alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 4.25


 


AGREEMENT


 


Pursuant to (i) the Third Amended and Restated Series 2004-1
Supplement, dated as of April 13, 2006 (as amended to date, the “Series 2004-1
Supplement”), by and between ARG Funding Corp. (“ARG”) and The Bank of New
York, as Trustee (“Trustee”) and (ii) the Amended and Restated Series 2005-2
Supplement, dated as of April 13, 2006 (as amended to date, the “Series 2005-2
Supplement”, and together with the Series 2004-1 Supplement, the “ARG
Supplements”), by and between ARG and the Trustee, each supplementing the
Fourth Amended and Restated Base Indenture, dated as of April 13, 2006
(the “ARG Base Indenture”), by and between ARG and the Trustee, each of the
undersigned agree that effective as of the date hereof each of (x) the “Series 2004-1
Maximum Non-Program Vehicle Percentage” and (y) the “Series 2005-2 Maximum
Non-Program Vehicle Percentage” shall be increased from 15% to 30%.


 


Capitalized terms used but not otherwise defined herein are used herein
as defined in the ARG Supplements.


 


This Agreement may be executed in any number of counterparts, each
of which so executed shall be deemed an original, but all of such counterparts
shall together constitute but one and the same instrument.


 

















 


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, each of the undersigned have caused this Agreement
to be executed by their respective officers thereunto duly authorized as of the
day and year written below.


 


 


	
   

  	
  ARG
  FUNDING CORP., a special purpose,

    Delaware corporation

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  By:

  	
  /s/ PHILIP A. MARTONE

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  Name:

  	
  Philip A. Martone

  
	
   

  	
  Title:

  	
  Vice
  President

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  AMBAC ASSURANCE CORPORATION

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  By:

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  Name:

  
	
   

  	
  Title:

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Dated: July 24,
  2006

  	
   

  
					



 

















 


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, each of the undersigned have caused this Agreement
to be executed by their respective officers thereunto duty authorized as of the
day and year written below.


 


 


	
   

  	
  ARG
  FUNDING CORP., a special purpose,

    Delaware corporation

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  By:

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  Name:
  

  
	
   

  	
  Title:

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  AMBAC
  ASSURANCE CORPORATION

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  By:

  	
  /s/ [ILLEGIBLE]

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  Name:

  	
  [ILLEGIBLE]

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  Title:

  	
  First Vice President

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Dated:
  July 24, 2006
#### § 182.40 How is the guidance maintained?

The OMB publishes proposed changes to the guidance in the Federal Register for public comment, considers comments with the help of appropriate interagency working groups, and then issues any changes to the guidance in final form.
I 

"'---1--+1' VI 

M osq u i t o Co ntr ol Sp ec ia l is ts 

• John M. Allen 

Ve ctor Disease Control International , LLC 

Business Office: 

1320 Brookwood Dr. 

Little Rock AR 72202 

T- 800.413.4445 

F- 866-839-8595 

www.vdci.net 

'US. Department of Transportation 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Ave. SW 

Washington D.C. 20591 

Vector Disease Control International (YDCJ) is requesting an exemption for all four of 

our mUltiengine mosquito control aircraft (PA231250 - N415CC, N40200, 737WP and Cessna 

402C - N251RC ) In conjunction with conducting agricultural operations for control of 

disease caring mosquitoes. 

The specific section of title 14 code of Federal Regulation part 137.53 (C) (2) aircraft 

must be equipped with a device capable ofjettisoning one half of the maximum authorized 

load of agricultural material within 45 seconds. 

The reason for the exemption request is to not endanger persons property by 

jettisoning chemicals over congested areas. 

The reason granting the request would be in the public interest is that no person or 

property would be exposed to a uncontrolled chemical release in the event of a partial or 

complete engine failure. The plane would be able to xit the spray area with releasing 

uncontrolled chemical. 

The reason the exemption would not adversely affect safety is the aircraft is required 

to operate conforming too FAR 137.51 (b) (5)(ii) "No person may operate a multiengine 

airplane at a weight greater than the weight that, with the critical engine inoperative, would 

permit a rate of climb of at least 50 feet per minute at an altitude of at least 1,000 feet above 

the elevation of the highest ground or obstruction within the area to be worked or at an altitude 

of 5,000 feet, whichever is higher. For the purposes ofthis subdivision, it is assumed that the 

propeller ofthe inoperative engine is in the minimum drag position; that the wing flaps and 

landing gear are in the most favorable positions; and that the remaining engine or engines are 

operating at the maximum continuous power available." Following FAR 137.51 (b) (5)(ii) at 

all times the pilot would be able to exit the spray area without uncontrolled releasing of 

pesticide over a populated area there by increasing the safety of persons or property and this 

would increase the level of safety. 

