alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
42401.

#### TRAVELERS INSURANCE COMPANY et al. v. BURCH.

Argued November 8, 1966

Decided December 1, 1966.

*724
      *Harris, Bussell & Watkins, Philip B. Taylor,*for appellants.

*O. L. Crumbley,*for appellee.

Fhlton, Chief Judge.

Service of the enumeration of errors, formerly required to be by certified mail, need be made only by mail under the provisions of *Code Ann.*§ 6-902 (Ga. L. 1965, pp. 18, 31) as amended by Ga. L. 1966, pp. 493, 498. The motion to strike the enumeration of errors and brief is denied.

The purpose of the August 19, 1964, hearing was to determine whether claimant had undergone any change in her condition subsequent to the original award which would affect the amount of the compensation payments established by that award. The burden of proof of a change in the claimant’s condition was on the employer and insurer, who requested the hearing. *Indemnity Ins. Co. v. Davis,*98 Ga. App. 656 (106*725SE2d 172). The claimant, therefore, was not obliged at that hearing to introduce evidence supporting a claim for expenses incurred as a result, not of any change in her condition, but of an illness directly caused or aggravated by the compensable injury. Hence, the issue of liability resulting from any possible brain injury was not necessarily involved in the change of condition hearing. Although the deputy director commented on the possibility of brain injury, traumatic psychosis, etc., he found that there was nothing in the record to indicate such injury. Since this issue was not there involved, the absence of evidence in that regard could not have the effect of making the award res judicata as to this issue. The evidence introduced showed no change in condition. The claimant could rely on what was enough to show no change. She was not required to show that her condition was in fact worse. This issue was properly raised by the application for a hearing under the provisions of *Code Ann.*§ 114-501, by which claimant sought to show liability on the basis of seeking medical expenses to produce an improvement of her condition, rather than showing a change of condition. See *City of Atlanta v.*Padgett, 68 Ga. App. 96, 108 (22 SE2d 197).

The awards of the deputy director and the full board were based on the theory that the claimant was estopped to recover the claimed expenses by her failure to produce the available evidence thereof at the change of condition hearing instigated by the employer and insurer. Since this theory is erroneous, as discussed hereinabove, the awards denying the claim on this theory were properly reversed by the superior court. The case is affirmed with direction that it be remanded to the board for another hearing and award in accordance with the principles herein enunciated.

*Judgment affirmed with direction.*

*Frankum and Pannell, JJ., concur.*
I 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2586 

To amend the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 to authorize the Commission 

to require the registration of hedge fund advisers under that Act. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JUNE 6, 2007 

Mr. CAPUANO introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Financial Services 

A BILL 

To amend the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 to authorize 

the Commission to require the registration of hedge fund 

advisers under that Act. 

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 ‘‘Securities and Ex5 change Commission Authority Restoration Act of 2007’’. 

6 SEC. 2. AUTHORITY TO LIMIT EXEMPTION. 

7 Section 203 of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 

8 (15 U.S.C. 80b–3) is amended by adding at the end the 

9 following new subsection: 

10 ‘‘(l) AUTHORITY TO LIMIT EXEMPTION.— 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with BILLS
2 

•HR 2586 IH

1 ‘‘(1) AUTHORITY.—The Commission may, by 

2 rule or regulation, limit the availability of the ex3 emption provided by subsection (b)(3), and require 

4 the registration under this section, of an investment 

5 adviser by requiring that certain shareholders, part6 ners, and beneficial owners of, or investors in, clients 

7 of the adviser shall also be counted as clients them8 selves for purposes of such subsection, as the Com9 mission determines necessary in the public interest 

10 or for the protection of investors. 

11 ‘‘(2) RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.—The treatment 

12 of a shareholder, partner, beneficial owner, or inves13 tor as a client for purposes of registration under this 

14 section shall not affect, and shall not be affected by, 

15 the treatment of such persons not as clients for pur16 poses of section 206 or any other section of this 

17 title.’’. 

Æ 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with BILLS
<PAGE>   1
                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.25


                 ADDENDUM TO ASSIGNMENT AND ASSUMPTION AGREEMENT

     The Assignment and Assumption Agreement of even date herewith, made by,
between and among Golf Where, LLC ("Assignor"), Philip Kenny ("Kenny"), Blair
Subry ("Subry"), and Beverly Hills, Ltd. Inc., a Utah corporation ("Assignee"),
is hereby supplemented by the following provisions, which shall be deemed to be
a part of said Agreement (the "Agreement") for all purposes:

     A. Upon the execution of the Agreement, and as additional consideration
therefor, Assignee shall cause 250,000 shares of BLTD (restricted) common stock
(the "Shares") to be issued or transferred to Assignor or its designee.

