed. 954) is affirmed. See United States v. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Ry. Co., 220 U. S. 37, 31. Sup. Ct. 362, 55 L. Ed. 361, and Baltimore & Ohio R. R. v. Interstate Commerce Commission, 221 U. S. 612, 31 Sup. Ct. 621; 55 L. Ed. 878.
H. Res. 376

In the House of Representatives, U.S., 

July 25, 2005.

Whereas the video game ‘‘Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas’’ 

was given a rating of ‘‘Mature’’ by the Entertainment 

Software Ratings Board; 

Whereas the game contains sexually explicit content that is 

accessible by consumers but that appears to have been 

hidden from the ratings board in order to avoid the game 

receiving an ‘‘Adults Only’’ rating; 

Whereas the Entertainment Software Ratings Board took 

swift action in investigating the matter and revoked the 

‘‘Mature’’ rating, ensuring any future sales of ‘‘Grand 

Theft Auto: San Andreas’’ will be under an ‘‘Adults 

Only’’ rating; and 

Whereas the publisher of the video game, Rockstar Games, 

may have intentionally deceived the ratings board and 

consumers: Now, therefore, be it 

Resolved, That it is the sense of the House of Representatives that—

(1) the Federal Trade Commission should investigate the publication of the video game ‘‘Grand Theft 

Auto: San Andreas’’ to determine if the publisher, 

Rockstar Games, intentionally deceived the Entertain-
2

•HRES 376 EH 

ment Software Ratings Board to avoid an ‘‘Adults-Only’’ 

rating; and 

(2) if the Commission determines Rockstar Games 

to have committed such deception or fraud, the Commission should apply the toughest of penalties. 

Attest:

Clerk.
#### JENDRASIAK, Respondent, v. LACKAWANNA BRIDGE CO., Appellant, et al.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department.

May 29, 1914.)

Action by Lawrence Jendrasiak against the Lackawanna Bridge Company, impleaded with the South Buffalo Railway Co.

No opinion. Judgment and order affirmed, with costs. Leave to appeal to Court of Appeals denied in 148 N. Y. Supp. 1122.
IV 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. RES. 359 

Expressing the condolences of the House of Representatives to the victims, 

their families and friends, and the people of the United Kingdom for 

the loss suffered during the terrorist attacks in London on July 7, 

2005. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JULY 12, 2005 

Mr. PRICE of Georgia submitted the following resolution; which was referred 

to the Committee on International Relations 

RESOLUTION 

Expressing the condolences of the House of Representatives 

to the victims, their families and friends, and the people 

of the United Kingdom for the loss suffered during the 

terrorist attacks in London on July 7, 2005. 

Whereas on July 7, 2005, the United Kingdom suffered unconscionable terrorist attacks with four coordinated deadly explosions occurring in different locations in London; 

Whereas the terrorist attacks took place during the morning 

rush hour on commuter trains and a bus clearly targeting 

innocent civilians on their way to work; 

Whereas more than 50 individuals were killed and more than 

700 individuals were injured in the terrorist attacks; 
2 

•HRES 359 IH 

Whereas these acts of murder and mayhem were cowardly 

and brutal manifestations of terrorism; 

Whereas these terrorist attacks on the United Kingdom pose 

a threat to the regional peace and the security of Europe 

and the civilized world; 

Whereas the United States and the United Kingdom have a 

longstanding, strong, and enduring friendship; 

Whereas the United States and the United Kingdom are allied in shared values and a common interest in building 

a stable, peaceful, prosperous, and free world; 

Whereas the United States and the United Kingdom are 

equally committed to the continued strengthening of cooperation between the United States and Europe; 

Whereas the Government of the United Kingdom immediately 

and unequivocally condemned the terrorist attacks that 

occurred on July 7, 2005, and has vowed to bring the 

perpetrators of these attacks to justice; and 

Whereas terrorism must be condemned in the strongest terms 

whenever and wherever it occurs: Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That the House of Representatives— 

2 (1) condemns in the strongest possible terms 

3 the terrorist attacks in London that occurred on 

4 July 7, 2005; 

5 (2) expresses its deepest condolences to the vic6 tims, their families and friends, and the people of 

7 the United Kingdom for the loss suffered during 

8 these terrorist attacks; 
3 

•HRES 359 IH 

1 (3) expresses its sympathies to the individuals 

2 injured in the attacks and conveys its hope for the 

3 rapid and complete recovery of all such injured indi4 viduals; and 

5 (4) calls on the President to provide to the Gov6 ernment of the United Kingdom expert assistance 

7 for investigation of these terrorist attacks and to 

8 work together with our ally, the United Kingdom, to 

9 bring to justice the perpetrators of these and other 

10 terrorist attacks. 

