alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>
                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.79

                         TERMINATION OF LEASE AGREEMENT

     THIS TERMINATION OF LEASE AGREEMENT is executed this 31st day of December,
2001 by and between Bankers Insurance Company, a Florida insurance company
("BIC") and Insurance Management Solutions Group, Inc., a Florida corporation
("IMSG").

                                R E C I T A L S
                                - - - - - - - -

1.   There is that certain Bankers Financial Center Lease Agreement made by and
     between BIC as "Landlord" dated January 7, 1997 and executed and effective
     as of January 1, 1998 and amended pursuant to the First Amendment of Lease
     dated August 1, 2001. The Lease as amended shall be herein called the,
     "Lease".

2.   BIC has, substantially simultaneously with the execution hereof executed
     and delivered a Purchase and Sale Agreement ("Purchase and Sale Agreement")
     by and between BIC as "Seller" and Osprey S.P. Properties LLC, a Florida
     limited liability company as "Buyer".

3.   Simultaneously with the execution and delivery of hereof Bankers Financial
     Corporation, a Florida corporation and IMSG have entered into a Sublease
     Agreement ("Sublease Agreement") on terms identical to the terms of the
     Lease.

4.   The Purchase and Sale Agreement requires the execution and delivery of this
     Termination Agreement.

     NOW, THEREFORE, IN CONSIDERATION OF the closing under the Purchase and
Sales Agreement, in further consideration of the execution and delivery of the
Sublease Agreement, as well as for other good and valuable consideration the
Lease is hereby terminated such termination to effective at the effective time
of the closing under the Purchase and Sale Agreement.

     IN WITNESS WHERE OF the parties hereto have set their hands and seals as
of the day and year first above set forth.

                                          Bankers Insurance Company,
                                          a Florida insurance company

                                          By: /s/ Edwin C. Hussemann
                                              ----------------------------------
                                                   SIGNATURE

                                                   Edwin C. Hussemann, Treasurer

                                          As Its:
                                                  ------------------------------


                                         (CORPORATE SEAL)
(LOGO)

National City Mortgage
National City Mortgage Co.
3232 Newmark Drive
Miamisburg Ohio 45342
Telephone (937) 910-1200

Norwest Bank Minnesota, N.A.
11000 Broken Land Parkway
Columbia, MD 21044-3562
Attention: Master Servicing



RE: Officer's Certificate

Dear Master Servicer:.

The undersigned Officer certifies the following for the 1998 fiscal year:


(A) I have reviewed the  activities and  performance of the Servicer  during the
preceding  fiscal  year  under  the  terms  of the  Servicing  Agreement,  Trust
Agreement,  Pooling and Servicing Agreement and/or  Seller/Servicer Guide and to
the best of these  Officers'  knowledge,  the Servicer has  fulfilled all of its
duties,  responsibilities or obligations under these Agreements  throughout such
year,  or if there has been a default or failure of the  servicer to perform any
of such duties,  responsibilities or obligations,  a description of each default
or failure and the nature and status  thereof has been  reported to Norwest Bank
Minnesota, N.A.;

(B) I have  confirmed  that the Servicer is currently an approved  FNMA or FHLMC
servicer in good standing;

(C) I have confirmed that the Fidelity Bond, the Errors and Omissions  Insurance
Policy and any other bonds required under the terms of the Servicing  Agreement,
Trust Agreement,  Pooling and Servicing Agreement and/or  Seller/Servicer  Guide
are in full force and effect;

(D) All premiums for each Hazard  Insurance  Policy,  Flood Insurance Policy (if
applicable) and Primary Mortgage Insurance Policy (if applicable),  with respect
to each Mortgaged Property,  have been paid and that all such insurance policies
are in full force and effect;

(E) All real  estate  taxes,  governmental  assessments  and any other  expenses
accrued and due, that if not paid could result in a lien or  encumbrance  on any
Mortgaged  Property,  have been paid,  or if any such costs or expenses have not
been paid with respect to any Mortgaged Property, the reason for the non-payment
has been reported to Norwest Bank Minnesota, N.A.;

(F) All Custodial Accounts have been reconciled and are properly funded; and

(G) All annual reports of  Foreclosure  and  Abandonment  of Mortgage  Property,
required  per  section  6050H,  6050J and 6050P of the  Internal  Revenue  Code,
respectively, have been prepared and filed.