     B. Assignee agrees to cause the restrictions with respect to the Shares to
be removed at the rate of 62,500 for every three full calendar months while the
Agreement remains in effect.

     C. In the event that the Agreement shall be terminated by Assignor pursuant
to Paragraph 9 of the Agreement, Assignor will be entitled to retain 50,000 of
the Shares, but shall be obligated to return the remaining 200,000 shares to
Assignee. For such purpose, and if necessary in order to effect a return of said
200,000 shares to Assignee, Assignor hereby irrevocably appoints Assignee as its
attorney in fact, to transfer said shares to Assignee on the books and records
of Assignee and its designated transfer agent, with full power of substitution
in the premises.

     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Addendum as of
the _____ day of May, 2000.

                                              GOLF WHERE, LLC

                                              By  Philip Kenny
                                              Its   Manager

                                              /s/ Philip Kenny
                                              ----------------------------------
                                              Philip Kenny

                                              /s/ Blair Subry
                                              ----------------------------------
                                              Blair Subry


                                              BEVERLY HILLS, LTD.

                                              By: /s/ Marc Barhonovich
                                                  ------------------------------
                                                  Marc Barhonovich, President


                                       1
§ 42.13 Parties to the hearing. ( a ) The parties to the hearing shall be the defendant and the Department of Veterans Affairs.
( b ) Pursuant to 31 U.S.C. 3730(c)(5), a private plaintiff under the False Claims Act may participate in these proceedings to the extent authorized by the provisions of that Act.
EX-4.9                                                        LETTER AGREEMENT

                           Sonic Jet Performance, Inc.
                          11782 Western Avenue, Unit 18
                            Stanton, California 90680
                                  (714) 895-0944

April 15, 2003


Frank Kavanaugh
Ashford Capital
65 Enterprise
Aliso Viejo, CA 92656

Dear Mr. Kavanaugh:

This letter confirms the agreement between the parties, Ashford
Capital and Sonic Jet Performance, Inc. (hereafter "Sonic Jet")
regarding the conversion of Ashford's holding in TSG, International
into shares of Sonic Jet preferred stock.  Ashford currently holds all
of the outstanding shares of Series A preferred issued which convert
into 10% of TSG, International at the election of the holder.  In
consideration for the exchange of all shares held by Ashford, Sonic
Jet will exchange 50 shares of Series C preferred on or before October
15, 2003.

This agreement was provided in consideration for your agreement to
sell a portion of your Series B shares and to assign the rights
associated to the shares in Yankee Maritime in the investment
currently contemplated.  In order to affect the exchange, must notify
Sonic Jet 3 days prior to the exchange.

This agreement is transferable in the event the shares are sold or
exchanged.  Please acknowledge your agreement by signing below.

Sincerely,


/s/  Rao Mankal
Rao Mankal, President
Sonic Jet Performance, Inc.

cc:  files


Agreed and Accepted:


/s/  Frank Kavanaugh                                    April 17, 2003
Frank Kavanaugh, Ashford Capital, LLC              Date
**
**Exhibit 31.1**

I, Mike McKeever, certify that: 

1. I have reviewed this reporton Form 10-K and all reports on Form 10-D required to be filed in respect of the period covered by this reporton Form 10-K of Carvana Auto Receivables Trust 2021-N3 (the “Exchange Act periodic reports”); 

2. Based on my knowledge, the Exchange Act periodic reports, taken as a whole, do not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state amaterial 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. Based on my knowledge, all of the distribution, servicing and other information required to be providedunder Form 10-D for the period covered by this report is included in the Exchange Act periodic reports; 

4. Based on my knowledge and the servicer compliance statement(s) required in this report under Item 1123 of Regulation AB, and except as disclosed inthe Exchange Act periodic reports, the servicer has fulfilled its obligations under the servicing agreement in all material respects; and 

5. All of thereports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities and their related attestation reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities required to be included in this report inaccordance with Item 1122 of Regulation AB and Exchange Act Rules 13a-18 and 15d-18 have been included as an exhibit to this report, except asotherwise disclosed in this report. Any material instances of noncompliance described in such reports have been disclosed in this report on Form 10-K.

