alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 10.9 (i)

                       ASSIGNMENT AND ASSUMPTION AGREEMENT

         THIS ASSIGNMENT AND ASSUMPTION AGREEMENT ("Agreement") is entered into
this 1st day of November 2002 by and between Sunswipe Australasia Pty Ltd, of
Bickhams Court East St. Kilda, Victoria 3183, Australia ("Assignor") and Cohero
Group, Inc., of 253 5th Avenue 7th Floor, New York, NY 10016 ("Assignee).

         Pursuant to the terms of this Agreement, in exchange for the
satisfaction of $119,859.15 (USD) of obligations owed by Assignor by Assignee in
connection with the loan arrangements reached in Febraury 2002, Assignor hereby
assigns, conveys, transfers and delivers all of its right, title and interest in
and to $119,859.15 (USD) of that certain Promissory Note (Loan Agreement) dated
January 4, 2001 (the "Loan") due from VideoDome.com Networks, Inc. a California
corporation (the "Obligor") to Assignor (the "Note Assingment").

         In connection with and limited to the Note Assignment, Assignee hereby
agrees to assume all of Assignor's obligations under that certain Loan Agreement
dated January 4, 2001 between Assignor and the Obligor.

         IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Assignor, Assignee and the Obligor have duly
executed this Assignment and Assumption Agreement as of the date first above
written.


                                                 SUNSWIPE AUSTRALASIA PTY LTD

                                                 By: /s/Lisa Mochkin
                                                 Name: Lisa Mochkin
                                                 Title: Director


                                                 COHERO GROUP, INC.


                                                 By: /s/ Mendel Mochkin
                                                 Name: Mendel Mochkin
                                                 Title: Managing Director
                                    .
AGREED TO AND ACCEPTED
THIS 4th DAY OF NOVEMBER  2002

VIDEODOME.COM NETWORKDS, INC.

By: /s/ Daniel Aharonoff
Name: Daniel Aharonoff
Title: Chief Executive Officer
<page> EXHIBIT 32.02



CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the Quarterly Report of Morgan Stanley Principal
Plus Fund L.P. (the ?Partnership?) on Form 10-Q for the quarter
ended March 31, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the ?Report?), I, Lee Horwitz,
Chief Financial Officer of Demeter Management Corporation, the
general partner of the Partnership, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-
Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge:
(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 Partnership.









By:  /s/Lee Horwitz

Name:	   Lee Horwitz
Title:  Chief Financial Officer of Demeter Management Corporation,
	   the general partner of the Partnership

Date:   May 15, 2007
11 TH C OURT OF A PPEALS E ASTLAND , T EXAS J UDGMENT

In re the State of Texas ex rel. * Original Mandamus /Prohibition Michael Munk, P roceeding

No. 11

- 14

- 00268

- CV * November 10 , 2014

* Opinion by Bailey, J. (Panel consists of: Wright, C.J., Willson , J. , and Bailey, J. )

This court has considered R elator’s petition for writ of mandamus and petition for writ of prohibition and concludes that the petition for writ of mandamus should be conditionally granted in part and that the petition for writ of prohibition
should be denied . Therefore, in accordan ce with this court ’ s opinion, the petition for writ of mandamus is conditionally granted in part

. The Honorable Carter T. Schildknecht is directed to vacate her order of October 2, 2014, to the extent that the order requires the State to conduct criminal history searches of the NCIC/TCIC databases. A writ of mandamus will issue only if Judge Schildknecht fails to act by
November 25 , 2014. Relator’s request for a writ of prohibition is denied.
#### American Mills Company *v.*Doyal, tax-commissioner.

No. 8854.

March 16, 1932.

Atkinson, J.

1. The exception is to a judgment dismissing the action on general demurrer to the petition. The allegation in the petition that the taxes in question and for which a refund is sought “are a burden on interstate commerce,” and therefore are in violation of article 1, section 8, paragraph 3, of the constitution of the United States and are void, is not an attack upon the constitutionality of the statute under which the tax was collected.

2. It is declared in section 17 pf- the act of 1929 (Ga. L. 1929, p. 103) : “Any taxpayer who shall be dissatisfied with any order of the State Tax Board may, within thirty (30) days after the rendition of such order, file his bill of complaint in the superior court of the county in which the tax accrued, setting forth his grounds of complaint, and such superior court shall hear and determine such matter as causes in chancery are heard and determined. Appeal shall lie to the Supreme Court, as in other causes. Any person improperly charged with any tax and required to pay the same may recover the amount paid, together with interest at the rate of 6% per annum, in any proper action or suit against the State tax-commissioner, and the superior court of the county in which the tax accrued shall have original jurisdiction of any action to recover any tax improperly collected. It shall not be necessary for the taxpayer to protest against the payment of the tax or to make any demand to have the same refunded, in order to maintain such suit. In any suit to recover taxes or to collect taxes the court shall adjudge costs to such extent and in such manner as may be deemed equitable.” *Held:*

(o) The provision that the “superior court shall hear and determine such matter as causes in chancery are heard and determined” does not make the statutory remedy referred to in the act a proceeding in equity.

