alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
ANNUAL REPORT
Chevy Chase Auto Receivables Trust 1995-1
$ 252,234,680 6.00% Auto Receivables Backed Certificates
For the Year Ended December 31, 1998




         PRINCIPAL    INTEREST      NET       NET        30 +      DELQ.
            DIST        DIST       LOSSES    LOSS %     DELQ.        %
        ____________ ___________ ___________ ________ ____________ _______
 Jan-98   3,705,840     279,831     124,032    2.82%    2,020,906    3.83%
 Feb-98   3,610,252     261,302      31,112    0.76%    1,700,686    3.46%
 Mar-98   3,382,879     243,251      91,720    2.41%    1,771,063    3.87%
 Apr-98   3,812,612     226,336      68,341    1.96%    1,447,203    3.45%
 May-98   3,257,598     207,273      69,294    2.15%    1,336,275    3.45%
 Jun-98   2,946,833     190,985      47,348    1.59%    1,289,246    3.60%
 Jul-98   3,020,137     176,251       9,708    0.36%    1,189,577    3.63%
 Aug-98   2,876,191     161,150      32,889    1.32%    1,101,821    3.69%
 Sep-98   2,710,533     146,769      (4,946)  -0.22%    1,026,985    3.79%
 Oct-98   2,392,991     133,217       7,780    0.38%      881,517    3.57%
 Nov-98   2,247,096     121,252      30,398    1.63%      954,573    4.26%
 Dec-98   2,087,000     110,016     (15,429)  -0.91%    1,003,249    4.94%
        ____________ ___________ ___________
 Totals  36,049,962   2,257,635     492,247

  **  The date represents the month of the Distribution date, the
      information is from activity of the previous month.
### _D_e_v8_n ....

y.,_D_e_n_n_is ..

<_O_S_T .. )**~2005** 

# -**~p** From: Sent:



# .to:

Subject: Hello,

_ ChrisGebhardt[chgeeb@yahoo.com] Thursday, February04, 2010 1:24 PM Devany, Dennis (OST); Swanson, Brian (OST) Plattsburgh Airport

I'm writing to as someone who is originally from Plattsburgh, lived there my entire life up until I was 

### 22. I now live in Boston (along with a few others from Plattsburgh), and used Cape Airto always get home. I've used this airline for a few years now to get home, and always have had a great experience. I'm not sure I understand, orsee the positives ofhaving Colgan Airdo the Boston-Plattsburgh route.... Less flights and more expensive? How isthat benefitting the people who fly this route? It'sjust overan hourflight
...who cares about the bigger plane? And what is the point of having a bigger plane when Cape Air's 9-seaters are not even over-booked! It's ludicrous to think Colgan Air will attractthe same quality and quantity of passengers that Cape Airdid. The entire point oftaking Cape Air was that itwas a direct flight, and because itwas so affordable it made more sense to fly than to drive home and take the ferry. Now with the new prices (which they said could be 

### $125 FOR ONE WAY), it makes more sense for us to sit in the Boston traffic, and still pay for the ferry than to take this airline. I'm extremely disappointed and hope the numbers in the coming years prove itto be the wrong decision. Sincerely, Chris Gebhardt

1
Third District Court of Appeal

State of Florida 

Opinion filed September 18, 2024.

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

No. 3D24-341

Lower Tribunal Nos. 23-003578CS, 2001680266, 13220016403FC

________________

Iderious Lee Love,

Appellant,

vs.

Department of Revenue, Child Support Program, et al.,

Appellees.

An Appeal from the State of Florida Department of Revenue, Child 

Support Program.

Iderious Lee Love, in proper person.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and Toni C. Bernstein, Senior 

Assistant Attorney General (Tallahassee), for appellee Department of 

Revenue.

Before MILLER, LOBREE and BOKOR, JJ. 

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. See § 409.2563(2)(e), Fla. Stat. (2024) (“This section does 
2

not grant jurisdiction to the department or the Division of Administrative 

Hearings to hear or determine issues of . . . disputed paternity . . . .”); 

Fernandez v. Dep’t of Revenue, Child Support, 971 So. 2d 875, 878 (Fla. 3d 

DCA 2007) (“When paternity has already been established by affidavit, a 

birth certificate, or a prior judicial proceeding, the father is not a ‘putative 

father’ and DOR, the mother, or the child do not bear the burden of proving 

paternity. A father’s response, ‘need DNA test,’ to a DOR administrative 

proceeding for child support does not by itself terminate the proceeding or 

require DOR to commence a circuit court action to establish paternity. 