Another reason to approve this request is: 

1. 	 VDCI has aTraining and Initial check out plan listed in our Flight Operation Manual 

Pg 13 -14 "Training and Initial check out" Each pilot goes through a yearly check out 

with the chief pilot and is sign offthat the pilot is competent to perform all emergency 

and normal procedures. This includes weight and balance, single engine performance 

at different altitudes and temperatures. 

2. 	 All aircraft are tested and demonstrated each year to make sure they will meet all 

single engine requirements. 

:::~ ~a~~ChefPilotVDCI) 

MALCOM WILLIAMS 


Chief Pilot 


Vector Disease Controllnternational,LLC 


mwilliams@vdci,net 

PH 318-372-4073
§ 176.110 Evaluating proposals of foreign iron, steel, and/or manufactured goods. ( a ) If the award official receives a request for an exception based on the cost of certain domestic iron, steel, and/or manufactured goods being unreasonable, in accordance with § 176.80, then the award official shall apply evaluation factors to the proposal to use such foreign iron, steel, and/or manufactured goods as follows: ( 1 ) Use an evaluation factor of 25 percent, applied to the total estimated cost of the project, if the foreign iron, steel, and/or manufactured goods are to be used in the project based on an exception for unreasonable cost requested by the applicant.
( 2 ) Total evaluated cost = project cost estimate + (.25 × project cost estimate, if paragraph (a)(1) of this section applies).
( b ) Applicants or recipients also may submit alternate proposals based on use of equivalent domestic iron, steel, and/or manufactured goods to avoid possible denial of Recovery Act funding for the proposal if the Federal Government determines that an exception permitting use of the foreign item(s) does not apply.
( c ) If the award official makes an award to an applicant that proposed foreign iron, steel, and/or manufactured goods not listed in the applicable notice in the request for applications or proposals, then the award official must add the excepted materials to the list in the award term.
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 824 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

115th CONGRESS
  2d Session
H. RES. 824

  Opposing the detention and deportation of Iraqi Chaldean Christians.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 12, 2018

  Mr. Moolenaar (for himself, Mrs. Lawrence, Mr. Huizenga, Mr. Levin, 
   Mrs. Dingell, Mr. Trott, Mr. Bishop of Michigan, Mr. Kildee, Mr. 
     Walberg, Mr. Bergman, and Mr. Upton) submitted the following 
    resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
  Opposing the detention and deportation of Iraqi Chaldean Christians.

