alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>
                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.6
                                  TERM NOTE

$646,765                                                   Pasadena, California
                                                                August 16, 2000

                  For value received, the undersigned, XIT CORPORATION, a New
Jersey corporation (the "BORROWER"), hereby promises to pay on the
Termination Date under the Credit Agreement (defined below), to the order of
WELLS FARGO BUSINESS CREDIT, INC., a Minnesota corporation (the "LENDER"), at
its main office in Pasadena, California, or at any other place designated at
any time by the holder hereof, in lawful money of the United States of
America and in immediately available funds, the principal sum of SIX HUNDRED
FORTY-SIX THOUSAND SEVEN HUNDRED SIXTY-FIVE DOLLARS ($646,765) or, if less,
the aggregate unpaid principal amount of the Term Advance made by the Lender
to the Borrower under the Credit Agreement (defined below) together with
interest on the principal amount hereunder remaining unpaid from time to
time, computed on the basis of the actual number of, days elapsed and a
360-day year, from the date hereof until this Note is fully paid at the rate
from time to time in effect under the Credit and Security Agreement of even
date herewith (as the same may hereafter be amended, supplemented or restated
from time to time, the "CREDIT AGREEMENT") by and among the Lender, the
Borrower and CXR TELCOM CORPORATION. The principal hereof and interest
accruing thereon shall be due and payable as provided in the Credit
Agreement. This Note may be prepaid only in accordance with the Credit
Agreement.

                  This Note is issued pursuant, and is subject, to the Credit
Agreement, which provides, among other things, for acceleration hereof. This
Note is the Term Note referred to in the Credit Agreement. This Note is secured,
among other things, pursuant to the Credit Agreement and the Security Documents
as therein defined, and may now or hereafter be secured by one or more other
security agreements, mortgages, deeds of trust, assignments or other instruments
or agreements.

                  The Borrower hereby agrees to pay all costs of collection,
including attorneys' fees and legal expenses in the event this Note is not
paid when due, whether or not legal proceedings are commenced.

                  Presentment or other demand for payment, notice of dishonor
and protest are expressly waived.

                                       XIT CORPORATION,
                                       a New Jersey corporation

                                       By /s/ GALLANT THEIN
                                          -------------------------

                                       Name: Gallant Thein
                                             ----------------------

                                             Its Secretary
                                                 ------------------
# C_2015406EN.01003101.xml

| 7.12.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 406/31 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.12.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 406/31

---

Judgment of the General Court of 22 October 2015 — Hewlett Packard Development Company v OHIM (ELITEDISPLAY)

(Case T-563/14) (1)

((Community trade mark - Application for Community word mark ELITEDISPLAY - Absolute ground for refusal - Descriptive character - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

(2015/C 406/31)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Hewlett Packard Development Company LP (Houston, Texas, United States) (represented by: T. Raab and H. Lauf, lawyers)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: Ó. Mondéjar Ortuño, acting as Agent)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 19 May 2014 (Case R 1539/2013-2), concerning an application for registration of the word sign ELITEDISPLAY as a Community trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Hewlett Packard Development Company LP to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Hewlett Packard Development Company LP to pay the costs.

---

(1)  
  OJ C 351, 5.10.2014.

---
# United States Court **of Appeals**  **f or the Fifth Circuit** 

No. 19

- 50926 Conference Calendar

**United States of America,**

Plaintiff

— Appellee **,**

versus

**Maria Preciado,**

Defendant

— Appellant

**.**

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 7:19

- CR

- 3

- 1

Before **Graves, Willett,** and **Duncan,** Circuit Judges

**. Per Curiam**  **:** *

The attorney appointed to represent Maria Preciado has moved for
leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores , 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011).
Preciado has filed a response. The rec ord is not sufficiently developed to

* Pursuant to **5th Cir cuit**  **R ule**  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 cuit**  **R ule**  47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED January 7, 2021

Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 19-50926 Document: 00515698403 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/07/2021No. 19

- 50926

2 allow us to make a fair evaluation of Preciado ’s claim of ineffective assistance
of counsel . W e the refore decline to consider the claim without prejudice to
collateral review. See United States v. Isgar , 739 F.3d 829, 841 (5th Cir. 2014).
We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein, as well as Preciado ’s response. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, the motion f or leave to withdraw is
**GRANTED** , counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and
the **APPEAL IS DISMISSED**