Rather, the burden is then on the respondent to commence his own action 

in the circuit court to prove that what was previously admitted, his fatherhood, 

is in fact a falsehood.”) (citations omitted); McGee v. McGee, 264 So. 3d 

1087, 1089 (Fla. 1st DCA 2019) (“[W]ithout a transcript of the hearing we 

cannot presume that the trial court’s determination of the former husband’s 

share of the child’s need for support was unsupported by sufficient evidence 

presented at trial.”).
Exhibit 23.1




                         Independent Auditors' Consent
                         -----------------------------





The Board of Directors and Stockholders
Viatel, Inc.:


We consent to  incorporation  by reference  in the  registration  statement  No.
333-15155 on Form S-8 and in the  registration  statement No.  333-16671 on Form
S-8 of  Viatel,  Inc.  of our  report  dated  March  7,  1997,  relating  to the
consolidated  balance sheets of Viatel, Inc. and Subsidiaries as of December 31,
1996  and  1995  and  the  related   consolidated   statements  of   operations,
stockholders'  equity  (deficit)  and cash  flows  for each of the  years in the
three-year  period  ended  December 31, 1996,  and the related  schedule,  which
appears in the December 31, 1996 annual report on Form 10-K of Viatel, Inc.


                                                       /s/ KPMG Peat Marwick LLP




New York, New York
March 27, 1997
Editorial Note on Part 12
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 12 appear at 88 FR 45064, July 14, 2023.

§ 12.120 Initial decision. ( a ) The presiding officer shall prepare and file an initial decision as soon as possible after the filing of briefs and oral argument.
( b ) The initial decision must contain— ( 1 ) Findings of fact based issued upon relevant, material, and reliable evidence of record;
( 2 ) Conclusions of law;
( 3 ) A discussion of the reasons for the findings and conclusions, including a discussion of the significant contentions made by any participant;
( 4 ) Citations to the record supporting the findings and conclusions;
( 5 ) An appropriate regulation or order supported by substantial evidence of record and based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law; and
( 6 ) An effective date for the regulation or order.
( c ) The initial decision must refrain from disclosing specific details of matters specified in § 10.20(j)(2)(i) ( a ) and ( b ), except as specifically authorized in a protective order issued pursuant to § 10.20(j)(3).
( d ) The initial decision is to be filed with the Dockets Management Staff and served upon all participants. Once the initial decision is filed with the Dockets Management Staff, the presiding officer has no further jurisdiction over the matter, and any motions or requests filed with the Dockets Management Staff will be decided by the Commissioner.
( e ) The initial decision becomes the final decision of the Commissioner by operation of law unless a participant files exceptions with the Dockets Management Staff under § 12.125(a) or the Commissioner files a notice of review under § 12.125(f).
( f ) Notice that an initial decision has become the decision of the Commissioner without appeal to or review by the Commissioner will be published in the Federal Register, or the Commissioner may publish the decision when it is of widespread interest.
Exhibit 10.15
 DEUTSCHE BANK TRUST COMPANY AMERICAS
60 WALL STREET
NEW YORK, NEW YORK 10005
  
 Re: Wellman, Inc. Credit Agreement dated as of February 27, 2008
 Funds Administrator Administrative Agent Credit
Agreement




---



##### 








---



##### 



Very truly yours,DEUTSCHE BANK TRUST COMPANY
AMERICAS,as Administrative AgentBy:
    /s/ Dusan LazarovTitle: Vice PresidentBy:
    /s/ David J. BellTitle: Managing Director 
 WELLMAN, INC.
 By:
    /s/ Keith R. PhillipsTitle: Chief Financial Officer
[Nos. 39770-2-I; 39771-1-I; 39772-9-I.

Division One.

November 3, 1997.]

#### The State of Washington, *Respondent,*v. Larry R. Johnson, *Appellant.*

Appeals from judgments of the Superior Court for King County, Nos. 96-1-01824-1, 96-1-05519-7, 96-1-01383-4, Patricia H. Aitken, J., entered October 28, 1996. *Affirmed*by unpublished per curiam opinion.
###### Editorial Note on Part 314

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 314 appear at 69 FR 13717, Mar. 24, 2004; 81 FR 69639, Oct. 6, 2016.

#### § 314.152 Notice of withdrawal of approval of an application or abbreviated application for a new drug.

If the Food and Drug Administration withdraws approval of an application or abbreviated application for a new drug, FDA will publish a notice in the Federal Register announcing the withdrawal of approval. If the application or abbreviated application was withdrawn for grounds described in § 314.150(a) or § 314.151, the notice will announce the removal of the drug from the list of approved drugs published under section 505(j)(6) of the act and shall satisfy the requirement of § 314.162(b).

[57 FR 17994, Apr. 28, 1992]
Editorial Note on Part 25
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 25 appear at 88 FR 45065, July 14, 2023.