Whereas the United States has traditionally had an important role as a safe 
        harbor for persecuted religious minorities;
Whereas the Trump Administration has pledged to prioritize the defense of 
        persecuted minorities in the Middle East and around the world;
Whereas the United States Congress and the Department of State have recognized 
        that genocide has been committed against the religious minorities of 
        Iraq;
Whereas Chaldean Christians represent a significant religious minority in Iraq;
Whereas the Chaldean community of Iraq faces active persecution by both state 
        and nonstate actors;
Whereas the Department of Homeland Security has detained several hundred 
        Chaldeans living in the United States for possible deportation to Iraq;
Whereas any Chaldean deported to Iraq will be subject to discrimination, violent 
        persecution, and possibly death; and
Whereas the Chaldean community represents a vibrant and important part of United 
        States culture and society: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved, That the House of Representatives--
            (1) opposes the detention and possible removal of Iraqi 
        Chaldeans; and
            (2) urges President Donald Trump to use his executive 
        authority and discretion to defer deportation for Iraqi 
        Chaldeans living in the United States.
                                 <all>
```
§ 1.1124 What are the records requirements for a recognized accreditation body? ( a ) In addition to meeting the requirements of § 1.1113(a) related to records, a recognized accreditation body must maintain, for 5 years after the date of creation of the records, records created while it is recognized demonstrating its compliance with this subpart, including records relating to: ( 1 ) Applications for LAAF-accreditation;
( 2 ) Assessments, reassessments, and decisions to grant, extend the scope of, renew, deny, reduce the scope of, or withdraw LAAF-accreditation or to suspend or lift the suspension of a LAAF-accredited laboratory;
( 3 ) Appeals of suspensions, denials, reductions of scope of, and withdrawals of LAAF-accreditation, final decisions on such appeals, and the bases for such final decisions;
( 4 ) Its oversight of laboratories it has LAAF-accredited;
( 5 ) Its oversight of its own performance, including all records related to internal audits, complaints, and corrective actions;
( 6 ) Any reports or notifications required to be submitted to FDA under § 1.1123, including any supporting information;
( 7 ) Records of fee payments and reimbursement of direct costs; and
( 8 ) Any documents demonstrating compliance with the requirements for assessment activities by contract assessors with certain financial interests described in § 1.1119(d).
( b ) A recognized accreditation body must make the records it is required to maintain by paragraph (a) of this section available for inspection and copying or for electronic submission upon written request of an authorized officer or employee of FDA. If FDA requests records for inspection and copying, the recognized accreditation body must make such records promptly available at the physical location of the recognized accreditation body or at another reasonably accessible location. If FDA requests electronic submission, the records must be submitted within 10 business days of the request.
( c ) A recognized accreditation body must not prevent or interfere with FDA's access to the records the LAAF-accredited laboratories it LAAF-accredits are required to maintain under § 1.1154.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 23
- 0079 STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee, v. BETHANY LYNN LEX,

Defendant and Appellant
.

**O RDER**  Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, and good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension of time to and including September 9 , 2024 within which to prepare, file, and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

August 2 2024

08/02/2024

Case Number: DA 23-0079
§ 200.459 Professional service costs. ( a ) Costs of professional and consultant services rendered by persons who are members of a particular profession or possess a special skill, and who are not officers or employees of the non-Federal entity, are allowable, subject to paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section when reasonable in relation to the services rendered and when not contingent upon recovery of the costs from the Federal Government. In addition, legal and related services are limited under § 200.435.
( b ) In determining the allowability of costs in a particular case, no single factor or any special combination of factors is necessarily determinative. However, the following factors are relevant: ( 1 ) The nature and scope of the service rendered in relation to the service required.
( 2 ) The necessity of contracting for the service, considering the non-Federal entity's capability in the particular area.
( 3 ) The past pattern of such costs, particularly in the years prior to Federal awards.
( 4 ) The impact of Federal awards on the non-Federal entity's business (i.e., what new problems have arisen).
( 5 ) Whether the proportion of Federal work to the non-Federal entity's total business is such as to influence the non-Federal entity in favor of incurring the cost, particularly where the services rendered are not of a continuing nature and have little relationship to work under Federal awards.
( 6 ) Whether the service can be performed more economically by direct employment rather than contracting.
( 7 ) The qualifications of the individual or concern rendering the service and the customary fees charged, especially on non-federally funded activities.
( 8 ) Adequacy of the contractual agreement for the service (e.g., description of the service, estimate of time required, rate of compensation, and termination provisions).
( c ) In addition to the factors in paragraph (b) of this section, to be allowable, retainer fees must be supported by evidence of bona fide services available or rendered.
[78 FR 78608, Dec. 26, 2013, as amended at 85 FR 49569, Aug. 13, 2020]
38582.

#### PRYOR v. THE STATE.

Frankum, Judge.

1. The defendant was tried and convicted for the offense of leaving the scene of an accident as prohibited by *Code Ann.*§§ 68-1618—68-1620. The defendant filed a motion for a new trial upon the general grounds. Briefly, the evidence shows that an automobile driven by the defendant had stalled, or was moving slowly near a high point of a viaduct at Sylvania, Georgia. A vehicle driven by the prosecutrix came over the rise and struck the defendant’s car from the rear. From that point of time the evidence is in sharp conflict as to whether the defendant drove off without stopping after a severe collision, or whether the defendant left the scene because he thought no damage had resulted, and that the jolt was a helpful motorist giving a push. The testimony is in conflict as to whether the defendant’s car was completely stopped or moving slowly at the time of the collision. The record does show that both cars were damaged. It is undisputed that the defendant did not remain there or return to the scene after the collision. The defendant was apprehended at a garage where his car was being worked on. Under the evidence of this record the verdict was authorized. Where, as in the instant case, the issues of fact are in conflict and are submitted to' a jury, this appellate court passes only upon the sufficiency and not the weight of the evidence. *Bibb Cigar & Candy Co. v. McSwain,*95 Ga. App. 659 (98 S. E. 2d 128); *Wallace v. State, 77*Ga. App. 434 (48 S. E. 2d 696); *Sheppard v. Burns,*40 Ga. App. 496 (150 S. E. 434).

