alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit C

Task Code Time Breakdown

Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:3571-3 Filed:07/16/18 Entered:07/16/18 21:57:22 Desc:

Exhibit C Page 1 of 3
2

Matter 33260.0010

PROMESA TITLE III: 

COFINA

TASK Title Name Rate

Sum of 

Hours

Sum of 

Amount

201 Partners Possinger, Paul $759 1.80 $1,366.20

Partner Total 1.80 $1,366.20

201 Total 1.80 $1,366.20

202 Partners Mungovan, Timothy W. $759 0.30 $227.70

Richman, Jonathan E. $759 4.80 $3,643.20

Partner Total 5.10 $3,870.90

Law Clerks Carino, Elisa $260 10.20 $2,652.00

Stevens, Elliot $260 8.10 $2,106.00

Law Clerk Total 18.30 $4,758.00

202 Total 23.40 $8,628.90

204 Partners Firestein, Michael A. $759 0.30 $227.70

Mungovan, Timothy W. $759 0.20 $151.80

Rosen, Brian S. $759 2.10 $1,593.90

Partner Total 2.60 $1,973.40

204 Total 2.60 $1,973.40

205 Partners Mungovan, Timothy W. $759 1.90 $1,442.10

Partner Total 1.90 $1,442.10

205 Total 1.90 $1,442.10

206 Partners Bienenstock, Martin J. $759 3.70 $2,808.30

Firestein, Michael A. $759 0.40 $303.60

Mungovan, Timothy W. $759 4.90 $3,719.10

Ratner, Stephen L. $759 1.90 $1,442.10

Richman, Jonathan E. $759 14.30 $10,853.70

Partner Total 25.20 $19,126.80

Associates Alonzo, Julia D. $759 52.20 $39,619.80

Digrande, Melissa D. $759 3.90 $2,960.10

Associate Total 56.10 $42,579.90

206 Total 81.30 $61,706.70

207 Partners Ferrara, Ralph C. $759 0.20 $151.80

Firestein, Michael A. $759 0.30 $227.70

Mungovan, Timothy W. $759 2.20 $1,669.80

Ratner, Stephen L. $759 0.10 $75.90

Richman, Jonathan E. $759 1.10 $834.90

Partner Total 3.90 $2,960.10

Associates Alonzo, Julia D. $759 0.80 $607.20

Digrande, Melissa D. $759 1.20 $910.80

Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:3571-3 Filed:07/16/18 Entered:07/16/18 21:57:22 Desc:

Exhibit C Page 2 of 3
3

Associate Total 2.00 $1,518.00

207 Total 5.90 $4,478.10

209 Partners Ferrara, Ralph C. $759 0.20 $151.80

Partner Total 0.20 $151.80

209 Total 0.20 $151.80

210 Partners Ferrara, Ralph C. $759 0.40 $303.60

Firestein, Michael A. $759 0.20 $151.80

Mungovan, Timothy W. $759 0.30 $227.70

Possinger, Paul $759 0.40 $303.60

Rappaport, Lary Alan $759 0.10 $75.90

Ratner, Stephen L. $759 0.80 $607.20

Partner Total 2.20 $1,669.80

Associates Alonzo, Julia D. $759 0.40 $303.60

Digrande, Melissa D. $759 1.80 $1,366.20

Associate Total 2.20 $1,669.80

210 Total 4.40 $3,339.60

212 Paraprofessional Miller, Tiffany $260 1.80 $468.00

Silvestro, Lawrence T. $260 1.20 $312.00

Winkelspecht, Michael J. $260 1.50 $390.00

Paraprofessional Total 4.50 $1,170.00

212 Total 4.50 $1,170.00

218 Associates Kim, Mee R. $759 6.30 $4,781.70

Ma, Steve $759 0.30 $227.70

Webb, Jeramy $759 0.20 $151.80

Associate Total 6.80 $5,161.20

Paraprofessionals Miller, Tiffany $260 0.60 $156.00

Petrov, Natasha $260 18.90 $4,914.00

Paraprofessional Total 19.50 $5,070.00

218 Total 26.30 $10,231.20

Grand 

Total 152.30 $94,488.00

Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:3571-3 Filed:07/16/18 Entered:07/16/18 21:57:22 Desc:

Exhibit C Page 3 of 3
#### In the Matter of Aubrey McCaffrey, Respondent, against Arthur E. Howland, as Chief Engineer and General Manager, Long Island State Park Commission, Appellant.