§ 25.10 Policies and NEPA planning. ( a ) All FDA's policies and programs will be planned, developed, and implemented to achieve the policies declared by NEPA and required by CEQ's regulations to ensure responsible stewardship of the environment for present and future generations.
( b ) Assessment of environmental factors continues throughout planning and is integrated with other program planning at the earliest possible time to ensure that planning and decisions reflect environmental values, to avoid delays later in the process, and to avoid potential conflicts.
( c ) For actions initiated by the agency, the NEPA process will begin when the agency action under consideration is first identified. For actions initiated by applicants or petitioners, NEPA planning begins when FDA receives from an applicant or petitioner an EA or a claim that a categorical exclusion applies, or when FDA personnel consult with applicants or petitioners on the NEPA-related aspects of their requested actions. FDA may issue a public call for environmental data or otherwise consult with affected individuals or groups when a contemplated action in which it is or may be involved poses potential significant environmental effects.
( d ) Environmental documents shall concentrate on timely and significant issues, not amass needless detail.
( e ) If a proposed action for which an EIS will be prepared involves possible environmental effects that are required to be considered under statutes or Executive Orders other than those referred to under “Authority” in this part, these effects shall be considered in the NEPA review, consistent with 40 CFR 1502.25 and the HHS General Administration Manual, part 30: Environmental Protection.
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 9 (Thursday, January 14, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 2146]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-39]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Institute of Dental & Craniofacial Research; Notice of 
Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following 
meeting.
    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 
U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Institute of Dental and Craniofacial 
Research Special Emphasis Panel; Review of R21 ONJ applications 
(PAR-06-556).
    Date: February 11, 2010.
    Time: 1 p.m. to 4 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, 
Bethesda, MD 20892, (Telephone Conference Call).
    Contact Person: Lynn M. King, PhD, Chief, Scientific Review 
Branch, National Institute of Dental and Craniofacial Research/NIH, 
6701 Democracy Blvd., Bethesda, MD 20892-6402, 301-594-5006, 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#b1ddc8dfdf9fdad8dfd6f1dfd8d99fd6dec7"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="533f2a3d3d7d383a3d34133d3a3b7d343c25">[email protected]</span></a>.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.121, Oral 
Diseases and Disorders Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

    Dated: December 30, 2009.
Anna Snouffer,
Acting Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 2010-39 Filed 1-13-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
axdx_ex10131.htm

EXHIBIT 10.13.1

 

AMENDMENT

TO

12% REVOLVING LINE OF CREDIT PROIVIISSOPRY NOTE DUE 2016

 

OF

 

CO-DIAGNOSTICS, INC.

 

Original Principal Amount: $750,000 

Original Issuance Date: August 1, 2015

 

Whereas, THIS AMENDMENT TO THE 12% PROMlSSORY NOTE dated August 1, 2015, as amended (the ''Note") is entered into, by and between Co-Diagnostics, Inc., a Utah corporation (the "Company') and Co-Diagnostics, Ltd, a Turks and Caicos Limited Company ("Holder'');

 

Now therefore, the Note is hereby amended as follows:

 

The Maturity Date shall be September 30, 2017.

 

The Holder agrees that in the event the Company is able to file a Registration Statement for an Initial Public Offering on or before December 31, 2016, the Holder agrees to include the Note principal and accrued interest outstanding on the filing date with the Registration Statement and to convert all of the Note principal and accrued interest to Company common stock.

 

The “Conversion Price” means shall be the same as the anticipated Bridge Financing to be provided by Alexander Capital, LP, as reflected in the Registration Statement.

 

All other terms and conditions of the Note, as amended, shall continue in full force and effect.

 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have amended the Note effective as of September 14, 2016.

 

 


	
CO-DIAGNOSTICS, INC.
	
 
	
CO-DIAGNOSTICS, LTD.

	
 
	
 
	
 

	
By: /s/ Dwight Egan
	
 
	
By: /s/ Reed Benson

	
Dwight H. Egan 
	
 
	
 

	
President & CEO
	
 
	
Its: President
[No. 15521-8-III.

Division Three.

November 13, 1997.]

#### *In the Matter of the Marriage of*Stephen Earl Twiggs, *Respondent,*and Barbara Ann Twiggs, *Appellant.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for Spokane County, No. 95-3-00187-2, Tari S. Eitzen, J., entered January 17, 1996. *Affirmed*by unpublished opinion per Schultheis, J., concurred in by Sweeney, C.J., and Kurtz, J.
Editorial Note on Part 14
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 14 appear at 88 FR 45065, July 14, 2023.