Æ
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. 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 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

December 12, 2006

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-60118

Conference Calendar

SHAWN BURTON, 

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus 

CITY OF RIDGELAND MISSISSIPPI; DETECTIVE FRANK DILLARD; 

OFFICER MICHAEL JAMES MAGAYHEE; COMMAND SERGEANTS JOHN DOE; 

DIRECTOR OF INTERNAL AFFAIRS JOHN DOE; CHIEF OF POLICE JOHN 

DOE; CITY MANAGER JOHN DOE; WITNESS ANITA WITTINGTON; CHIEF, 

CITY OF RIDGELAND POLICE DEPARTMENT; CITY OF RIDGELAND POLICE 

DEPARTMENT; CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, City of Ridgeland Police

Department; COMMAND SERGEANTS, City of Ridgeland Police 

Department; DIRECTOR OF INTERNAL AFFAIRS DIVISION; MUNICIPLE 

CORPORATION, organized under and pursuant to the Laws of the 

State of Mississippi, 

Defendants-Appellees.

--------------------

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Mississippi

USDC No. 3:05-CV-293

--------------------

Before KING, WIENER, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Shawn Burton, federal prisoner # 05736-043, appeals the

dismissal of his civil rights lawsuit for failure to state a

claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). As the district court

explained, Burton’s claims that the defendants conspired to
No. 06-60118

-2-

violate his constitutional rights in obtaining his state court

conviction are barred by Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 487

(1994), which held that a prisoner’s lawsuit is barred whenever a

judgment in the prisoner’s favor would necessarily imply the

invalidity of his conviction. Burton argues that the district

court erred in dismissing his complaint with prejudice. In Boyd

v. Biggers, 31 F.3d 279, 284 (5th Cir. 1994), however, we

squarely held that it was not error to dismiss a complaint

pursuant to Heck with prejudice. 

This appeal is without arguable merit and is thus frivolous. 

Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir. 1983). Because

the appeal is frivolous, it is dismissed. 5TH CIR. R. 42.2. 

We caution Burton that both the district court’s and this

court’s dismissals count as strikes for purposes of 28 U.S.C. §

1915(g). Adepegba v. Hammons, 103 F.3d 383, 388 (5th Cir. 1996). 

Once Burton accumulates three strikes, he may not proceed in

forma pauperis in any civil action or appeal filed while he is

incarcerated or detained in any facility unless he is under

imminent danger of serious physical injury. See § 1915(g). 

APPEAL DISMISSED; SANCTION WARNING ISSUED.
Subpart 2415.2 - Solicitation and Receipt of Proposals and Quotations    **Parent topic:** PART 2415 - CONTRACTING BY NEGOTIATION2415.203 Requests for proposals.       (a)(3) The contracting officer may limit the size of the technical and management portion of offers submitted in response to a request for proposals when the contracting officer determines that it is in the Government's best interest to do so.2415.204 Contract format.       (e) The HCA shall be responsible for making exemptions pursuant to FAR 15.204(e).2415.209 Solicitation provisions and contract clauses.       (a)          (1)  			The Contracting Officer shall insert a provision substantially the same as the provision at 2452.215-70, Proposal Content, in all solicitations for negotiated procurements expected to exceed the simplified acquisition limit. The provision may be used in simplified acquisitions when it is necessary to obtain business proposal information in making the award selection. If the proposed contract requires work on, or access to, HUD systems or applications (see the clause at 2452.239-70), the provision shall be used with its Alternate I. When the Contracting Officer has determined that it is necessary to limit the size of the technical and management portion of offers submitted by offerors, the provision shall be used with its Alternate II.          (2) The contracting officer shall insert the provision at 2452.215-71, Relative Importance of Technical Evaluation Factors to Cost or Price, in solicitations for contracts to be awarded using the tradeoff selection process (see FAR 15.101-1) expected to exceed the simplified acquisition limit.
#### § 36.11 Application for a specific license.

A person, as defined in § 30.4 of this chapter, may file an application for a specific license authorizing the use of sealed sources in an irradiator on Form NRC 313, “Application for Material License.” Each application for a license, other than a license exempted from part 170 of this chapter, must be accompanied by the fee prescribed in § 170.31 of this chapter. The application and one copy must be sent to the appropriate NRC Regional Office listed in appendix D to part 20 of this chapter.
#### Paul J. Goetz, Appellant, v. Sally Goetz, Respondent.

