alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### § 0.204 Prohibition of reprisal for reporting suspected misconduct.

Any employee who has authority to take, direct others to take, recommend, or approve any personnel action, shall not, with respect to such authority, take or threaten to take any action against any employee as a reprisal for providing any information in accordance with § 0.203 of this part or through other processes established by law. However, if an employee makes a complaint or discloses information with the knowledge that it was false, or with willful disregard of its truth or falsity, such conduct may be grounds for disciplinary action, and such action shall not constitute reprisal.
| 1. | Such Quarter Report on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2010, 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 such      Quarter Report on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2010, fairly presents, in all      material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of      Birch Branch,      Inc. |
|----|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Date:        November 15, 2010  |   |
|-------------------------------------------|--------|
|                                      |   |
| /s/ Wang Lei                              |   |
| Wang      LeiChief      Financial Officer |   |

----
Exhibit 34.2  LOGO Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm To the Partners CWCapital Asset Management LLC We have examined management of CWCapital Asset Management LLC (CWCAM)s assertion that CWCAM complied with the servicing criteria
applicable to it under paragraph (d) of Item 1122 of the Securities and Exchange Commissions Regulation AB for the special servicing platform (Platform) for commercial mortgage-backed securities transaction that were issued on
or after January 1, 2006 for which CWCAM acted as the special servicer included in the accompanying Managements Assertion on Compliance with Regulation AB Criteria as of and for the year ended December 31, 2018. CWCAMs
management is responsible for its assertion. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on managements assertion based on our examination. Management has determined that the criteria set forth in Sections 1122 (d)(1)(iii), (d)(3)(i)(B), (d)(3)(i)(C), (d)(3)(i)(D), (d)(3)(ii), (d)(3)(iii),
(d)(3)(iv), (d)(4)(v), (d)(4)(ix), (d)(4)(x), (d)(4)(xi), (d)(4)(xii), (d)(4)(xiii), (d)(4)(xiv), and (d)(4)(xv) are not applicable to the activities performed by CWCAM, as a special servicer, with respect to CWCAMs Platform. The commercial
mortgage-backed securities transactions covered by this Platform are those specified in Appendix B in the accompanying Managements Assertion on Compliance with Regulation AB Criteria. Our examination was conducted in accordance with attestation standards established by the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States).
Those standards require that we plan and perform the examination to obtain reasonable assurance about whether managements assertion is fairly stated, in all material respects. An examination involves performing procedures to obtain evidence
about managements assertion. The nature, timing, and extent of the procedures selected depend on our judgment, including an assessment of the risks of material misstatement of managements assertion, whether due to fraud or error. We
believe that the evidence we obtained is sufficient and appropriate to provide a reasonable basis for our opinion. Our examination does not provide
a legal determination on CWCAMs compliance with the specified requirements. Our examination disclosed the following material noncompliance
with servicing criterion 1122(d)(2)(vii)(B) as applicable to CWCAM: With respect to servicing criterion 1122(d)(2)(vii)(B), certain bank
reconciliations were not prepared within 30 calendar days after the bank statement cut-off date.  1




---

LOGO In our opinion, except for the material noncompliance described above, managements assertion that CWCAM
complied with the servicing criteria applicable to it under paragraph (d) of Item 1122 of Regulation AB included in the accompanying Managements Assertion on Compliance with Regulation AB Criteria is fairly stated, in all material
respects. We do not express an opinion or any form of assurance on Managements Discussion on Material Instance of Noncompliance in Schedule B
to the Managements Assertion.  /s/ CohnReznick LLPBethesda, MarylandFebruary 28, 2019  2
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

 v.

VICTOR BERRELLEZA-VERDUZCO,

 Defendant - Appellant.

No. 13-30262

D.C. No. 2:12-cr-00062-RSL-3

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Washington

Robert S. Lasnik, District Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted December 11, 2014

Seattle, Washington

Before: McKEOWN, TALLMAN, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.

Victor Berrelleza-Verduzco appeals the district court’s denial of his motion

to withdraw his guilty plea and his motion to substitute counsel at sentencing. 

Berrelleza-Verduzco argues this court should vacate his plea and sentence because

the district court did not address the “package deal” provision interlocking

FILED

JAN 23 2015

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

 * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Berrelleza-Verduzco’s written plea agreement with four other co-defendants when

reviewing the agreement in open court. Berrelleza-Verduzco argues this raises

concerns about the voluntariness of his plea. Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(b)(2).

