alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Untitled Page


		

		

		

		Exhibit 10.20

			

		

		
			FULL AND FINAL RELEASE

					

					

				

		

		
			          KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS that Pure Play Media Holdings, Inc. (hereinafter called “the Releasor”), for and in consideration of  One Dollar and other good and valuable consideration paid to it by 1011225 Ontario Limited ( also known as OK Video and/or AOV Distribution) (hereinafter called “ the Releasee”), the Releasor does hereby remise, release, acquit and forever discharge the Releasee and the heirs, executors, administrators, successors and assigns of the Releasee, of and from all manner of action or actions, cause or causes of actions, suits, dues, sums of money, claims, demands or damages whatsoever, at law or in equity which the Releasor has had or now has or otherwise hereafter can, shall or may have, for or by reason of all known or unknown injury , loss or damage which has resulted or may result to the Releasor relative to an indebtedness of approximately $5,000.00 (U.S.) owing to the Releasee in favour of the Releasor.

				

				

				          AND THE RELEASOR, for consideration aforesaid, hereby covenants and agrees not to make a claim or to take any proceedings on account of the said injury, loss or damage against any person, firm or corporation who may claim contribution or indemnity from the Releasee, and the heirs, executors, administrators, successors and assigns of the Releasee under the provisions of any statute or otherwise.

				

				

				                    IT IS A TERM of the Release that payment of the said money as aforesaid is not and is not to be deemed in any way to be an admission of liability on the part of any of the parties hereto.

				

				

				                    IN WITNESS WHEREOF Pure Play Media Holdings, Inc. has affixed its hand and seal by its proper office this 15th day of August, 2003.

				

				

				

				                                                                                                              Pure Play Media Holdings, Inc.

				

				

				

				                                                                                                              Per:       /s/ Sieg Badke               

				                                                                                                                          Authorized Signatory
#### § 780.8 Security.

In any proceeding under this part, the Board shall take such steps as necessary pursuant to chapter 12 of the Act and section 181 of the Act to assure compliance with Department security regulations and the common defense.
#### RYAN v. BRAENDER BLDG. & CONST. CO.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.

January 22, 1915.)

Evidence (§ 589*) — Sufficiency.

The testimony of an employe on the second trial of his action for a personal injury, inconsistent with his testimony on the first trial, and contrary to the testimony of all other employes engaged in the same line of work, does not support a verdict in his favor.

[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Evidence, Cent. Dig. § 2438; Dec. Dig. § 589.*]

Appeal from Trial Term, Westchester County.

Action by Martin Ryan against the Braender Building & Construction Company. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals.

Reversed, and new trial granted.

Argued before JENKS, P. J., and THOMAS, STAPLETON, RICH, and PUTNAM, JJ.

Edward J. Redington, of New York City, for appellant.

Sydney A. Syme, of Mt. Vernon, for respondent.

*

For other cases see same topic & § number in Dec. & Am. Digs. 1907 to date, & Rep’r Indexes

PER CURIAM.

This verdict is against the weight of evidence. The proofs on the first trial showed that in greasing machinery over elevator shafts they waited till the elevator came to the upper floors, where the operator holds his car until the dangerous places had been lubricated. Hence the plaintiff was blamed for consciously departing from this safe and simple system, and greasing the machinery with the car down at the first floor. 154 App. Div. 278, 138 N. Y. Supp. 862. On the second trial, plaintiff would make out a different practice ; that while greasing this top machinery the elevator car is kept down at the foot of the shaft, and this in a 20-story building. Such a course would be impracticable and dangerous, where, as here, the shaft was more than 250 feet in depth, with only the* cars in the side shafts to carry the necessary communication to stop and start hoisting. This testimony was inconsistent with plaintiff’s first account, and was against that of all other employes engaged on these elevators. It cannot save plaintiff from the application of our former decision.

Judgment and order reversed, and a new trial granted; costs to abide the event.
# EUR-Lex - 31989R1808 - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 31989R1808

**Council Regulation (EEC) No 1808/89 of 19 June 1989 amending Regulation (EEC) No 1981/82 drawing up the list of Community regions in which production aid for hops is granted only to recognized producer groups **

*
Official Journal L 177 , 24/06/1989 P. 0005 - 0005 Finnish special edition: Chapter 3 Volume 29 P. 0181 Swedish special edition: Chapter 3 Volume 29 P. 0181 *

*****

COUNCIL REGULATION (EEC) No 1808/89

of 19 June 1989

amending Regulation (EEC) No 1981/82 drawing up the list of Community regions in which production aid for hops is granted only to recognized producer groups

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 1696/71 of 26 July 1971 on the common organization of the market in hops (1), as last amended by Regulation (EEC) No 3998/87 (2), and in particular Article 12 (4) thereof,