In giving the certifications above, I have reasonably relied on information provided to me by the following unaffiliated parties: Wells Fargo Bank, NationalAssociation and Computershare Trust Company, National Association. 

Date: March 25, 2022 

 

/s/ Mike McKeever
Mike McKeeverPresidentCarvana Receivables Depositor LLC(senior officer in charge of securitization)**
# Official Journal C 196/2 Ju

| | ISSN 1977-091X |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 196 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 592 June 2016 |

ISSN 1977-091X

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 196

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 592 June 2016

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | II   Information |
| | INFORMATION FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | European Commission |
| 2016/C 196/1 | Common Catalogue of varieties of agricultural plant species — fifth supplement to the 34th complete edition | 1 |

Notice No

Contents

page

II   Information

INFORMATION FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

European Commission

2016/C 196/1

Common Catalogue of varieties of agricultural plant species — fifth supplement to the 34th complete edition

1

---

| EN | |
| --- | --- |

EN
§ 70.70 Purpose and definitions. Cross Reference
Link to an amendment published at 88 FR 10037 , Feb. 16, 2023.
Cross Reference
This amendment was delayed until Feb. 16, 2025, at 88 FR 90120 , Dec. 29, 2023.
( a ) *Purpose.* This subpart implements the Veterans Transportation Service (VTS), through which VA transports eligible persons to or from a VA or VA-authorized facility or other place for the purpose of examination, treatment, or care.
( b ) *Definitions.* For purposes of this subpart: *Attendant* has the meaning set forth in § 70.2, and also means an individual traveling with a veteran or servicemember who is eligible for travel under VTS and requires the aid and/or assistance of another person.
*Eligible person* means a person described in § 70.71.
*Guest* means any individual the veteran or servicemember would like to have accompany him or her to an appointment but whose presence is not medically required.
*Scheduled visit* means that a VA beneficiary had an appointment that was made before she or he appeared at a VA, or VA-authorized, facility, or that a VA beneficiary was specifically authorized to appear at such facility on the date of the visit in order to obtain examination, treatment, or care. Examples of scheduled visits include: Regular appointments for examination, treatment, or care; visits to undergo laboratory work; or doctor-recommended visits to clinics with open hours.
*Unscheduled visit* means a visit to a VA, or VA-authorized, facility for purposes of examination, treatment, or care that was not recorded in VA's scheduling system prior to the veteran's visit. For example, an unscheduled visit may be for a simple check of a person's blood pressure, for counseling, or for clinical intervention.
(Authority: 38 U.S.C. 111A, 501, 1714)
July 18, 20 14 

Gerardo C. Rios 

Chief, Air Permits Office (A.ir-3) 

EPA Region 9 

75 Hawthorne Street 

San Francisco, CA 941 05 

SUBJECT: 40 CFR Part 51 , Appendix S Applicability 

Dear Mr. Rios: 

This letter is in response to your request for additional information regarding compliance with the federal 

new source review (NSR) requirements for fine particulate matter (PM2.5), in the interim, while 

requirements consistent with this national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS) are incorporated into 

our NSR program. In particular, you have asked us to acknowledge the applicability of 40 Code of 

Federal Regulations (CFR) part 51 , Appendix S to new and modified major sources during the period 

prior to EPA's approval of a NSR program applicable to our PM2.5 nonattainment area. 

As you are aware, a portion of the El Dorado County Air Quality Management District is currently 

classified as a moderate nonattainment area under the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. Thus, a revised NSR program 

submittal was due to EPA by December 14, 20 12. Accordingly, we are planning on revising and 

submitting modified Rule 523, New Source Review by the end of 2015 . 

Until EPA takes a final action to approve our revised NSR program, we acknowledge that the applicable 

requirements of 40 CFR part 51 , Appendix S apply to any new major source or major modification of a 

major source, as defined therein, for sources emitting direct PM25, or sulfur oxides (SO,) or nitrogen 

oxides (NO,) as PM2.s precursors. 

Dave 

Air Pollution 

Johnston 

~ 

Control Officer
**EXHIBIT32.1**

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

In connection withthe Quarterly Report of Candela Corporation (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q forthe period ended March 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Gerard E. Puorro, ChiefExecutive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, asadopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1)           TheReport fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

(2)           Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| Date:  | May 10, 2007                          |   | /s/ Gerard E. Puorro |   |
|--------|---------------------------------------|--------|----------------------|--------|
|   | Gerard E. Puorro                      |
|   | President and Chief Executive Officer |

 

1

----
APPEALS.

