alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Unassociated Document


    


    THIRD AMENDMENT TO ACCOUNTS
RECEIVABLE FINANCING AGREEMENT

    


     This third AMENDMENT, dated as of
September 1, 2009 is by and between INTERCLICK, INC. (“Client”) and CRESTMARK
COMMERCIAL CAPITAL LENDING LLC (“Crestmark”). 

    


    RECITALS

    


    A.           Client
and Crestmark (the “Parties”) are parties to a certain Accounts Receivable
Financing Agreement, dated as of November 12, 2008 (the
“Agreement”).

    


    B.           The
Parties have agreed to amend the Agreement pursuant to the terms
hereof.

    


    NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the
premises, and intending to be legally bound hereby, the parties hereby agree as
follows:

     

    AGREEMENT

    


    
      1.           Amendment of
Agreement.

    

    


    
      	
              A.  

            	
              Section
      1.36 is hereby deleted in its entirety and replaced with the
      following:

            


    

    


    “1.36 Servicing Fee – Three-hundred
seventy-five thousandths percent (0.375%).”

    


    2.           Effect of this
Agreement.  Except as modified pursuant hereto, the Agreement
is specifically ratified, restated and confirmed by all parties thereto as of
the date hereof.  To the extent of any conflict between the terms of
this Amendment and the Agreement, the terms of this Amendment shall
control.

    


    3.           Counterparts.  This
Amendment may be executed in any number of counterparts, all of which taken
together shall constitute one agreement, provided that, this
Amendment shall not become effective until all counterparts hereof have been
executed by all parties hereto.

    


    The parties hereto have caused this
Amendment to be duly executed and delivered by their respective officers
thereunto duly authorized as of the date first above written.

     

    
       

      
        
          
            
              
                
                  
                    
                      
                        	
                                 INTERCLICK, INC.  

                              	 CRESTMARK COMMERCIAL
      CAPITAL LENDING LLC 
	   	   
	 BY: /s/ Michael
      Matthews 	 BY: /s/ Patrick M.
      Haney                          
       
	   	
                                 PATRICK M. HANEY,
      President 

                              
	 PRINT
      NAME: Michael
      Matthews 	   
	   	   
	 TITLE:           
      CEO
#### § 1978.113 Judicial enforcement.

Whenever any person has failed to comply with a preliminary order of reinstatement or a final order, including one approving a settlement agreement issued under STAA, the Secretary may file a civil action seeking enforcement of the order in the United States district court for the district in which the violation was found to have occurred.
----

----

I Informácie

Komisia

----

Výmenný kurz eura (1)

4. augusta 2004

(2004/C 198/01)

1 euro= 

----

(1)

Zdroj: referenčný výmenný kurz publikovaný ECB.

----
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0001073363
<NAME> AEI INCOME & GROWTH FUND 23 LLC

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                           1,032
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 1,032
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   1,032
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           14,907
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                    (13,875)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     1,032
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                    32
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   14,907
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (14,875)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (14,875)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (14,875)
<EPS-BASIC>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
August 6 , 2015

M r. J ordan Mann

1193 County Road K

Mead, NE 68046

Dear Mr. Mann :

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

§ xx.xx 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 No t Process Your Request

We received your May 28

, filed in D ocket No

. FAA

- 20 15

- 1808 , but we are unable to process

your request any further. Your petiti on does no t 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 specific section or sections of 14 CFR from which you seek relief, the extent of the

relief you se ek, and the reason you seek relief.

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

benefit the public as a whole.

 The reasons why the exemption would not adversely affect safety or how the exemption

would prov ide a level of safety at least equal to that provided by the rule from which you

seek an exemption.

 Any additional information, views, or arguments available to support your request.2

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

Avia tion 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 § 1 1.63(d) requires you to send your petition for exemption at

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

If We Do Not Hear From You

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

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

Enclosure3
xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?


L\_2005290EN.01003001.xml


| | | | |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 4.11.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 290/30 |

---

Corrigendum to Directive 2000/12/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 March 2000 relating to the taking up and pursuit of the business of credit institutions

(
[Official Journal of the European Union L 126 of 26 May 2000](http://publications.europa.eu/resource/oj/JOL_2000_126_R_TOC)
)

On page 46, in Annex I, ‘List of activities subject to mutual recognition’, footnote 1:

for:

| | | | |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| ‘(1) | Including, inter alia: ... | | | | --- | --- | | — | financing of commercial transactions (including forfeiting).’, | |

read:

| | | | |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| ‘(1) | Including, inter alia: ... | | | | --- | --- | | — | financing of commercial transactions (including forfaiting).’. | |

---
#### §§ 2205.152-2205.159 [Reserved]
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 97-7134

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus MARK KERRY CRENSHAW, Defendant - Appellant.Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. John A. MacKenzie, Senior District Judge. (CR-90-117-N, CA-96-596-2) Submitted: January 26, 1999 Decided: March 5, 1999 Before MURNAGHAN, NIEMEYER, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Mark Kerry Crenshaw, Appellant Pro Se. Mark Anthony Exley, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Mark Kerry Crenshaw 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’sopinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny Crenshaw’s motion for appointment of counsel, deny a certificate ofappealability, and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. See United States v. Crenshaw , Nos. CR-90-117-N; CA96-596-2 (E.D. Va. July 22, 1997). 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
Request for Information Laminated Pictures (FAA-2015-2995) 

9-AWA-AVS-333Exemptions (FAA) 

Dear Messrs. Moriarty and Herrier: 

This letter is to inform you that the following information is missing from your petition (Docket No. 