(Submitted June 5, 1936;

decided July 8, 1936.)

*492
      *John J. Bennett, Jr., Attorney-General (Patrick H. Clune*of counsel), for appellant.

*James F. Ryan*for respondent.

*Albert De Roode, amicus curise.*

Order affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

Concur: Crane, Ch. J., Lehman, O’Brien, Hubbs, Crouch, Loughran and Finch, JJ.
<PAGE>
                                                                  EXHIBIT 10 (a)
March 28, 2002


Mr. Shoichiro Irimajiri
President
Shoichiro Irimajiri, Inc.
Believe A Hamamatsucho 5F
1-9-10 Hamamatsu-cho Minato-ku
Tokyo 105-0013, Japan

Dear Mr. Irimajiri:

Pursuant to Clause 11.3 of the Consulting Agreement dated May 4, 2001, this
letter will serve to confirm our mutual agreement to extend said Consulting
Agreement for an additional period to end on August 31, 2002. Such extension
shall be upon the same terms and conditions stated in the original Consulting
Agreement including, without limitation, the compensation provisions contained
in Article 5 therein.

If you are in agreement with the foregoing, please countersign this letter and
return copies to Choon Chon and me for our files. We both look forward to
working with you to achieve positive results from Project Mt. Everest during the
coming months.

Very truly yours,



THE FOREGOING AGREEMENT IS CONFIRMED

Shoichiro Irimajiri Inc.                        Delphi Automotive Systems LLC

/s/  Shoichiro Irimajiri                        /s/  Choon Chon
----------------------------------              --------------------------------
By:  Mr. Shoichiro Irimajiri                    By:  Mr. Choon Chon
Title:  President                               Title:  Vice President
                                                Date: April 1, 2002

                                                /s/ Mark Weber
                                                --------------------------------
                                                By: Mark R. Weber
                                                Title: Executive Vice President
                                                Date: April 3, 2002
```

[Federal Register: January 18, 2011 (Volume 76, Number 11)]
[Notices]               
[Page 2892]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr18ja11-41]                         

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

 
Proposed Subsequent Arrangement

AGENCY: Office of Nonproliferation and International Security, 
Department of Energy.

ACTION: Proposed subsequent arrangement.

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

SUMMARY: This notice is being issued under the authority of section 
131a. of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2160). 
The Department is providing notice of a proposed subsequent arrangement 
under the Agreement for Cooperation Between the Government of the 
United States of America and the Government of Japan Concerning 
Peaceful Uses of Nuclear Energy and the Agreement for Cooperation in 
the Peaceful Uses of Nuclear Energy Between the European Atomic Energy 
Community and the United States of America.
    This subsequent arrangement concerns the retransfer of 2,536 g of 
U.S.-origin uranium (11 g U-235) and 27 g of plutonium contained in 
eight spent fuel rod segments from Nippon Nuclear Fuel Development Co., 
Ltd in Oarai-machi, Ibaraki-ken, Japan, to Studsvik Nuclear AB in 
Nyk[ouml]ping, Sweden. The material, which is currently located at 
Nippon Nuclear Fuel Development Co., Ltd, will be transferred to 
Studsvik Nuclear AB for: (a) Pre-irradiation experiment of the spent 
fuel rods irradiated in a nuclear power plant in Japan by Studsvik 
Nuclear AB in Sweden, (b) irradiation experiment of those fuel rods by 
Institutt for Energiteknikk OECD Halden Reactor Project in Norway, and 
(c) post-irradiation experiment of those fuel rods by Studsvik Nuclear 
AB in Sweden. The material was originally obtained by Nippon Nuclear 
Fuel Development Co., Ltd from Martin Marietta Energy Systems pursuant 
to export licenses XSNM02314 and XSNM02734.
    In accordance with section 131a. of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, 
as amended, it has been determined that this subsequent arrangement 
will not be inimical to the common defense and security.
    This subsequent arrangement will take effect no sooner than 
February 2, 2011.

    Dated: December 20, 2010.

    For the Department of Energy.
Thomas P. D'Agostino,
Administrator, National Nuclear Security Administration.
[FR Doc. 2011-905 Filed 1-14-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
```
##### 