(6) The jurisdiction of the Supreme Court is declared by the constitution (Civil Code, § 6502), and the legislature is without power by mere enactment to confer jurisdiction upon the Supreme Court to decide questions that are not of the class to which the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court is limited by the constitution.

(c) The provisions of the act of the legislature quoted above do not confer jurisdiction upon the Supreme Court in the instant case. *Stein*v. *State Tax Board,*ante, 611.

*(d)*The Supreme Court has no jurisdiction of the writ of error, and the case is transferred to the Court of Appeals which has jurisdiction.

*Transferred to the Court of Appeals.*

*All the Justices concur, except Russell, C. J., who dissents.*

*632
      *Herbert J. Haas*and *Bertram S. Boley,*for plaintiff.

*George M. Napier, attorney-general, W. K. Meadow, assistant attorney-general,*and *J. A. Smith,*for defendant.
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

January 30, 2019

No. 04-18-00524-CR

Braulio TIRADO-MORALES,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 451st Judicial District Court, Kendall County, Texas

Trial Court No. 6200

Honorable Maria Teresa Herr, Judge Presiding

ORDER

Appellant’s brief was originally due to be filed on January 11, 2019. After neither the 

brief nor a motion for extension of time to file the brief was filed, we notified appellant’s counsel 

via letter that the brief was late and requested a response by no later than January 28, 2019. 

Appellant did not respond to our letter or file a brief or motion for extension of time to file the 

brief. 

Accordingly, appellant’s counsel is ORDERED to respond to this court in writing within 

ten (10) days of the date of this order. The response should state a reasonable explanation for 

failing to timely file the brief and demonstrate the steps being taken to remedy the deficiency. If 

appellant’s counsel fails to file an adequate response within ten (10) days, this appeal will be 

abated to the trial court for an abandonment hearing, and the trial court will be asked to consider 

whether sanctions are appropriate. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.8(b)(2). 

_________________________________

Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 30th day of January, 2019.

___________________________________

KEITH E. HOTTLE,

Clerk of Court
Exhibit 35.1 

Servicer Compliance Statement of Nissan Motor Acceptance Corporation 

**NISSAN MOTOR ACCEPTANCE CORPORATION**

**OFFICER’S CERTIFICATE**

The undersigned, Kevin J. Cullum, President and Chief Executive Officer of NISSAN MOTOR ACCEPTANCE CORPORATION, a California corporation (the“Company”), does hereby certify, in his capacity as such corporate officer, as follows: 

(1) The undersigned has caused a reviewof the activities of the Company, in its capacity as Servicer, during the 12-month period ended March 31, 2018 (the “Reporting Period”), and of its performance pursuant to the Sale and ServicingAgreement, dated as of October 14, 2015 (the “Agreement”), by and among the Company, individually and as servicer, Nissan Auto Receivables Corporation II, as seller, and Nissan Auto Receivables2015-C Owner Trust, to be conducted under his supervision; and 

(2) To the best of theundersigned’s knowledge, based upon such review, the Company has fulfilled all of its obligations under the Agreement in all material respects throughout the Reporting Period. 

This Officer’s Certificate is being furnished pursuant to Item 1123 of the Securities and Exchange Commission’s Regulation AB forpublicly-issued asset-backed securities. Capitalized terms used but not defined herein shall have the meanings assigned to such terms in the Agreement. 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have set my hand effective as of the 26th day of June, 2018.
39444.

39453.

#### STATE HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT v. THOMPSON. STATE HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT v. ALEXANDER *et al.*

Nichols, Presiding Judge.

In both cases, the State Highway Department was condemning strips of land owned by the condemnees for highway purposes, and in both cases the remaining property not taken would be in two sections divided by limited-access highways, which would necessitate the condemnees having to travel to an overhead bridge which crossed such limited-access road in order to move from one section of their property to the part cut off by the limited-*739access road. In both cases, the condemnees appealed the amount of the award of the special master to the jury and in each case, after verdict, the condemnor filed a motion for new trial on the usual general grounds, which was overruled by the trial court. The condemnor now assigns error on the judgments of the superior court denying such motions for new trial. *Held:*

Decided April 10, 1962.

*Eugene Cook, Attorney-General, Carter Goode, E. J. Summerour, Assistant Attorneys-General, Graydon D. Riddick,*for plaintiff in error.

*Mixon & Forrester, George M. Mixon, John R. Rogers,*contra.