 While the prosecution did not comply with its duty to orally alert the district

court that Berrelleza-Verduzco’s plea was part of a package deal with codefendants, United States v. Caro, 997 F.2d 657, 660 (9th Cir. 1993), BerrellezaVerduzco failed to establish that this amounts to plain error. United States v. Vonn,

535 U.S. 55, 62–63 (2002).1

 Berrelleza-Verduzco has not alleged sufficient facts

to support a conclusion that, but for the deficient colloquy that failed to inquire into

the package deal provision, it was reasonably probable that Berrelleza-Verduzco

would not have pled guilty and would have gone to trial. United States v.

Dominguez Benitez, 542 U.S. 74, 83 (2004); United States v. Davila, 133 S. Ct.

2139, 2150 (2013). 

Finally, the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying BerrellezaVerduzco’s motion to substitute counsel. The conflict between client and attorney

1

 Berrelleza-Verduzco argues that he should benefit from the standard of

review applied in United States v. Caro—harmless error. However, since 1993,

the Supreme Court has toughened the standard of review for Rule 11 errors,

making it harder to show cause to vacate convictions and withdraw guilty pleas. 

See Vonn, 535 U.S. 55; United States v. Dominguez Benitez, 542 U.S. 74 (2004);

United States v. Davila, 133 S. Ct. 2139 (2013).

-2-
did not involve threats or an inability to pay counsel, the court gave BerrellezaVerduzco the option of a delay for further consultation with his attorney, and the

judge’s inquiry into Berrezella-Verduzco’s complaint was sufficient. Cf. United

States v. Rivera-Corona, 618 F.3d 976, 978 (9th Cir. 2010). 

AFFIRMED.

-3-
exv10w17wiv



 





Exhibit 10.17(iv)




SECOND SUPPLEMENT TO INTERCOMPANY LOAN AGREEMENT



This Second Supplement to Intercompany Loan Agreement made as of June
21st, 2001 between TopSpin Medical (Israel) Ltd. an Israeli company having its address
at 1 Lev Pesach Street, North Industrial Zone Lod Israel (“LTD”) and TopSpin Medical Inc.
(“INC”) a company incorporated in Delaware having its address at 1013 Center Road, Wilmington
Delaware, USA (the “Original Agreement”; All capitalized terms as used herein shall have the
meaning assigned to them in the Original Agreement, unless otherwise specifically stated in this
Opinion) is entered into on February 15 2007 between LTD and INC (the Supplement”).




WHEREAS:




     Pursuant to the Original Agreement INC has provided from time to time Convertible Loans to
LTD;


NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of their mutual undertakings herein, the parties, intending to be
legally bound, do hereby agree, declare and stipulate as follows:



1. INC hereby waives its right to receive any interest owed to INC by LTD totaling in US$ 91,699 as
of December 31, 2006, pursuant to the Original Agreement in connection with any Convertible Loans
extended to LTD by INC, during the year 2006.



2. The outstanding principal amount of Convertible Loan extended to LTD by INC as of December 31,
2006 totaling US$ 3,549,900 shall be converted into 23,666 ordinary shares of LTD (the “Shares”) at
a conversion price of $150 per share as of December 31, 2006. For the avoidance of doubt, INC shall
not be entitled to any interest with respect to the Convertible Loan from and after December 31,
2006.



3. The provisions of the Original Agreement, to the extent not explicitly amended under this
Supplement, shall remain in force and affect.



IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this second Supplement to Intercompany Loan Agreement
as of the date first above written.




	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	TopSpin Medical (Israel) Ltd.	 	 	 	TopSpin Medical Inc.	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	By:

	 	/s/ Erez Golan
	 	/s/ Eyal Kolka
	 	By:
	 	/s/ Erez Golan
	 	/s/ Eyal Kolka
	 

	 	 
	 	 
	 	 	 	 
	 	 
	Name:

	 	Erez Golan
	 	Eyal Kolka
	 	Name:
	 	Erez Golan
	 	Eyal Kolka
	Title:

	 	CEO
	 	CFO
	 	Title:
	 	 CEO
	 	CFO
STATE OP MISSISSIPPI 

WY B~UR 

Gowon 

MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUAJ.,llY 

TRUOY D. FISHER. ErrCm~ DI~R 

I 

September 22, 2008 

Mr. James I. Palmer, Jr. 

Regional Administrator 

U 3. Environmental Protection Agency 

61 Forsyth Street 

Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960 

Dear Mr. Palmer: 

Re; Regional Haze SIP Revision 

Enclosed is a State Implementation Plan (SIP) Revision for the Control of Air Pollution 

(including the Technical Support Document) Concerning federal regional haze program 

requirements. We are transmitting, under separate cover, additional copies and an electronic 

copy on compact disk to Dick Schutt of your agency. 