. See **5th Cir. R**

. 42.2. P reciado’s motion for appointment of new counsel is **DENIED**

**.** The case is **REMANDED** pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 36 for correction of the judgment to reflect that Preciado pleaded guilty to 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(A). Case: 19-50926 Document: 00515698403 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/07/2021
# C_2014194EN.01003302.xml

| 24.6.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 194/33 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.6.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 194/33

---

Action brought on 23 April 2014 — Zehnder Group International v OHIM — Stiebel Eltron (comfotherm)

(Case T-267/14)

2014/C 194/43

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Zehnder Group International AG (Gränichen, Switzerland) (represented by: J. Krenzel, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Stiebel Eltron GmbH & Co. KG (Holzminden, Germany)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of 21 February 2014 in Case R 1318/2013-4; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of 21 February 2014 in Case R 1318/2013-4;

| — | Order the defendant to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

Registered Community trade mark in respect of which a declaration of invalidity has been sought: the word mark ‘comfotherm’ for goods in Classes 9 and 11 — Community trade mark No 8 8 59  472

Registered Community trade mark in respect of which a declaration of invalidity has been sought:

Proprietor of the Community trade mark: the applicant

Proprietor of the Community trade mark:

Applicant for the declaration of invalidity of the Community trade mark: Stiebel Eltron GmbH & Co. KG

Applicant for the declaration of invalidity of the Community trade mark:

Grounds for the application for a declaration of invalidity: the word mark ‘KOMFOTHERM’ for goods in Class 11

Grounds for the application for a declaration of invalidity:

Decision of the Cancellation Division: the application for a declaration of invalidity was granted

Decision of the Cancellation Division:

Decision of the Board of Appeal: the appeal was dismissed

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

Pleas in law: the contested decision does not stand up to scrutiny as regards the finding in respect of the similarity of the goods

Pleas in law:

---
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-1745

MICHAEL RUTH,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

CITY OF CREEDMOOR; ROBERT G. MORRIS, in his official and 

individual capacities; JOHN DOES 1-10, in their official and 

individual capacities,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. W. Earl Britt, Senior

District Judge. (5:13-cv-00862-BR)

Submitted: November 10, 2015 Decided: November 30, 2015

Before KING and WYNN, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit 

Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Michael Ruth, Appellant Pro Se. Dan M. Hartzog, Jr., CRANFILL, 

SUMNER & HARTZOG, LLP, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Michael Ruth appeals the district court’s order granting 

summary judgment to the Defendants in his civil action. We have 

reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, 

we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See

Ruth v. City of Creedmoor, No. 5:13-cv-00862-BR (E.D.N.C. June 

30, 2015). We grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis. We 

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal 

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before 

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
4-30-13 Line 3 Run 1

Temperature Data

File Name: C:\Documents and Settings\All Users\Documents\MDAS-PRO\Data\c1.MP_Lgr

Recorder Start Time: 3/27/2013 7:33:32 AM Eastern Daylight Time

Recorder Stop Time: 5/2/2013 9:03:32 AM Eastern Daylight Time

Measurement Interval: 30Min

Number of Measurements: 1732

Alarm Activated: False

Printout Date: 5/2/2013 9:23:16 AM Eastern Daylight Time

Logger Serial Number: 110405009

Initial Description: Alcoa Line 3

Final Comment: 

Tracking Number: 5068

Note: 

Data Format: Output All Measurements.