The verdicts were within the range of the evidence and were authorized by the evidence, although smaller verdicts were also authorized. The verdicts had the approval of the trial court and cannot be disturbed by this court on appeal. See *State Highway Dept. v. Reid,*52 Ga. App. 206 (182 SE 801); *State Highway Dept. v. Porter,*96 Ga. App. 142 (99 SE2d 519); *State Highway Dept. v. Jackson,*100 Ga. App. 704 (112 SE2d 356); and *Adler v. Adler, 207*Ga. 394, 405 (61 SE2d 824).

*Judgments affirmed.*

*Frankum and Jordan, JJ., concur.*
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
THIS  SCHEDULE  CONTAINS  SUMMARY  FINANCIAL   INFORMATION  EXTRACTED  FROM  THE
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR THE PERIOD ENDED FEBRUARY 29, 2000, AND IS QUALIFIED IN
ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.

</LEGEND>
<CIK>                         0000854883
<NAME>                        Edd Helms Group, Inc.

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>               MAY-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                  JUN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                    FEB-29-2000
<CASH>                               209,095
<SECURITIES>                               0
<RECEIVABLES>                      1,297,985
<ALLOWANCES>                          49,502
<INVENTORY>                          621,714
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                   2,518,561
<PP&E>                             2,435,134
<DEPRECIATION>                     1,673,299
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                     3,521,210
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>              1,406,720
<BONDS>                                    0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                      0
<PREFERRED>                                0
<COMMON>                             125,621
<OTHER-SE>                         1,728,384
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>       3,521,210
<SALES>                                    0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                   8,618,773
<CGS>                              6,169,024
<TOTAL-COSTS>                      6,169,024
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                   2,070,576
<LOSS-PROVISION>                           0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                    22,670
<INCOME-PRETAX>                      365,334
<INCOME-TAX>                             160
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                  365,174
<DISCONTINUED>                             0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                            0
<CHANGES>                                  0
<NET-INCOME>                         365,174
<EPS-BASIC>                              .03
<EPS-DILUTED>                            .03


</TABLE>
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-7581

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus MICHAEL LEE DRAKE, Defendant - Appellant.Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Fox, District Judge. (CR-95-124-F, CA-95-187-5-F) Submitted: February 25, 1999 Decided: March 10, 1999 Before HAMILTON, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Michael Lee Drake, Appellant Pro Se. Fenita Morris Shepard, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 1994 & Supp. 1998). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate ofappealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. See United States v. Drake , Nos. CR-95-124-F; CA-95- 187-5-F (E.D.N.C. Oct. 9, 1998). 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.

DISMISSED
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA

SECOND DISTRICT

PHILLIP SMITH,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

No. 2D23-1951

March 20, 2024

Appeal pursuant to Fla. R. App. P. 9.141(b)(2) from the Circuit Court for 

Pasco County; Joshua Riba, Judge.

Deana K. Marshall of Law Office of Deana K. Marshall, P.A., Riverview, 

for Appellant.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

KELLY BLACK, and SMITH, JJ., Concur.

Opinion subject to revision prior to official publication.
CEO Employment


     

    AMENDMENT
      dated
      as
      of February 23, 2007 to the Employment Agreement dated as of May 9, 2006 (the
      “Agreement”)
      between inVentiv Health, Inc., a Delaware corporation, and Eran Broshy.


     

    In
      consideration of the mutual covenants and promises contained herein, and other
      good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby
      acknowledged by the parties hereto, the parties agree as follows:

     

    Section
      1.  Bonus.
      Section
      4 of the Agreement is hereby amended to read in its entirety as
      follows:

     

    Executive
      shall be eligible for a bonus in each calendar year, based on Executive’s
      success in reaching or exceeding performance objectives as determined by the
      Board (the “Bonus”). Executive’s target Bonus shall be determined by the Board
      and shall be no less than 100% of Executive’s then current salary. The amount of
      the Bonus, if any, that is actually awarded shall be determined at the
      discretion of the Board. All or any portion of the Bonus may be awarded pursuant
      to a plan satisfying the requirements of Section 162(m) of the Internal Revenue
      Code of 1986, as amended.

     

    Section
      2.  Ratification.
      Except
      as aforesaid, the Agreement shall remain in full force and effect in accordance
      with its terms. 

     

    Section
      3.  Governing
      Law.
      This
      Agreement shall be construed, interpreted and enforced in accordance with the
      laws of the State of New York, without regard to its conflict of law
      principles.

     

    IN
      WITNESS WHEREOF,
      the
      parties have executed this Amendment as of the day and year first written
      above.

     

    


    
      	
              inVentiv
                Health, Inc.