The SIP Revision involves regional haze and visibility improvement in Federal Class I areas. 

The SIP Revision is a non-regulatory revision. No changes to state air pollution control 

regulations are involved. The SIP Revision was adopted on August 28, 2008, by the 

Mississippi Commission on Environmental Quality. The SIP Revision will become effective 

on October 4,2008. 

We certify that this SIP revision has been completed in accordance with the Mississippi 

Administrative Procedures Act and the Mississippi Pollution Control Law. We further certify 

that a public hearing was held on July 16, 2008, to receive comments regarding the SIP 

Revision. 

We feel that this SIP revision submittal is complete. Therefore, we request approval of this 

SIP revision by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 
If you have any questions, please call me or Maya Rao of my staff at 601-961-5171. 

TDF/MR:jar 

Enclosure 

cc: Ms. Beverly Banister, Director 

Air, Pesticides, and Toxics Management Division 

U.S. EPA, Region IV
September 15, 2015

Mr. Richard T. Britt, Jr.

19231 SE 23rd Place

Morriston, FL 32668

Dear Mr. Britt:

This letter is to inform you that we are unable to process your petition for an exemption from 

§§ 45.23(b), 61.3, 61.56(a)(2) and (c)(1), 91.7(a), 91.9(b)(2), 91.103, 91.109, 91.119, 91.121, 

91.151(a), 91.203(a) and (b), 91.205(b), 91.215, 91.405(a), 91.407(a)(1), 91.409(a)(2), 

91.417(a) and (b), and part 21 of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR). It explains 

why we can not process your request and what you should do in the next 30 days.

Why We Can Not Process Your Request

We posted to the public docket on June 29, 2015, your exemption request filed in Docket 

No. FAA−2015−2536, but we are unable to process your request any further. Your petition 

does not comply with the requirements of § 11.81 (copy enclosed). For us to consider the 

request any further, you must send us all of the following:

 The reasons why granting the request would be in the public interest; that is, how it would 

benefit the public as a whole.

 Any additional information, views, or arguments available to support your request.

For more detailed information relating to submitting petitions for exemption, please visit 

http://aes.faa.gov/petition/index.html. This website helps the petitioner to meet Federal 

Aviation Administration (FAA) requirements outlines in § 11.81 and helps answer any 

questions you may have.

What You Should Do

If you want us to process your request any further, you must submit the requested information 

within 30 days. Please note that § 11.63(d) requires you to send your petition for exemption 

at least 120 days before the proposed effective date of the exemption. 
2

If We Do Not Hear From You

If we do not receive the information, we will close the docket without notifying you further. 

If you have any questions you may call the 333 Information Line (202) 267-2999.

Sincerely,

/s/

Brittany Newton

Program Analyst, Airmen and

 Airspace Rules Division

Enclosure
3
IA

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. J. RES. 6

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States allowing

an item veto in appropriations bills.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JANUARY 4, 1995

Mr. ARCHER (for himself, Mr. CALVERT, Mr. BARTON of Texas, Mr. BURTON

of Indiana, Mr. LEACH, Mr. CRANE, Mr. COMBEST, Ms. PRYCE, Mr.

MCHUGH, Mr. PORTMAN, Mr. WOLF, Mr. SMITH of Texas, Mr. BONILLA,

Mr. OXLEY, Mr. SHAYS, Mr. GANSKE, Mr. FOLEY, Mr. HANSEN, Mr.

PAXON, Mr. ROYCE, Mr. COBLE, Mr. RAMSTAD, Mr. GALLEGLY, Mr.

GOSS, Mr. GREENWOOD, Mr. STUMP, Mr. MONTGOMERY, Mr. MOORHEAD, Mr. PETRI, Mr. GOODLING, Ms. HARMAN, Mr. LIVINGSTON, Mr.

STEARNS, Mr. BEREUTER, Mr. SAXTON, Mr. BILIRAKIS, Mr. HANCOCK,

Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas, Mr. CONDIT, Mr. FRANKS, Mr. KLUG, Mr.

QUILLEN, Mr. SHAW, Mr. YOUNG of Florida, Mr. BAKER of California,

Mr. BUNNING of Kentucky, Mr. PACKARD, Mr. ROTH, and Mr.

POSHARD) introduced the following joint resolution; which was referred

to the Committee on the Judiciary

JOINT RESOLUTION

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United

States allowing an item veto in appropriations bills.