2. The special grounds of the amendment to the motion for a new trial are nothing more than a recital of the general grounds, and, as the principles involved are the same as discussed *745above, they will not be further elaborated upon. *Ward v.*Nance, 102 Ga. App. 201 (115 S. E. 2d 781).

Decided November 29, 1960.

*Limerick L. Odom,*for plaintiff in error.

*E. W. Hill, Solicitor,*contra.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Townsend, P. J., Carlisle kind Jordan, JJ., concur.*
[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 2 (Tuesday, January 4, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 362]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-33152]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER11-2398-000]


Pan American Energy, LLC ; Supplemental Notice That Initial 
Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204 
Authorization

December 22, 2010.
    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of 
Pan American Energy, LLC's application for market-based rate authority, 
with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such application includes 
a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future 
issuances of securities and assumptions of liability.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the 
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., 
Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the 
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 
385.214). Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a 
copy of that document on the Applicant.
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with 
regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18 
CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of 
liability, is January 11, 2011.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and 
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet 
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an 
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the 
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the 
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 
14 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above-referenced proceeding are accessible in 
the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in 
the above list. They are also available for review in the Commission's 
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link 
on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail notification 
when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with 
any FERC Online service, please e-mail <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#165053445559787a7f787345636666796462567073647538717960"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="14525146575b7a787d7a71476164647b666054727166773a737b62">[email protected]</span></a>. or 
call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-33152 Filed 1-3-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
#### Ray Milstein et al., Appellants, v. Isaac Clark, Defendant. Motor Vehicle Accident Indemnification Corporation, Respondent.

In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, medical expenses, etc., plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated September 17, 1968, which denied their motion to add respondent as a defendant, with leave to renew after determination of the action. Order reversed, on the law, with $10 costs and disbursements, and motion remitted to the Special Term for determination on the merits. No questions of fact have been considered. Section 618 of the Insurance Law expressly confers upon the court the power to proceed upon a motion such as the one in question in a summary manner and to make the requisite order if it is satisfied that the statutory requirements have been met. Cases such as *Piwowarski*v. *Cornwell*(273 N. Y. 226), which hold that the credibility of an owner’s testimony *936of unauthorized operation, even though uncontradicted, is" for the trial jury, are obviously inapposite on this preliminary application and do not prevent Special Term from making the determination section 618 expressly requires it to make. If Special Term considers itself unable to resolve the issue on the papers alone, the matter should be set down for a hearing (cf. *Matter of Weinstein*v. *MVAIC,*30 A D 2d 651; *Matter of O’Rourke*v. *MVAIC,*29 A D 2d 938). Christ, Acting P. J., Rabin, Benjamin, Munder and Kleinfeld, JJ., concur. [57 Misc 2d 842.]
# EUR-Lex - 31993R2554 - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 31993R2554

**Council Regulation (EEC) No 2554/93 of 13 September 1993 repealing Article 1 (4) of Regulation (EEC) No 2849/92 modifying the definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of ball bearings with a greatest external diameter exceeding 30 mm originating in Japan imposed by Regulation (EEC) No 1739/85 **

*
Official Journal L 235 , 18/09/1993 P. 0007 - 0007 Finnish special edition: Chapter 11 Volume 23 P. 0042 Swedish special edition: Chapter 11 Volume 23 P. 0042 *

COUNCIL REGULATION (EEC) No 2554/93 of 13 September 1993 repealing Article 1 (4) of Regulation (EEC) No 2849/92 modifying the definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of ball bearings with a greatest external diameter exceeding 30 mm originating in Japan imposed by Regulation (EEC) No 1739/85

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2423/88 of 11 July 1988 on protection against dumped or subsidized imports from countries not members of the European Economic Community (1),

Having regard to the proposal from the Commission, submitted after consultations within the Advisory Committee as provided for by the above Regulation,

Whereas:

(1) Regulation (EEC) No 2849/92 (2) modified the definitive anti-dumping duties applicable to imports of all bearings with a greatest external diameter exceeding 30 mm originating in Japan.

(2) Article 1 (4) of Regulation (EEC) No 2849/92 provides for a specific definition of the customs valuation of the products concerned and Article 1 (5) of the same Regulation provides that the basic provisions in force concerning customs duties shall apply.

(3) Article 1 (4) and (5) contain provisions that concern the same customs valuation but their application can lead to different results.

(4) It therefore appears appropriate to avoid any such conflict in valuation based on these two different provisions and, since the basic provisions in force concerning customs duties lay down the general rules, it is considered appropriate that these provisions should prevail. It is therefore necessary to repeal Article 1 (4) of Regulation (EEC) No 2849/92,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

Article 1 (4) of Regulation (EEC) No 2849/92 is hereby repealed.

Article 2

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

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

Done at Brussels, 13 September 1993.

For the Council

The President

Ph. MAYSTADT

(1) OJ No L 209, 2. 8. 1988, p. 1.

(2) OJ No L 286, 1. 10. 1992, p. 2.