#### *W. J. GORDON v. WILLIAM WALTON, Assignee.

Action to Enforce the Allowance of a Claim.

A suit to compel an assignee of an insolvent person to allow a claim is appealable.

Action by plaintiff to enforce the allowance of a claim against the Cleveland Non-Explosive Lamp Company, by Walton, assignee in insolvency of the company.

Motion to dismiss appeal.

J. E. Ingersoll, for plaintiff in error.

John G. White, for defendant in error.

*

 This case was cited by the superior court in Root v. Meader, 2 Ohio Dec., 547. See decisions of circuit court in Kennedy v. Thompson *post,*254. and in Smock v. Brouse, 5 Ohio Circ. Dec., 294.

Held: Case properly appealable.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     IMTEC, Inc., EX-27, FDS for 10-Q, December 31, 1998
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                         0000730045
<NAME>                        IMTEC, Inc.
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1
<CURRENCY>                                     US
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-mos
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              JUN-30-1999
<PERIOD-START>                                 JUL-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                   DEC-31-1998
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                1
<CASH>                                         57897
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  2115271
<ALLOWANCES>                                   211000
<INVENTORY>                                    2351885
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               4498405
<PP&E>                                         8656378
<DEPRECIATION>                                 4744077
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 8476061
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          1621129
<BONDS>                                        457052
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       15873
<OTHER-SE>                                     2599163
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   6397880
<SALES>                                        6212386
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               6212386
<CGS>                                          3627650
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  3627650
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               1983690
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               211254
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             39236
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                564728
<INCOME-TAX>                                   227054
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            337674
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   337674
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  0.21
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  0.20
        


</TABLE>
EX-4.37



 Exhibit 4.37 

Summary in English of the Telecable Merger Agreement 

Consorcio Nekeas, S.A. de C.V. (“Nekeas”) and Galavisión DTH, S. de R.L. de C.V. (“Galavisión DTH”),
subsidiaries of Grupo Televisa, S.A.B., entered into a merger agreement with Inmobiliaria Hevi, S.A. de C.V. (“Hevi”), owner of 64.47% of the shares of Cablevisión Red, S.A. de C.V., pursuant to which each of Nekeas,
Galavisión DTH and Hevi ceased to exist, and a new company named TTelecom H, S.A.P.I. de C.V. (“TTelecom H”) was created (the “Merger Agreement”). The Merger Agreement was notarized by public deed number
71,822 dated January 8, 2015, granted before Rafael Manuel Oliveros Lara, notary public number 45 of Mexico City. 
 A. Creation
of TTelecom H 
 Pursuant to Article 226 of the General Companies Law, upon effectiveness of the merger, a new company was formed (TTelecom H), which
as of that date owned all the assets, liabilities and equity of each of the merged companies, including any and all of their rights and obligations. The merger was agreed based on the financial statements of each one of the merged companies as of
December 17, 2014, which were approved by the shareholders of each of the merged companies. 
 B. Liabilities of Merged Companies

 TTelecom H assumed all liabilities of any nature of the merged companies at the time of the merger. Such liabilities will be paid, in accordance
with their terms, by TTelecom H. 
 C. Shareholding Structure of TTelecom H 

As a result of the merger, each of the shareholders of the merged companies became shareholders of TTelecom H. The shareholders of Hevi received Series
“A” shares, while the shareholders of Nekeas and Galavisión DTH received Series “B” shares. As a result, the capital stock of TTelecom H, at the time of its incorporation, was represented as follows: 

 

	 	i.	Axel Eduardo Vielma Ordóñez owned 2,184 Series “A” shares. 

  

	 	ii.	Luis Edmundo Vielma Ordóñez owned 1,950 Series “A” shares. 

  

	 	iii.	José Francisco Vielma Ordóñez owned 1,482 Series “A” shares. 

  

	 	iv.	Héctor Vielma Ordóñez owned 1,248 Series “A” shares. 

  

	 	v.	María del Carmen Ordóñez Valverde owned 936 Series “A” shares. 

  

	 	vi.	Grupo Televisa, S.A.B. owned 2,197 Series “B” shares. 

  

	 	vii.	Promo-Industrias Metropolitanas, S.A. de C.V. owned 2 Series “B” shares. 

  

	 	viii.	Villacezan, S.A. de C.V. owned 1 Series “B” share. 

 D. Applicable Law and
Jurisdiction 
 The parties submitted to the applicable laws of Mexico and to the jurisdiction of the courts sitting in Mexico City, Federal
District.