Exhibit 32 (a)


CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002






|   |                                                                                                                                                             
|-- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of
    section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, 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 Company.

|              |  |                                                                               
|------------- |  | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|June 30, 2005 |  | /s/ J. T.
    Battenberg III                                                  
|              |  |                                                                               
|              |  | J. T. Battenberg III
    Chairman of the Board and
    Chief Executive Officer
#### In the Matter of the Claim of Henrietta Mohr, Respondent, against Wiebusch *&*Hilger, Ltd., et al., Appellants. State Industrial Board, Respondent.

(Argued November 17, 1936;

decided December 1, 1936.)

*656
      *Charles P. Barre*for appellants.

*Milton Gould*and *Charles Landesman*for claimant, respondent.

Order affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

Concur: Grane, Ch. J., Lehman, O’Brien, Hubbs, Crouch, Loughran and Finch, JJ.
#### CITIBANK, N.A. v MORIRA

Case No. 91-022AP

Eleventh Judicial Circuit, Dade County

September 6, 1991

APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

Carol E. Chloupek, Esquire, for appellant.

Max Goldfarb, for appellee.

Before S. SHAPIRO, ROBINSON, POSTMAN, JJ.

OPINION OF THE COURT

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, Citibank, N.A., filed suit in the County Court of Dade County, seeking recovery of sums charged to appellee’s Visa credit card issued by Appellant. Appellee moved to change venue to Palm Beach County contending that that county was his place of residence. The lower court granted appellee’s motion. For the reasons set forth herein, that ruling is reversed.

After suit was instituted and appellee served, appellee filed a verified *5motion to dismiss and for change of venue. The motion contains the assertion that appellee’s residence address is 14598 Halter Road, West Palm Beach, Palm Beach County, Florida, and has been since October, 1988. Based on this bald assertion, the lower court granted appellee’s motion and ordered venue changed to Palm Beach County.

Section 47.011, Fla. Stats., provides, in part, as follows: “Actions shall be brought only in the county where the defendant resides, where the cause of action accrued, or where the property in litigation is located.”

In Florida, the election of venue rests solely with the plaintiff. Although it may be more convenient to the defendant and possibly to the plaintiff that an action be prosecuted in another county or circuit, nevertheless, the election rests with the plaintiff and cannot be dictated by the defendant. *Greyhound Corp. v Rosart,*124 So.2d 708 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1960).

In the instant case, appellant alleged that appellee breached its contract with appellant by failing to make required payments. For venue purposes in a contract action, a cause of action accrues where the contract is breached. If the breach alleged is the failure to make payment due on the contract, the cause of action accrues where performance of the act of payment was to occur. *Orange Blossom Ent., Inc. v Brumlik,*430 So.2d 13 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983).

Since appellee’s verified motion in no way negates or brings into question the validity of appellant’s choice of venue, the lower court was clearly incorrect in granting appellee’s motion. Based on the foregoing, the trial court’s transfer of venue from Dade County to Palm Beach County was error. Accordingly, said matter is ordered transferred back to Dade County for further proceedings.

REVERSED AND REMANDED.
§ 29.1203 Fire detector systems. ( a ) For each turbine engine powered rotorcraft and Category A reciprocating engine powered rotorcraft, and for each Category B reciprocating engine powered rotorcraft with engines of more than 900 cubic inches displacement, there must be approved, quick-acting fire detectors in designated fire zones and in the combustor, turbine, and tailpipe sections of turbine installations (whether or not such sections are designated fire zones) in numbers and locations ensuring prompt detection of fire in those zones.
( b ) Each fire detector must be constructed and installed to withstand any vibration, inertia, and other loads to which it would be subjected in operation.
( c ) No fire detector may be affected by any oil, water, other fluids, or fumes that might be present.
( d ) There must be means to allow crewmembers to check, in flight, the functioning of each fire detector system electrical circuit.
( e ) The writing and other components of each fire detector system in an engine compartment must be at least fire resistant.
( f ) No fire detector system component for any fire zone may pass through another fire zone, unless— ( 1 ) It is protected against the possibility of false warnings resulting from fires in zones through which it passes; or
( 2 ) The zones involved are simultaneously protected by the same detector and extinguishing systems.
[Doc. No. 5084, 29 FR 16150, Dec. 3, 1964, as amended by Amdt. 29-3, 33 FR 970, Jan. 26, 1968]
Exhibit 32.2



CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER,

AS REQUIRED BY SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002.