Certified By:

Officer

Vice President
Title
5/11/99
Date

No one Cares More !
§ 1430.9 Agency management of advisory committees. Consistent with the other provisions of this part, the Service's advisory committee management officer shall: ( a ) Exercise control and supervision over the establishment, procedures, and accomplishments of advisory committees established by the Service;
( b ) Assemble and maintain the reports, records, and other papers of advisory committees, during their existence;
( c ) Carry out, with the concurrence of the Office of the General Counsel, the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act, as those provisions apply to advisory committees;
( d ) Have available for public inspection and copying all pertinent documents of advisory committees which are within the purview of the Freedom of Information Act; and
( e ) When transcripts have been made of advisory committee meetings, provide for such transcripts to be made available to the public at actual cost of duplication, except where prohibited by contractual agreements entered into prior to January 5, 1973, the effective date of the Federal Advisory Committee Act.
§ 27.671 General. ( a ) Each control and control system must operate with the ease, smoothness, and positiveness appropriate to its function.
( b ) Each element of each flight control system must be designed, or distinctively and permanently marked, to minimize the probability of any incorrect assembly that could result in the malfunction of the system.
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 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.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-50591

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

TUAN MINH PHAM, also known as Chicken

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 1:07-CR-173-3

Before DAVIS, GARZA and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Tuan Minh Pham was convicted of one count of conspiring to possess

Ecstasy with intent to distribute and was sentenced to serve 180 months in

prison. Pham now appeals his conviction and sentence. Pham first argues that

the district court erred by rejecting his first plea agreement and by denying his

motion for discovery. Pham also contends that the district court improperly

relied upon information in his presentence report (PSR) when considering

whether to reject his first plea agreement. Pham argues that the Government

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

June 9, 2009

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
No. 08-50591

2

acted improperly with respect to his first plea agreement. Pham waived these

claims by subsequently entering an unconditional guilty plea. See United States

v. Smallwood, 920 F.2d 1231, 1240 (5th Cir. 1991); United States v. Bell, 966

F.2d 914, 915-16 (5th Cir. 1992). We thus decline to consider them.

Pham contends that the district court erred by relying upon

uncorroborated hearsay statements from his codefendants, which were contained

in the PSR, at sentencing. Pham has shown no error in connection with the

district court’s decision to rely on the information contained in the PSR at

sentencing. See United States v. Mitchell, 484 F.3d 762, 776 (5th Cir. 2007);

United States v. Caldwell, 448 F.3d 287, 290 (5th Cir. 2006); United States v.

Young, 981 F.2d 180, 186-87 (5th Cir. 1992). 

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
§ 1603.201 Referral and scheduling for hearing. ( a ) Upon request by the complainant under paragraph (b) of this section or, if the complaint is not dismissed or resolved under subpart A of this part, on behalf of the Commission, the Office of Federal Operations shall transmit the complaint file to an administrative law judge, appointed under 5 U.S.C. 3105, for a hearing.
( b ) If the complaint has not been referred to an administrative law judge within 180 days after filing, the complainant may request that the complaint be immediately transmitted to an administrative law judge for a hearing.
( c ) The administrative law judge shall fix the time, place, and date for the hearing with due regard for the convenience of the parties, their representatives, and their witnesses and shall notify the parties of the same.
[62 FR 17543, Apr. 10, 1997, as amended at 89 FR 47852, June 4, 2024]
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 93 (Friday, May 12, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Pages 30580-30581]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-11928]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER00-1952-000]


Indeck Colorado, LLC; Notice of Issuance of Order

May 8, 2000.
    Indeck Colorado, LLC (Indeck Colorado) submitted for filing a rate 
schedule under which Indeck Colorado will engage in wholesale electric 
power and energy transactions as a marketer. Indeck Colorado also 
requested waiver of various Commission regulations. In particular, 
Indeck Colorado requested that the Commission grant blanket approval 
under 18 CFR Part 34 of all future issuances of securities and 
assumptions of liability by Indeck Colorado.
    On May 5, 2000, pursuant to delegated authority, the Director, 
Division of Corporate Applications, Office of Markets, Tariffs and 
Rates, granted requests for blanket approval under Part 34, subject to 
the following:
    Within thirty days of the date of the order, any person desiring to 
be heard or to protest the blanket approval of issuances of securities 
or assumptions of liability by Indeck Colorado should file a motion to 
intervene or protest with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 
First Street, N.E., Washington, D.C. 20426, in accordance with Rules 
211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 
385.211 and 385.214).
    Absent a request for hearing within this period, Indeck Colorado is 
authorized to issue securities and assume obligations or liabilities as 
a guarantor, indorser, surety, or otherwise in respect of any security 
of another person; provided that such issuance or assumption is for 
some lawful object within the corporate purposes of the applicant, and 
compatible with the public interest, and is reasonably

[[Page 30581]]

necessary or appropriate for such purposes.
    The Commission reserves the right to require a further showing that 
neither public nor private interests will be adversely affected by 
continued approval of Indeck Colorado's issuances of securities or 
assumptions of liability.
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing motions to 
intervene or protests, as set forth above, is June 5, 2000.
    Copies of the full text of the Order are available from the 
Commission's Public Reference Branch, 888 First Street, N.E., 
Washington, D.C. 20426. The Order may also be viewed on the Internet at 
http://www.ferc.fed.us/online/rims.htm (call 202-208-2222 for 
assistance).