               

              By:
                /s/ Per G.H. Lofberg

                

              Name:
                Per G.H. Lofberg

              Member,
                Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors

            	
               

               

              
                By:
                  /s/ Eran Broshy

              

              Eran
                Broshy

            
	
              
                By:
                  /s/ Mark Jennings

              

                

              Name:
                Mark Jennings

              Member,
                Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors
`[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S.J. Res. 95 Enrolled Bill (ENR)]

        S.J.Res. 95
                       One Hundred Third Congress

                                 of the

                        United States of America


                          AT THE FIRST SESSION

          Begun and held at the City of Washington on Tuesday,
  the fifth day of January, one thousand nine hundred and ninety-three


                            Joint Resolution


 
To designate October 1993 as ``National Breast Cancer Awareness Month''.

Whereas breast cancer will strike an estimated 182,000 women and 1,000 
  men in the United States in 1993;
Whereas the risk of developing breast cancer increases as a woman grows 
  older;
Whereas breast cancer is the second leading cause of cancer death in 
  women, and will kill an estimated 46,000 women and 300 men in 1993;
Whereas the 5-year survival rate for localized breast cancer has risen 
  from 78 percent in the 1940's to over 90 percent today;
Whereas most breast cancers are detected by the woman herself;
Whereas educating both the public and health care providers about the 
  importance of early detection will result in reducing breast cancer 
  mortality;
Whereas appropriate use of screening mammography, in conjunction with 
  clinical examination and breast self-examination, can result in the 
  detection of many breast cancers early in their development and 
  increase the survival rate to nearly 100 percent;
Whereas data from controlled trials clearly demonstrate that deaths from 
  breast cancer are significantly reduced in women who have been 
  screened by mammography;
Whereas many women are reluctant to have screening mammograms for a 
  variety of reasons, such as the cost of testing, lack of information, 
  or fear;
Whereas access to screening mammography is directly related to 
  socioeconomic status;
Whereas increased awareness about the importance of screening 
  mammography will result in the procedure being regularly requested by 
  the patient and recommended by the health care provider; and
Whereas it is projected that more women will use this lifesaving test as 
  it becomes increasingly available and affordable: Now, therefore, be 
  it

    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled, That October
1993 is designated as ``National Breast Cancer Awareness Month'' and the 
President is authorized and requested to issue a proclamation calling 
upon the people of the United States to observe the month with 
appropriate programs and activities.







                                Speaker of the House of Representatives.







                             Vice President of the United States and    
                                                President of the Senate.`
ATTACHMENT A

SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL

New Proposed BARCT Levels for Tier III

 5 ppmv for FCCUs, SRU/TGs, glass melting furnaces, cement kilns and coal fired boiler

 10 ppmv for sulfuric acid plants and petroleum coke calciner

 15 ppmv for diesel combustion1, and 

 40 ppmv for refinery boilers/heaters

Proposed RTC Reductions

 The total RTC reductions are 5.7 tons per day (51.4% shave) cumulatively distributed as 

follows: 3.0 tons per day by 2013, 4.0 tons per day by 2014, 5.0 tons per day by 2017, 

and 5.7 tons per day by 2019.

 The shave will be applied to RTCs held by the 11 major facilities, to those RTC 

holdings that exceed initial allocations at 3 facilities, and RTCs held by investors, 

including any RTCs traded between August 29, 2009 and the Governing Board meeting 

date to prevent inappropriate sheltering of RTCs.

 In addition, by no later than July 1, 2012, SOx emissions from the fluidized catalytic 

cracking units (FCCUs) must meet an emission limit of 25 ppmv dry @ 0% O2 on a 

365-day rolling average. For the purpose of demonstrating compliance with this limit, 

the refinery shall commence the use of SOx reducing additives in the FCCUs no later 

than July 1, 2011, unless the operator can demonstrate that the FCCU will achieve this 

limit by using other control methods.

RTC Adjustment Factors & Backstop 

To address market viability concerns, for Phase 3 and 4 (post 2015) of the SOx RECLAIM, 

staff is proposing set-aside RTC accounts (i.e. non-tradable/non-usable) equivalent to the 

RTC reductions called for by the specific compliance years that can potentially be made 

available to the impacted facilities in the event RTC prices exceed the $50,000 per ton 

threshold (discrete credit). 

The AQMD RECLAIM Administrative team shall calculate the 12-month rolling average 

SOx RTC price for all “discrete” trades. In the event the price exceeds $50 K per ton, the 

Executive Officer will report to the Governing Board, and at a duly scheduled Public 

Hearing, the Governing Board will decide whether or not to convert any portion of the nontradable/non-usable RTCs to tradable/usable, and how much to convert. 

 

1 As required under AQMD Rule 431.2 – Sulfur Content of Liquid Fuels
2

The AQMD RECLAIM Administrative team shall determine the tradable/usable SOx RTC 

adjustment factors for Phase 1 to Phase 4 (2012-2019 and after). The non-tradable/nonusable RTC adjustments factors for Phase 3 and Phase 4 (post-2015) shall also be 

determined. The adjustment factors will be published and posted on the AQMD website 

within 30 days after rule adoption date.