§ 14.125 Procedures of TEPRSSC. ( a ) When the Commissioner is considering promulgation of a performance standard for an electronic product, or an amendment of an existing standard, before issuing a proposed regulation in the Federal Register the Commissioner will submit to TEPRSSC the proposed standard or amendment under consideration, together with other relevant information to aid TEPRSSC in its deliberations.
( b ) The agenda and other material to be considered at any meeting will be sent to members whenever possible at least 2 weeks before the meeting.
( c ) Ten members constitute a quorum, provided at least three members are present from each group specified in 21 U.S.C. 360kk(f)(1)(A) and in § 14.127(a), i.e., Government, industry, and the public.
( d ) The Chairperson of TEPRSSC will ordinarily submit a report to the Commissioner of the committee's consideration of any proposed performance standard for an electronic product within 60 days after consideration. If the Chairperson believes that more time is needed, the Chairperson will inform the Director of the Center for Devices and Radiological Health in writing, in which case an additional 30 days will be allowed to make the report.
( e ) Sections 14.1 through 14.7 apply to TEPRSSC, except where other provisions are specifically included in §§ 14.120 through 14.130.
[44 FR 22351, Apr. 13, 1979, as amended at 54 FR 9037, Mar. 3, 1989; 78 FR 17087, Mar. 20, 2013]
### Water resources in the vicinity of municipalities on the central Mesabi Iron Range, northeastern Minnesota

By: R. D. CotterH. L. YoungL. R. PetriC. H. Prior

                            https://doi.org/10.3133/wsp1759D

#### Links

-                                                                                                                             Document:                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  **Report**                                                                                                     (pdf)                                                                                                                                     
- Plate:  **Plate 1**                            (pdf)
- Superseded Publications:
                                        Water resources in the vicinity of municipalities on the Central Mesabi Iron Range, northeastern Minnesota(1963)                                    

- Download citation as:  RIS                         |                         Dublin                            Core

#### Abstract

Additional supplies of water are available near the municipalities on the central Mesabi Iron Range. Ground water presents the greatest potential yield, and most of the productive aquifers are in the Biwabik Iron-Formation and the stratified glacial drift. /k single body of ice-contact stratified drift underlies parts of all but one of the five municipality areas mapped. Surface-water supplies are generally inadequate. The Two River system in the eastern part of the area of this report offers some possibilities. Flow data from one discharge station and one miscellaneous gaging site are presented.

Analyses of water from many sources are presented as are data from many wells and test holes. Ground water commonly has a concentration of high iron and manganese and is hard. Surface water generally has a high concentration of iron and is colored.

#### Study Area

Part or all of this report is presented in Portable Document Format                        (PDF). For best results viewing and printing PDF documents, it is recommended that you download                        the documents to your computer and open them with Adobe Reader. PDF documents opened from your                        browser may not display or print as intended. Download the latest version of Adobe Reader, free of charge. More information                        about viewing, downloading, and printing report files can be found at the common download problems FAQ.
Exhibit 31.1
 CERTIFICATION
      (a)
    
    Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure
controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material
information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is
made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in
which this report is being prepared;(b)
    
    Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such
internal control over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to
provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the
preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally
accepted accounting principles;(c)
    
    Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and
procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the
disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report
based on such evaluation; and(d)
    
    Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over
financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter
(the registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has
materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants
internal control over financial reporting; and
  (a)
    
    All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation
of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely
affect the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial
information; and(b)
    
    Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees
who have a significant role in the registrants internal control over financial
reporting.
 Date: June 12, 2008/s/ Nathan ZommerNathan Zommer, Chairman of the Board,President and Chief Executive Officer
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

JUDGMENT

No. 04-17-00430-CR

San Juan GARCIA,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 227th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2014CR3674

Honorable Kevin M. O’Connell, Judge Presiding

BEFORE JUSTICE ANGELINI, JUSTICE CHAPA, AND JUSTICE RIOS

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, the judgment of the trial court is 

AFFIRMED.

SIGNED December 12, 2018.

_____________________________

Irene Rios, Justice
[No. 20258-1-II.

Division Two.

December 19, 1997.]

#### The State of Washington, *Appellant,*v. Demetrius Dwayne Foley, *Respondent.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for Pierce County, No. 95-1-03576-2, Donald H. Thompson, J., entered December 13, 1995. *Affirmed*by unpublished opinion per Seinfeld, J., concurred in by Houghton, C.J., and Morgan, J.
Docket No: FAA - 2015 - 0077 Dir ID: 2013 - NM - 254 -AD
<PAGE>   1
                                   EXHIBIT 21
                              List of Subsidiaries


Integrated Produce Systems, Inc., a Pennsylvania corporation
IPS Produce, Inc., a Pennsylvania corporation
Pure Produce, Inc., a Massachusetts corporation
Respire Films, Inc., a Pennsylvania corporation
Crystal Specialty Films, Inc., an Illinois corporation
Agra Research, Inc., an Indiana corporation
NewCorn Co LLC, a Delaware limited liability company
EPL Technologies (Europe) Limited, an English company
EPL Flexible Packaging Limited, an English company
Bakery Packaging Services Limited, an English company
BPS Produce Packaging Limited, an English company
Integrated Produce System Limited, an English company