In connection with the quarterly report of Ecosphere Technologies, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Adrian Goldfarb, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:



1.

The quarterly 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 quarterly report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



Date: May 14, 2009

| |     |                                                                      
| | --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------
| | By: | /s/ ADRIAN GOLDFARB                                                  
| |     | Adrian Goldfarb
Chief Financial Officer
(Principal Financial Officer)
<PAGE>

EXHIBIT 10.23

   FIRST AMENDMENT TO NORTHWEST BIOTHERAPEUTICS, INC. LOAN AGREEMENT, SECURITY
             AGREEMENT AND 10% CONVERTIBLE, SECURED PROMISSORY NOTE

      THIS FIRST AMENDMENT TO NORTHWEST BIOTHERAPEUTICS, INC. LOAN AGREEMENT,
SECURITY AGREEMENT AND 10% CONVERTIBLE, SECURED PROMISSORY NOTE (the "FIRST
AMENDMENT") is made and entered into as of November 14, 2005, by and among
NORTHWEST BIOTHERAPEUTICS, INC., a Delaware corporation (the "MAKER") and Toucan
Capital Fund II, L.P. (the "HOLDER"). This First Amendment amends the Note (as
defined below).

                                    RECITALS

A. Section 17.6 of that certain Northwest Biotherapeutics, Inc. Loan Agreement,
Security Agreement and 10% Convertible, Secured Promissory Note, in the
principal amount of $500,000.00 dated as of November 10, 2004, by and between
the Maker and the Holder in the form attached to this First Amendment as Exhibit
A (the "NOTE"), states that any provision of such note may be amended or waived
in writing by the Holder and the Maker; and

B. The Maker and the Holder wish to amend the Note as provided below.

                                    AGREEMENT

      NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of these premises and for other good and
valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby
acknowledged, the parties hereto agree as follows:

1. Section 1 of the Note is hereby amended to provide that the Maturity Date is
January 17, 2006.

2. All other terms and conditions of the Note shall be unaffected hereby and
remain in full force and effect.

3. This First Amendment shall be governed by and construed under the laws of the
state of Delaware without giving effect to principles of conflicts of laws of
the State of Delaware or any other state.

                            [SIGNATURE PAGE FOLLOWS]

                                        1
<PAGE>

      IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this FIRST AMENDMENT
TO NORTHWEST BIOTHERAPEUTICS, INC. LOAN AGREEMENT, SECURITY AGREEMENT AND 10%
CONVERTIBLE, SECURED PROMISSORY NOTE as of the date first above written.

MAKER:

NORTHWEST BIOTHERAPEUTICS, INC.,
a Delaware corporation

By: /s/ Alton L. Boynton
    --------------------
Name: Alton L. Boynton
Title: President

HOLDER:

Toucan Capital Fund II, L.P.

By: /s/ Linda Powers
    ---------------------------------
      Linda Powers, Managing Director

259038 v2/RE

                                        2
Exhibit
15

















May 5,
2009








Securities
and Exchange Commission


450 Fifth
Street, N.W.


Washington,
D.C. 20549














Commissioners:





We are
aware that our report dated May 5, 2009 on our review of interim financial
information of Unit Corporation for the three month periods ended March 31,
2009 and 2008 and included in the Company’s quarterly report on Form 10-Q for
the quarter ended March 31, 2009 is incorporated by reference in its
registration statements on Form S-8 (File No.’s 33-19652, 33-44103, 33-49724,
33-64323, 33-53542, 333-38166, 333-39584, 333-135194 and
333-137857).