Having regard to the proposal from the Commission,

Whereas Article 12 (3) of Regulation (EEC) No 1696/71 provides for the granting of production aid to producers' groups in regions of the Community where the said groups are capable of ensuring that their members receive a fair income and of achieving rational management of supply; whereas those regions are listed in the Annex to Regulation (EEC) No 1981/82 (3), as amended by Regulation (EEC) No 4069/87 (4);

Whereas Ireland has notified that it has no longer a recognized producer group and that the conditions for granting the aid to a producer group laid down in Article 12 of Regulation (EEC) No 1696/71 are no longer fulfilled by the region 'Ireland'; whereas Regulation (EEC) No 1981/82 should therfore be amended as from the 1988 harvest,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

In the Annex to Regulation (EEC) No 1981/82 the region 'Ireland' is hereby deleted from the list.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on the third day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Communities.

It shall apply as from the 1988 harvest.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Luxembourg, 19 June 1989.

For the Council

The President

C. ROMERO HERRERA

(1) OJ No L 175, 4. 8. 1971, p. 1.

(2) OJ No L 377, 31. 12. 1987, p. 40.

(3) OJ No L 215, 23. 7. 1982, p. 3.

(4) OJ No L 380, 31. 12. 1987, p. 32.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 97-1533
DALLICE M. ALLEN, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus WESTWINDS APARTMENTS; REBECCA COHEN; ALBERT DAVIS, Individually and as Agents of Westwinds Apartments for NHP Management Company, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District ofSouth Carolina, at Columbia. Matthew J. Perry, Jr., Senior District Judge. (CA-96-329-3-10BD) Submitted: January 22, 1998 Decided: February 3, 1998 Before WIDENER, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Dallice M. Allen, Appellant Pro Se. Robert Wightman Dibble, Jr., MCNAIR LAW FIRM, P.A., Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals from the district court's order granting summary judgment to Defendants in her civil action in which she asserted that Defendants discriminated against her on the basis of her race in connection with her housing and in initiating eviction proceedings. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Allen v. Westwinds Apartments , No. CA-96-329-3-10BD (D.S.C. Apr. 18, 1997). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
APPENDIX A
§ 1108.170 Equipment. *Equipment* means tangible personal property (including information technology systems) having a useful life of more than one year and a per-unit acquisition cost which equals or exceeds the lesser of: ( a ) $5,000; or
( b ) The recipient's or subrecipient's capitalization threshold for financial statement purposes.
IV 

115TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. RES. 101 

Providing amounts for the expenses of the Committee on Ways and Means 

in the One Hundred Fifteenth Congress. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 7, 2017 

Mr. BRADY of Texas (for himself and Mr. NEAL) submitted the following 

resolution; which was referred to the Committee on House Administration 

RESOLUTION 

Providing amounts for the expenses of the Committee on 

Ways and Means in the One Hundred Fifteenth Congress. 

1 Resolved, 

2 SECTION 1. AMOUNTS FOR COMMITTEE EXPENSES. 

3 For the expenses of the Committee on Ways and 

4 Means (hereafter in this resolution referred to as the 

5 ‘‘Committee’’), including the expenses of all staff salaries, 

6 there shall be paid, out of the applicable accounts of the 

7 House of Representatives for committee salaries and ex8 penses, not more than $17,940,692 for the One Hundred 

9 Fifteenth Congress. 


rfrederick on DSKBCBPHB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HRES 101 IH 

1 SEC. 2. SESSION LIMITATIONS. 

2 Of the amount specified in section 1— 

3 (1) not more than $8,954,346 shall be available 

4 for expenses incurred during the period beginning at 

5 noon on January 3, 2017, and ending immediately 

6 before noon on January 3, 2018; and 

7 (2) not more than $8,986,346 shall be available 

8 for expenses incurred during the period beginning at 

9 noon on January 3, 2018, and ending immediately 

10 before noon on January 3, 2019. 

11 SEC. 3. VOUCHERS. 

12 Payments under this resolution shall be made on 

13 vouchers authorized by the Committee, signed by the 

14 Chairman of the Committee, and approved in the manner 

15 directed by the Committee on House Administration. 

16 SEC. 4. REGULATIONS. 

17 Amounts made available under this resolution shall 

18 be expended in accordance with regulations prescribed by 

19 the Committee on House Administration. 