DateTime Temperature

4/30/2013 10:03 91.4

4/30/2013 10:33 91.2

4/30/2013 11:03 92.6

4/30/2013 11:33 94.2

4/30/2013 12:03 95.8

4/30/2013 12:33 100.4

4/30/2013 13:03 101.6

4/30/2013 13:33 99.4

4/30/2013 14:03 100.6

4/30/2013 14:33 101.4

AVG 96.86
```

[115th Congress Public Law 35]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

[[Page 131 STAT. 848]]

Public Law 115-35
115th Congress

                            Joint Resolution

 
 Disapproving the rule submitted by the Department of Labor relating to 
    savings arrangements established by States for non-governmental 
          employees. <<NOTE: May 17, 2017 -  [H.J. Res. 66]>> 

    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled, That Congress disapproves the 
rule submitted by the Department of Labor relating to ``Savings 
Arrangements Established by States for Non-Governmental Employees'' 
(published at 81 Fed. Reg. 59464 (August 30, 2016)), and such rule shall 
have no force or effect.

    Approved May 17, 2017.

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY--H.J. Res. 66:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 163 (2017):
            Feb. 15, considered and passed House.
            May 3, considered and passed Senate.

                                  <all>
```
§ 1.509(a)-7 Reliance by grantors and contributors to section 509(a) (1), (2), and (3) organizations. ( a ) *General rule.* Once an organization has received a final ruling or determination letter classifying it as an organization described in section 509(a) (1), (2), or (3), the treatment of grants and contributions and the status of grantors and contributors to such organization under sections 170, 507, 545(b)(2), 556(b)(2), 642(c), 4942, 4945, 2055, 2106(a)(2), and 2522 will not be affected by reason of a subsequent revocation by the service of the organization's classification as described in section 509(a) (1), (2), or (3) until the date on which notice of change of status is made to the public (such as by publication in the Internal Revenue Bulletin) or another applicable date, if any, specified in such public notice. In appropriate cases, however, the treatment of grants and contributions and the status of grantors and contributors to an organization described in section 509(a) (1), (2), or (3) may be affected pending verification of the continued classification of such organization under section 509(a) (1), (2), or (3). Notice to this affect will be made in a public announcement by the service. In such cases the effect of grants and contributions made after the date of the announcement will depend upon the statutory qualification of the organization as an organization described in section 509(a) (1), (2), or (3).
( b ) *Exceptions.* ( 1 ) Paragraph (a) of this section shall not apply if the grantor or contributor: ( i ) Had knowledge of the revocation of the ruling or determination letter classifying the organization as an organization described in section 509(a) (1), (2), or (3), or
( ii ) Was in part responsible for, or was aware of, the act, the failure to act, or the substantial and material change on the part of the organization which gave rise to the revocation of the ruling or determination letter classifying the organization as an organization described in section 509(a) (1), (2), or (3).
( 2 ) Paragraph (a) of this section shall not apply where a different rule is otherwise expressly provided in the regulations under sections 170(b)(1)(A), 507(b)(1)(B), or 509.
[T.D. 7212, 37 FR 21923, Oct. 17, 1972]
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia Clerk's Office, Atlanta, May 11, 2021. I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia. Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto affixed the day and year last above written. , Clerk. 

# Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia
ATLANTA, May 11, 2021 The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order A21I0191. CARL MCNEIL v. THE STATE.
Upon consideration of the Application for Interlocutory Appeal, it is ordered that it be hereby GRANTED. The Appellant may file a Notice of Appeal within 10 days of the date of this order. The Clerk of Superior Court is directed to include a copy of this order in the record transmitted to the Court of Appeals.
LC NUMBERS: 2020R0030
# C_2015262EN.01002301.xml

| 10.8.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 262/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.8.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 262/23

---

Judgment of the General Court of 17 June 2015 — BMV Mineralöl v OHIM — Delek Europe (GO)

(Case T-60/14) (1)

1

((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community figurative mark GO - Earlier Community figurative mark GO - Relative ground for refusal - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

(2015/C 262/30)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: BMV Mineralöl Versorgungsgesellschaft mbH (Berlin, Germany) (represented by: M. von Fuchs and I. Czernik, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: A. Schifko, acting as Agent)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Delek Europe BV (Breda, Netherlands)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM:

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 22 November 2013 (Case R 382/2013-4), relating to opposition proceedings between BMV Mineralöl Versorgungsgesellschaft mbH and Delek Europe BV.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders BMV Mineralöl Versorgungsgesellschaft mbH to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders BMV Mineralöl Versorgungsgesellschaft mbH to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 93, 29.3.2014.

1

---
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 7554 

To amend part A of title IV of the Social Security Act to ensure that 

Federal funds provided under the program of block grants to States 

for temporary assistance for needy families are used to supplement State 

spending, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 5, 2024 

Ms. TENNEY introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To amend part A of title IV of the Social Security Act 

to ensure that Federal funds provided under the program 

of block grants to States for temporary assistance for 

needy families are used to supplement State spending, 

and for other purposes. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Protect TANF Re5 sources for Families Act’’. 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•HR 7554 IH

1 SEC. 2. PROHIBITION ON STATE DIVERSION OF FEDERAL 

2 FUNDS TO REPLACE STATE SPENDING. 

3 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 404 of the Social Security 

4 Act (42 U.S.C. 604) is amended by adding at the end the 

5 following: 

6 ‘‘(l) LIMITATION ON USE OF FEDERAL FUNDS TO

7 REPLACE STATE GENERAL REVENUE FUNDS.—A State 

8 shall use Federal funds received under this part only to 

9 supplement funds that, in the absence of the Federal 

10 funds, would be made available from State and local 

11 sources for programs assisted under this part, and not to 

12 supplant the funds.’’. 