David P. Boergers,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 00-11928 Filed 5-11-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
#### § 91.1002 Compliance date.

No person that conducted flights before November 17, 2003 under a program that meets the definition of fractional ownership program in § 91.1001 may conduct such flights after February 17, 2005 unless it has obtained management specifications under this subpart.

[Doc. No. FAA-2001-10047, 68 FR 54561, Sept. 17, 2003; 69 FR 74413, Dec. 14, 2004]
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Health and Human Services

                    Notice is hereby given of a change in the meeting of the National Advisory Research Resources Council, May 18, 2000, 8 am to May 18, 2000, 5 pm, National Institutes of Health, 9000 Rockville Pike, Conference Room 6, Building 31C, Bethesda, MD, 20892 which was published in the                     **Federal Register**                     on April 5, 2000, 00-8316.                 

The meeting will be open to the public from 9:15 a.m. until 1:30 p.m., closed to the public from 1:30 p.m. to 3:30 p.m., and open to the public from 3:30 p.m. to adjournment. The meeting is partially closed to the public.

Dated: May 3, 2000.

LaVerne Y. Stringfield,

Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 00-11765  Filed 5-10-00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-M
§ 91.403 General. ( a ) The owner or operator of an aircraft is primarily responsible for maintaining that aircraft in an airworthy condition, including compliance with part 39 of this chapter.
( b ) No person may perform maintenance, preventive maintenance, or alterations on an aircraft other than as prescribed in this subpart and other applicable regulations, including part 43 of this chapter.
( c ) No person may operate an aircraft for which a manufacturer's maintenance manual or instructions for continued airworthiness has been issued that contains an airworthiness limitations section unless the mandatory replacement times, inspection intervals, and related procedures specified in that section or alternative inspection intervals and related procedures set forth in an operations specification approved by the Administrator under part 121 or 135 of this chapter or in accordance with an inspection program approved under § 91.409(e) have been complied with.
( d ) A person must not alter an aircraft based on a supplemental type certificate unless the owner or operator of the aircraft is the holder of the supplemental type certificate, or has written permission from the holder.
[Doc. No. 18334, 54 FR 34311, Aug. 18, 1989, as amended by Amdt. 91-267, 66 FR 21066, Apr. 27, 2001; Amdt. 91-293, 71 FR 56005, Sept. 26, 2006]
#### Mississippi Railroad Company *v.*Scott *et al.*

A certificate of d.eposite is a good consideration for a note discounted in bank.

IN ERROR from the circuit court of the, county of Copiah.

Peyton for plaintiff in error.

Morehead contra.

*Per Curiam.*

The plaintiffs sued the defendants on a promissory npte. At the. trial, the plaintiffs’ counsel asked the court to instruct the jury that if they believed the note sued on was discounted by the Mississippi Railroad Company, at Natchez, and that a certificate of deposite for the proceeds was given to the said Scott, the defendant, and that he took stock in said company, at their branch in Gallatin, with said certificate, paying therewith ten per cent, on the amount of stock subscribed for, and that said certificate was received by the commissioners of the company at Gallatin in full payment of the ten per cent, on the stock, then they must find for the plaintiffs; which instruction the cpurt refused to give.

If the defendants, in getting a note discounted, chose to take a cértificate of deposite instead of the money, this will not discharge them from liability; and it is immaterial what they might choose to do with such certificate. There is no evidence in the record that the bank notes were under par, or that the certificate was not as good as specie, and we cannot perceive why such a charge was asked, or, why it was refused. The record presents a case in which the plaintiffs were clearly entitled to a verdict; and we think the court erred in refusing to give the'charge, at least so far as defendants’ liability arose on taking a certificate of deposite. Judgment reversed and cause remanded. , ■

Judge Turner gave no opinion.
#### Thompson *et al. v.*Raymon *et al.*

An affidavit for an attachment against an absconding debtor must state that the ordinary process of law cannot be served upon him.

A judgment against a surety in a replevin bond, can only be had by action on the bond, or by proceeding by *scire facias.*

The court for the correction of errors will not dismiss an attachment when there is no plea or motion to quash in the court below.

IN ERROR from the circuit court of the county of Adams.

Baker, for plaintiffs in error,

cited How. & Hutch. 54879,298, 550; 11 Wend. R. 652; 15 J. R. 141; 19 ibid. 33; 4 Peters, 474; 10 ibid. 161; 1 Dev. 187.