Æ 


rfrederick on DSKBCBPHB2PROD with BILLS
§ 1108.295 Principal investigator. *Principal investigator* means either: ( a ) The single individual whom an organization that is carrying out a research project with DoD support designates as having an appropriate level of authority and responsibility for leading and directing the research intellectually and logistically, which includes the proper conduct of the research, the appropriate use of funds, and compliance with administrative requirements such as the submission of performance reports to DoD; or
( b ) If the organization designates more than one individual as sharing that authority and responsibility, the individual within that group identified by the organization as the one with whom the DoD Component's program manager generally should communicate as the primary contact for scientific, technical, and related budgetary matters concerning the project (others within the group are “co-principal investigators,” as defined in this subpart).
IV 

House Calendar No. 148 

109TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. RES. 702 

[Report No. 109–381] 

Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 4167) to amend the Federal 

Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to provide for uniform food safety warning 

notification requirements, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 1, 2006 

Mr. GINGREY, from the Committee on Rules, reported the following resolution; 

which was referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed 

RESOLUTION 

Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 4167) to amend 

the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to provide 

for uniform food safety warning notification requirements, and for other purposes. 

1 Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this 

2 resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of 

3 rule XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee 

4 of the Whole House on the state of the Union for consider5 ation of the bill (H.R. 4167) to amend the Federal Food, 

6 Drug, and Cosmetic Act to provide for uniform food safety 
2 

HRES 702 RH 

1 warning notification requirements, and for other purposes. 

2 The first reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. All 

3 points of order against consideration of the bill are waived. 

4 General debate shall be confined to the bill and shall not 

5 exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by the 

6 chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee 

7 on Energy and Commerce. After general debate the Com8 mittee of the Whole shall rise without motion. No further 

9 consideration of the bill shall be in order except pursuant 

10 to a subsequent order of the House. 

House Calendar No. 148 

109TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. RES. 702 

[Report No. 109–381] 

RESOLUTION 

Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 4167) 

notification requirements, and for other purposes. Act to provide for uniform food safety warning to amend the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic 

MARCH 1, 2006 

Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be 

printed
#### § 707.3 Policy.

It is the policy of DOE to conduct its programs so as to protect the environment, maintain public health and safety, and safeguard the national security. This policy is advanced in this rule by requiring contractors and subcontractors within its scope to adopt procedures consistent with the baseline requirements of this part, and to impose significant sanctions on individuals in testing designated positions or with unescorted access to the control areas of certain DOE reactors, who use or are involved with illegal drugs.
MANDATE

THE STATE OF TEXAS

TO THE 399TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF BEXAR COUNTY, GREETINGS:

Before our Court of Appeals for the Fourth District of Texas on October 29, 2014, the cause upon appeal to 

revise or reverse your judgment between

Cody J. Engel, Appellant(s)

V.

The State of Texas, Appellee(s)

No. 04-14-00270-CR and Tr. Ct. No. 2011CR10556

was determined, and therein our Court of Appeals made its order in these words:

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, appellant’s motion to 

dismiss is GRANTED, and this appeal is DISMISSED.

WHEREFORE, WE COMMAND YOU to observe the order of our said Court of Appeals for the Fourth 

District of Texas, in this behalf and in all things have the order duly recognized, obeyed, and executed.

Witness the Hon. Catherine Stone, Chief Justice of the Court of Appeals for the Fourth District of Texas, with 

the seal of the Court affixed and the City of San Antonio on December 29, 2014.

KEITH E. HOTTLE, CLERK

____________________________

Cynthia A. Martinez

Deputy Clerk, Ext. 3853
* 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

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 98-41269

Summary Calendar

 

OSIEL VALDEZ ORTIZ,

Petitioner-Appellant,

versus

GARY L. JOHNSON, DIRECTOR, TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF

CRIMINAL JUSTICE, INSTITUTIONAL DIVISION,

Respondent-Appellee.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. B-96-CV-235

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

December 10, 1999

Before REAVLEY, SMITH and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Osiel Valdez Ortiz, Texas prisoner # 524306, appeals the

district court’s grant of summary judgment denying his 28 U.S.C.

§ 2254 petition. The district court granted Ortiz a certificate

of appealability.

Ortiz argues that his conviction following his nolo

contendere plea for aggravated robbery violated the Double

Jeopardy Clause because the trial court had previously accepted

Ortiz’s guilty plea to the lesser-included offense of robbery. 
No. 98-41269

-2-

The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals found that the trial court

had conditionally accepted the first plea until the court had

approved the presentence report and the plea agreement, and that

“[b]ecause we have found that the trial court did not accept the

plea bargain, jeopardy did not attach in the first plea

proceeding.” Ortiz v. State, 933 S.W.2d 102, 107 (Tex. Crim.

App. 1996).

An application for a writ of habeas corpus cannot be granted

unless the decision of the state court “was contrary to, or

involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established

Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United

States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1). “[W]e can grant habeas corpus

relief only if a state court decision is so clearly incorrect

that it would not be debatable among reasonable jurists.” Mata

v. Johnson, 99 F.3d 1261, 1267 (5th Cir. 1996) (quoting Drinkard

v. Johnson, 97 F.3d 751, 769 (5th Cir. 1996), overruled in part

on other grounds by Lindh v. Murphy, 521 U.S. 320 (1997)),

vacated in part on other grounds on rehearing, 105 F.3d 209 (5th

Cir. 1997). Ortiz has not made such a showing. See Ohio v.