1 Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives

2 of the United States of America in Congress assembled
2

HJ 6 IH

1 (two-thirds of each House concurring therein), That the fol2 lowing article is proposed as an amendment to the Con3 stitution, which shall be valid to all intents and purposes

4 as part of the Constitution when ratified by the legisla5 tures of three-fourths of the several States:

6 ‘‘ARTICLE—

7 ‘‘SECTION 1. The President shall have the power to

8 disapprove any appropriation or provision and approve any

9 other appropriation or provision in the same appropriation

10 bill. In such case he shall, in signing the bill, designate

11 the appropriations and provisions disapproved, and shall

12 return a copy of such appropriations and provisions, with

13 his objections, to the House in which the bill shall have

14 originated; and the same proceedings shall then be had

15 as in the case of other bills disapproved by the President.

16 ‘‘SECTION 2. This article shall be inoperative unless

17 it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Con18 stitution by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several

19 States within seven years from the date of its submis20 sion.’’.

Æ
# ---------------------·--**(:Jip.g~cll ZG~S** **;,p~** 

# - 

# 8 D 

# !2: 2I ALASKA CORPORATION

March 13, 2015 To whom it may concern; I am writing this letterof recommend forAlaska Air Tr:ansit (AAT), an exemplary commuter airline that provides outstanding safe service to remote areas ofAlaska's rainy, windy coastal communities in the Prince William Sound. I have flown with this organization for over 15years and since Dan and Josie took over ownership and

. ·managementthe organization is top-quality and professionaL I fly witt; them personally as well as my

family, board members and employees ofChugach Alaska Corporation. They are the preferred carrier forthe region. The staffand management have gone above and beyond to provide the highest quality people, well maintained aircraft, onetime departures and arrivals. I trust this organization to provide air travel to me and Chugach·Aiaska Corporation now and in the future. Ifyou have any questions please feel free to contact me at 907-261-0310. Sincerely,

# ~~ Sheri Buretta Chugach Alaska Corporation Chairman ofthe Board .

Chugach**Ala~ku** Corporation · 3800 Centerpoin; O:i<e. Suite 700, Anchorage. M 99503 . T: 907.563.S866 · F:907.5618-102
EXHIBIT 31.1





CERTIFICATION





I, Fred P. Lampropoulos, certify that:





1.      I have reviewed this Amended Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q (this “Report”) of Merit Medical Systems, Inc.;





2.      Based on my knowledge, this Report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this Report;





3.    [Intentionally Omitted];





4.    [Intentionally Omitted]; and





5.    [Intentionally Omitted].





Date: September 2, 2016/s/ Fred P. LampropoulosFred P. LampropoulosPresident and Chief Executive Officer(principal executive officer)
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>    5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from
Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets and Condensed Consolidated Statements of
Operations and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such on Form 10-QSB
for the nine months period ended December 31, 1996.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                          77,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  473,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               550,000
<PP&E>                                      55,521,000
<DEPRECIATION>                              39,035,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              17,036,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       29,210,000
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                  (12,174,000)
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                17,036,000
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             3,864,000
<CGS>                                        1,572,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                6,116,000                     
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           2,438,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             (2,252,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                         (2,252,000)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                (2,252,000)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.28)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
§ 19.75 Do terms in this part have special meanings? This part uses terms throughout the text that have special meaning. Those terms are defined in subpart I of this part. For example, three important terms are— ( a ) *Exclusion or excluded,* which refers only to discretionary actions taken by a suspending or debarring official under this part or the Federal Acquisition Regulation (48 CFR part 9, subpart 9.4);
( b ) *Disqualification or disqualified,* which refers to prohibitions under specific statutes, executive orders (other than Executive Order 12549 and Executive Order 12689), or other authorities. Disqualifications frequently are not subject to the discretion of an agency official, may have a different scope than exclusions, or have special conditions that apply to the disqualification; and
( c ) *Ineligibility or ineligible,* which generally refers to a person who is either excluded or disqualified.
#### § 19.130 Does exclusion under the Federal procurement system affect a person's eligibility to participate in nonprocurement transactions?

If any Federal agency excludes a person under the FAR on or after August 25, 1995, the excluded person is also ineligible to participate in nonprocurement covered transactions under this part. Therefore, an exclusion under the FAR has reciprocal effect in Federal nonprocurement transactions.
#### § 19.355 What information must I provide to a higher tier participant before entering into a covered transaction with that participant?

Before you enter into a covered transaction with a person at the next higher tier, you as a lower tier participant must notify that person if you know that you or any of the principals are presently excluded or disqualified.
Editorial Note on Part 872
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 872 appear at 73 FR 35341, June 23, 2008.

§ 872.4880 Intraosseous fixation screw or wire. ( a ) *Identification.* An intraosseous fixation screw or wire is a metal device intended to be inserted into fractured jaw bone segments to prevent their movement.
( b ) *Classification.* Class II.