Very
truly yours,





/s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers
LLP





PricewaterhouseCoopers
LLP


Tulsa,
Oklahoma
§ 25.1517 Rough air speed, VRA. ( a ) A rough air speed, VRA, for use as the recommended turbulence penetration airspeed, and a rough air Mach number, MRA, for use as the recommended turbulence penetration Mach number, must be established. VRA/MRA must be sufficiently less than VMO/MMO to ensure that likely speed variation during rough air encounters will not cause the overspeed warning to operate too frequently.
( b ) At altitudes where VMO is not limited by Mach number, in the absence of a rational investigation substantiating the use of other values, VRA must be less than VMO minus 35 KTAS.
( c ) At altitudes where VMO is limited by Mach number, MRA may be chosen to provide an optimum margin between low and high speed buffet boundaries.
[Amdt. 25-141, 79 FR 73469, Dec. 11, 2014, as amended by FAA-2022-1355; Amdt. No. 25-148, 87 FR 75710, Dec. 9, 2022; 88 FR 2813, Jan. 18, 2023]
**Exhibit 23.1**

 

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLICACCOUNTING FIRM**

 

Weconsent to the use in Registration Statements (File Number 333-64197) on formS-3D, (File Numbers 333-102666 and 333-121979) on Form S-8 of GB&T Bancshares, Inc. of our reports dated February 3,2006 relating to our audits of the consolidated financial statements andinternal control over financial reporting, which appear in this Annual Reporton Form 10-K of GB&T Bancshares, Inc. for theyear ended December 31, 2005.

 

 
|              | /s/  Mauldin & Jenkins, LLC |   |
|-------------------|---------------------------------|--------|
|              |                            |
|              |                            |
| Atlanta,  Georgia |                            |
| March 16, 2006    |                            |

 

----
AFS-10-226-E May 7, 2010 Exemption No. 9739A Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2008-0824

Mr. John F. Seubert 200 East Cherry Circle Memphis, TN 38117

Dear Mr. Seubert:

This letter is to inform you that we have granted your petition to extend Exemption No. 9739. It explains the basis for our decision and describes its effect.

The Basis for Our Decision

On March 26, 2010, you petitioned the Federal Aviation Adm inistration (FAA) for an extension of Exemption No. 9739. That exemption from § 91.109(a) of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) allows you to conduct certain flight training in Beechcraft Bonanza/Debonair type aircraft that are equi pped with a functioning throwover control wheel.

In your petition, you indicate that there has been no change in the conditions and reasons relative to public interest and safety that were the basis for granting the original exemption.

The FAA has determined that good cause exists for not publishing a summary of the petition

in the Federal Register because any delay in acting on this petition would be detrimental to

you.

Our Decision

The FAA has determ ined that the justification for the issuance of Exemption No. 9739 remains valid with respect to this exemption and is in the public interest. Therefore, under the authority provided by 49 U.S.C. 40113 and 44701, which the FAA Administrator has delegated to me, I grant your petition.2

The Effect of Our Decision

Our decision extends the term ination date of Exemption No. 9739 to August 31, 2013, unless sooner superseded or rescinded.

All conditions and limitations of Exemption No. 9739 remain the same. This letter must be attached to, and is a part of, Exemption No. 9739.

Sincerely,

/s/

John W. McGraw Acting Director, Flight Standards

Service
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-04-00778-CR

Antonio Cisneros, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY, 331ST JUDICIAL DISTRICT

NO. 2042664, HONORABLE BOB PERKINS, JUDGE PRESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

Antonio Cisneros seeks to appeal from a judgment of conviction for felony driving

while intoxicated. Sentence was suspended and Cisneros was placed on community supervision on

September 17, 2004. On the same day, Cisneros signed a written waiver of appeal. On November

23, 2004, Cisneros filed a pro se notice of out-of-time appeal. Because the notice of appeal was not

timely, we lack jurisdiction to dispose of the purported appeal in any manner other than by

dismissing it for want of jurisdiction. See Slaton v. State, 981 S.W.2d 208 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998);

Olivo v. State, 918 S.W.2d 519, 522-23 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996); Tex. R. App. P. 26.2(a)(1).
2

The appeal is dismissed.

__________________________________________

Bob Pemberton, Justice

Before Chief Justice Law, Justices B. A. Smith and Pemberton

Dismissed for Want of Jurisdiction

Filed: January 18, 2005

Do Not Publish