In an action in which defendant was granted a judgment of separation, plaintiff appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, dated May 20, 1969, as denied his motion to modify the judgment so as to reduce the amount he was directed therein to pay for alimony and child support. The judgment directed plaintiff to pay $625 per month to cover alimony and support of the parties’ two children. The order not only denied plaintiff’s motion but directed that upon the older child’s attaining" majority plaintiff shall pay defendant $445 as alimony and $180 for support of the child who is still a minor, monthly, the total being the same as the amount directed to be paid under the judgment. Order modified, on the law and the facts, by reducing the amount of alimony from $445 to $395, monthly, so that the total of the payments will be $575 per month, effective as of the date of the order hereon. As so modified, order affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs. In our opinion, in the light of the relative financial conditions of the parties and one daughter’s attainment of her majority and removal from the home, appellant is entitled to the reduction granted herein. Munder, Acting P. J., Martuseello, Latham, Kleinfeld and Benjamin, JJ., concur.
Case 2:06-cv-00785-MHT-WC Document 54 Filed 11/28/2007 Page 1 of 2
Case 2:06-cv-00785-MHT-WC Document 54 Filed 11/28/2007 Page 2 of 2
Editorial Note on Part 51
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 51 appear at 80 FR 74980, Dec. 1, 2015.

§ 51.119 Publication of finding of no significant impact; distribution. ( a ) As required by § 51.35, the appropriate NRC staff director will publish the finding of no significant impact in the Federal Register. The finding of no significant impact will be identified as a draft or final finding, and will contain the information specified in §§ 51.32 or 51.33, as appropriate. A draft finding of no significant impact will include a request for comments which specifies where comments should be submitted and when the comment period expires.
( b ) The finding will state that copies of the finding, the environmental assessment setting forth the basis for the finding and any related environmental documents are available for public inspection and where inspection may be made.
( c ) A copy of a final finding will be sent to appropriate Federal, State, and local agencies, and Indian Tribes, appropriate State, regional, and metropolitan clearinghouses, the applicant or petitioner for rulemaking and any other party to the proceeding, and if a draft finding was issued, to each commenter. Additional copies will be made available in accordance with § 51.123.
#### § 460.205 Equipment sizing.

Sizing of heating and cooling equipment installed by the manufacturer must be determined in accordance with ACCA Manual S (incorporated by reference; see § 460.3) based on building loads calculated in accordance with ACCA Manual J (incorporated by reference; see § 460.3). The equipment sizing criteria are adapted from section R403 of the 2021 IECC.
Asthma is a rapidly growing public health problem. According to the Centers for Disease Control 

and Prevention:

• 20 million people, including 6.1 million children, have asthma. 

• Asthma prevelance is higher among families with lower incomes.

• 12 million people report having an asthma attack in the past year. 

• Asthma accounts for more than 14 million outpatient clinic visits, and nearly 2 million emergency 

department visits each year. 

• African Americans continue to have higher rates of asthma emergency department visits, hospitalizations, and deaths than do Caucasians:

• The rate of emergency department visits is 380% higher.

• The hospitalization rate is 225% higher.

• The asthma death rate is 200% higher. 

 

• Approximately 2 million Hispanics in the U.S. have asthma and Puerto Ricans are disproportionaltely impacted: 

• The rate of asthma among Puerto Ricans is 80% higher than non-Hispanic whites.

• The prevalence of asthma attacks is highest among Puerto Ricans.

Asthma in Children:

• Asthma is the most common serious chronic disease of childhood. 

• Asthma is the third-ranking cause of hospitalization among children under 15. 

• Asthma in children is the cause of almost five million physician visits and more than 200,000 hospitalizations. 

• Asthma accounts for one-third of all pediatric emergency room visits and is the fourthmost common cause of pediatric visits to the doctor’s office. 

• An average of one out of every 13 school-aged child has asthma.

• Asthma is the leading cause of school absenteeism from a chronic childhood condition.

• 14.7 million school days are missed each year due to asthma. 

Asthma Facts

United States 

Environmental Protection Agency

Indoor Environments Division 

Office of Air and Radiation (6609J)

EPA 402-F-04-019 

May 2006
The Cost of Asthma:

• Annual expenditures for health and lost productivity due to asthma are estimated at $16 billion, 

according to the National Heart Lung and Blood Institute.

Asthma and the Environment: Research by EPA and others has shown that

• Dust mites, molds, cockroaches, pet dander, and secondhand smoke trigger asthma attacks. 

• Exposure to secondhand smoke can cause asthma in pre-school aged children. 

• Exposure to dust mites can cause asthma. 

• Ozone and particle pollution can cause asthma attacks. 

• When ozone levels are high, more people with asthma have attacks that require a doctor’s 

attention. 

• Ozone makes people more sensitive to asthma triggers such as pet dander, pollen, dust 

mites, and mold.

Asthma Facts
#### The People of the State of New York ex rel. Angel Juan Rodriguez, Appellant, v. Vincent R. Mancusi, as Warden of Attica State Prison, Respondent.

Judgment unanimously affirmed. See Memorandum in *People ex rel. Harris*v. *Mancusi*(32 A D 2d 873) (decided concurrently herewith). (Appeal from judgment of Wyoming County Court, dismissing writ of habeas corpus.) PresentGoldman, P. J., Marsh, Witmer, Moule and Bastow, JJ.