Johnson, 467 U.S. 493 (1984); United States v. Foy, 28 F.3d 464,

471 n.13 (5th Cir. 1994); United States v. Santiago Soto, 825

F.2d 616 (1st Cir. 1987).

AFFIRMED.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR

THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHERN DIVISION

FARMERS TELECOMMUNICATIONS )

COOPERATIVE, INC., )

 )

Plaintiff, )

 )

v. ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:06CV790-WC

 )

VERIZON COMMUNICATIONS, INC., et al., )

 )

Defendants. )

ORDER ON MOTION

On 6 November 2006, the parties in this action filed a Joint Motion to Dismiss Verizon

Communication Inc. and Qwest CommunicationsInternational, Inc. as Defendants and to Substitute

Parties (Doc. #6) filed by Farmers Telecommunications Cooperative, Inc., Verizon Communications,

Inc., Verizon Business Network Services, Inc., and Qwest Communications, Inc. The Court

construes this motion to dismiss as a motion to substitute parties. Accordingly, for the reasons stated

in the motion, it is 

ORDERED that the Joint Motion to Substitute Defendants is GRANTED. It is further 

ORDERED that Verizon Business Network Services, Inc. is hereby substituted as a

Defendant for Verizon Business and Verizon Communications, Inc. It is further

ORDERED that Qwest Communications Corporation is hereby substituted as a Defendant

for Qwest Communications International, Inc. It is further 

ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall make the changes to the official case caption as set

forth in this Order. 

Case 2:06-cv-00790-WC Document 18 Filed 01/26/2007 Page 1 of 2
Done this 26th day of January, 2007.

/s/ Wallace Capel, Jr.

WALLACE CAPEL, JR.

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Case 2:06-cv-00790-WC Document 18 Filed 01/26/2007 Page 2 of 2
##### 



Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
(SUBSECTIONS (a) AND (b) OF SECTION 1350, CHAPTER 63 OF TITLE 18,
UNITED STATES CODE)

In connection with the Quarterly
Report of Del Taco Restaurant Properties IV
(the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2003 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), each
of the undersigned officers of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §
1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1)  The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(2)  The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.

|      |                 |  |                                                                    
|----- | --------------- |  | -------------------------------------------------------------------
|Date: | August 14, 2003 |  | /s/ Kevin K. Moriarty                                              
|      |                 |  |                                                                    
|      |                 |  | Kevin K. Moriarty
Director, Chairman and
Chief Executive Officer   
|     
|Date: | August 14, 2003 |  | /s/ Robert J. Terrano                                              
|      |                 |  |                                                                    
|      |                 |  | Robert J. Terrano
Executive Vice President,
Chief Financial Officer
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

## FILED November 9, 2005 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-10652 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus ANDRES ALARCON-AROS, also known as Andres Adrian Alarcon, also known as Andres Alarcon, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 1:04-CR-71-ALL

-------------------- Before REAVLEY, GARZA, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *Appealing the Judgment in a Criminal Case, Andres AlarconAros raises arguments that are foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States , 523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998), which held that a prior conviction is a sentencing factor under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) and not a separate criminal offense. The Government’s motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, and the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
#### § 622.103 Dispute provisions.

( a ) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, all DOE contracts for the sale of personal property to any organization outside the U.S. Government shall include a Disputes clause which provides for: ( 1 ) Binding final decisions by the Contracting Officer, subject to appeal;
( 2 ) Appeal rights pursuant to the Contract Disputes Act of 1978;
( 3 ) Continuation of performance by the contractor at the direction of the contracting officer pending final resolution of the dispute.

( b ) Exceptions: ( 1 ) The provisions of this part shall not apply to contracts for sale of electric power by the Power Marketing Administrations;
( 2 ) The Secretary may exempt a contract or class of contracts from this requirement upon determination that it would not be in the public interest in an individual contract or class of contracts with a foreign government, or agency thereof, or international organization, or subsidiary body thereof, to include the Disputes clause, as permitted by section 3 of the Contract Disputes Act of 1978.

( c ) The Energy Board of Contract Appeals (EBCA) has cognizance over disputes relating to DOE Sales contracts.

( d ) The Disputes clause in § 624.102-4 shall be used in accordance with this § 622.103.

(Sec. 644, Department of Energy Organization Act, Pub. L. 95-91, 91 Stat. 599 (42 U.S.C. 7254))

[46 FR 34559, July 2, 1981]