13 (b) STATE CERTIFICATION.—Section 402(a) of such 

14 Act (42 U.S.C. 602(a)) is amended by adding at the end 

15 the following: 

16 ‘‘(9) CERTIFICATION OF STATE SUPPLEMEN17 TATION.—A certification by the chief executive offi18 cer of the State that the funds provided to the State 

19 under this part will not be used to supplant State 

20 or non-Federal funds for services and activities that 

21 promote the purposes of this part.’’. 

22 (c) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

23 this section shall take effect on October 1, 2025. 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
3 

•HR 7554 IH

1 SEC. 3. TWO-YEAR REAUTHORIZATION OF THE TEMPORARY 

2 ASSISTANCE FOR NEEDY FAMILIES PRO3 GRAM. 

4 Activities authorized by part A of title IV (other than 

5 under section 403(c) or 418) and section 1108(b) of the 

6 Social Security Act shall continue through September 30, 

7 2026, in the manner authorized for fiscal year 2023, and 

8 out of any money in the Treasury of the United States 

9 not otherwise appropriated, there are hereby appropriated 

10 such sums as may be necessary for such purpose. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
#### § 1.172-2 Net operating loss in case of a corporation.

(a) *Modification of deductions.* A net operating loss is sustained by a corporation in any taxable year if and to the extent that, for such year, there is an excess of deductions allowed by chapter 1 of the Code over gross income computed thereunder. In determining the excess of deductions over gross income for such purpose—

(1) *Items not deductible.* No deduction shall be allowed under—

(i) Section 172 for the net operating loss deduction, and

(ii) Section 922 in respect of Western Hemisphere trade corporations;

(2) *Dividends received.* The 85-percent limitation provided by section 246(b) shall not apply to the deductions otherwise allowed under—

(i) Section 243(a) in respect of dividends received from domestic corporations.

(ii) Section 244 in respect of dividends received on preferred stock of public utilities, and

(iii) Section 245 in respect of dividends received from foreign corporations; and

(3) *Dividends paid.* The deduction granted by section 247 in respect of dividends paid on the preferred stock of public utilities shall be computed without regard to subsection (a)(1)(B) of Section 247.

(b) *Example.* The following example illustrates the application of paragraph (a):

# Example.

For the calendar year 1981, the X corporation has a gross income of $400,000 and total deductions allowed by chapter 1 of the Code of $375,000 exclusive of any net operating loss deduction and exclusive of any deduction for dividends received or paid. Corporation X in 1981 received $100,000 of dividends entitled to the benefits of section 243(a). These dividends are included in Corporation X's $400,000 gross income. Corporation X has no other deductions to which section 172(d) applies. On the basis of these facts, Corporation X has a net operating loss for the year 1981 of $60,000, computed as follows:

| Deductions for 1981 | $375,000 |
| --- | --- |
| Plus: Deduction for dividends received, computed without regard to the limitation provided in section 246(b) (85% of $100,000) | 85,000 |
| Total | 460,000 |
| Less: Gross income for 1981 (including $100,000 dividends) | 400,000 |
| Net operating loss for 1981 | 60,000 |

(c) *Qualified real estate investment trusts.* For taxable years ending after October 4, 1976, the net operating loss of a qualified real estate investment trust (as defined in § 1.172-10(b)) is computed by taking into account the adjustments described in section 857(b)(2) (other than the deduction for dividends paid, as defined in section 561), as well as the modifications required by paragraph (a)(1) of this section. Thus, for example, the special deductions for dividends received, etc., provided in part VIII of subchapter B (other than section 248), as well as the net operating loss deduction under section 172, are not allowed in computing the net operating loss of a qualified real estate investment trust.

[T.D. 8107, 51 FR 43345, Dec. 2, 1986]