Dunlap *contra.*

Mr. Justice Clayton

delivered the opinion of the court.

This was an attachment sued out by the appellees against Thompson, one of the appellants, for the sum of seven hundred and seventy dollars. The affidavit simply states that “Thompson is removing out of the state of Mississippi,” and does not aver that the ordinary process of law could not be served on him. The defendant, Thompson, gave bond, with Bledsoe as his surety, with condition to appear at the court and abide by and perform its order and judgment, and thus replevied the property. At the term to which the attachment was returnable, the plaintiffs entered a default against Thompson, and obtained judgment against him and his surety in the replevin bond, for the amount of their debt. This writ of error is brought to revise that judgment.

The whole proceedings are erroneous. The affidavit does not contain the most material and important averment which pertains to suits of this kind: that the ordinary process of law could not *187be served on the defendant. Without this, there is no ground for the attachment.

The judgment rendered against the defendant and ‘his surety in the replevin bond, jointly, at the return term of the attachment, without any direct proceeding upon the bond, is also erroneous! The bond could only be made the foundation of a judgment, by an action upon it, either of debt or by *scire*facias, in which the surety was a party.

For these eriors the judgment will be reversed, but the' attachment will not be dismissed, because no objection was made to it in the court below, either by plea in abatement or motion to quash. ' The defendant, after having given bond, suffered judgment to go by default, this court will not now dismiss for an error in the affidavit, to which no exception was taken in the circuit court. It might be different if no bond for appearance had been given.

Judgment reversed.
#### Dillahunty *et al. v.*Smith.

Granting leave to file a bill of discovery in a trial at law, under the act of 1828, is a. matter in the sound discretion of the court.

The party applying for a bill of discovery in a trial at law, must use diligence, and apply in time, so as not to unnecessarily delay the trial of the cause.

IN ERROR from the circuit court of the county of Wilkinson.

Dillingham & Walker, for plaintiff in error.

Boyd *contra.*

*Per Curiam.*

Referring to the abstract and brief of defendant in error — the plaintiffs having not furnished either — we consider that the filing or allowing of a bill of discovery, under the act of 1828, is a matter in the sound legal discretion of the court; for the act says, “and the said court, on inspecting the same, shall determine whether the same shall be had or not.” In determining this matter, a formal application must be made, in due time, so as not to delay trial, unless good cause be shown for the delay to the court; and the court, on being satisfied that the application is made in due time, will proceed to consider whether or not the case made out by the bill, in reference to the subject matter of the suit pending, is such an one as to entitle the applicant to the discovery prayed for.

In this case it does not appear that any application was made to the court for an order allowing the bill to be filed, or for process to compel an answer, until the cause was called for trial.

■ The suit at law was brought and put to issue at April term, and stood continued until October term, 1842, at which last stated *674term, on. the first day thereof, the defendants filed with the papers in the cause their original bill of discovery, sworn to on the 3rd. day of October, 1842; and on the 5th day of October an amended bill of discovery was sworn to, and the record states, “that said bill of discovery was offered to be read to the court when said cause was called for trial, for the purpose of obtaining the order and process of the court, &c. which the court refused to suffer the defendant to do, but compelled said defendants to go to trial;” to which opinion the defendants excepted.

It .appears, further, that the defendants, at the October term, in addition to the plea of non assumpsit, on which issue was taken at April term, filed other pleas of non assumpsit and payment, on which issues were joined; the cause was tried, and verdict and judgment rendered for the plaintiff.

We are of opinion that the application for the allowance of the bill of discovery came too late. The April term, a half year’s vacation,' and eight days of the October term, had been allowed to pass, without any application to the court or notice to the opposite party, of the intention to4 apply for a discovery.

Judgment affirmed.
§ 102.169 Definitions. ( a ) *Tax refund offset* refers to the IRS income tax refund offset program operated under authority of 31 U.S.C. 3720A.
( b ) *Past-due legally enforceable debt* is a delinquent debt administratively determined to be valid, whereon no more than 10 years have lapsed since the date of delinquency (unless reduced to judgment), and which is not discharged under a bankruptcy proceeding or subject to an automatic stay under 11 U.S.C. 362.
( c ) *Individual* refers to a taxpayer identified by a social security number (SSN).
( d ) *Business entity* refers to an entity identified by an employer identification number (EIN).
( e ) *Taxpayer mailing address* refers to the debtor's current mailing address as obtained from IRS.
( f ) *Memorandum of understanding* refers to the agreement between the Agency and IRS outlining the duties and responsibilities of the respective parties for participation in the tax refund offset program.
[62 FR 55166, Oct. 23, 1997, as amended at 82 FR 11785, Feb. 24, 2017]