FAA−2015−2995). This information is necessary for the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to process your 

petition.

Provide a copy of the Motion Picture and Television Operations Manual (MPTOM) which is required by Order 8900.1, 

Volume 3, Chapter 8, Section 1. If you wish for us to proceed without this manual and remove closed-set filming from 

your proposed operation please inform of us of your intention by the requested response date listed below.

 

Please submit the additional information (non-proprietary) to your docket at www.regulations.gov. Once your 

information has been submitted, please also send a copy of the requested information (and any proprietary 

information), as well as your comment tracking number from regulations.gov via e-mail to 333exemptions@faa.gov. If

you want us to process your request any further, we must receive the information described above by November 12, 

2015. If we do not receive the information, we will close the docket without notifying you further.

 

If you have any questions, please feel free to contact us at (202) 267-2999 .

 

FAA Office of Rulemaking 

Sent: Thursday, October 29, 2015 1:33 PM 

To: jmoriarty@laminatedpictures.com; mherrier@laminatedpictures.com
Exhibit 31.1

Certification of Chief Financial Officer under Rule 13a-14(a)/15d-14(a)

     I Harold Kramer, certify that:

     1.   I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of
Visual Bible International, Inc.;

     2.   Based upon my knowledge, this quarterly 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 quarterly report.

     3.   Based upon my knowledge, the financial statements, and
other financial information included in this quarterly report,
fairly present in all material respects the financial condition,
results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and
for, the periods presented in this quarterly report.

     4.   The registrant's other certifying officers and I are
responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and
procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for
the registrant and have:

          a)   Designed such disclosure controls and procedures to
ensure that material information relating to the registrant,
including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by
others within those entities, particularly during the period in
which this quarterly report is being prepared;

          b)   Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's
disclosure controls and procedures as of a date within 90 days prior
to the filing date of this quarterly report (the "Evaluation Date");
and

          c)   Presented in this quarterly report our conclusions
about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures
based on our evaluation as of the Evaluation Date.

     5.   The registrant's other certifying officers and I have
disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation, to the registrant's
auditors and the audit committee of the registrant's board of
directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

          a)   All significant deficiencies in the design or
operation of internal controls which could adversely affect the
registrant's ability to record, process, summarize and report
financial data and have identified for the registrant's auditors any
material weaknesses in internal controls; and

          b)   Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves
management or other employees who have a significant role in the
registrant's internal controls.

     6.   The registrant's other certifying officer and I have
indicated in this quarterly report whether or not there were
significant changes in internal controls or in other factors that
could significantly affect internal controls subsequent to the date
of our most recent evaluation, including any corrective actions with
regard to significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.



Date: November 20, 2003            /s/ Harold Kramer


                                   Harold Kramer, Principal
                                   Financial Officer
#### Mariette Leslie-Cotton, Appellant, *v.*Hugh D. Cotton, Individually and as Trustee, et al., Respondents.

Submitted April 19, 1937;

decided April 27, 1937.

Motion for reargument of motion for leave to appeal denied, with ten dollars costs and necessary printing disbursements. (See 273 N. Y. 678.) We cannot see that the case of *Townshend*v. *Frommer*(125 N. Y. 446) is inconsistent with the decision in this case.
#### STATE ex COPE v COOPER, etc.

Ohio Supreme Court

No. 21985.

Decided Jan. 15, 1930

Kinkade, Robinson, Jones and Allen, JJ., concur.
§ 10.4 Exclusions. ( a ) *Grants.* The requirements of this part do not apply to grants within the meaning of the Federal Grant and Cooperative Agreement Act, as amended, 31 U.S.C. 6301 *et seq.*
( b ) *Contracts and agreements with and grants to Indian Tribes.* This part does not apply to contracts and agreements with and grants to Indian Tribes under the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act, as amended, 25 U.S.C. 450 *et seq.*
( c ) *Procurement contracts for construction that are excluded from coverage of the Davis-Bacon Act.* Procurement contracts for construction that are not covered by the Davis-Bacon Act are not subject to this part.
( d ) *Contracts for services that are exempted from coverage under the Service Contract Act.* Service contracts, except for those expressly covered by § 10.3(a)(1)(iii) or (iv), that are exempt from coverage of the Service Contract Act pursuant to its statutory language at 41 U.S.C. 6702(b) or its implementing regulations, including those at 29 CFR 4.115 through 4.122 and 29 CFR 4.123(d) and(e), are not subject to this part.
( e ) *Employees who are exempt from the minimum wage requirements of the Fair Labor Standards Act under 29 U.S.C. 213(a) and 214(a)-(b) .* Except for workers who are otherwise covered by the Davis-Bacon Act or the Service Contract Act, this part does not apply to employees who are not entitled to the minimum wage set forth at 29 U.S.C. 206(a)(1) of the Fair Labor Standards Act pursuant to 29 U.S.C. 213(a) and 214(a)-(b). Pursuant to this exclusion, individuals that are not subject to the requirements of this part include but are not limited to: ( 1 ) *Learners, apprentices, or messengers.* This part does not apply to learners, apprentices, or messengers whose wages are calculated pursuant to special certificates issued under 29 U.S.C. 214(a).
( 2 ) *Students.* This part does not apply to student workers whose wages are calculated pursuant to special certificates issued under 29 U.S.C. 214(b).
( 3 ) *Individuals employed in a bona fide executive, administrative, or professional capacity.* This part does not apply to workers who are employed by Federal contractors in a bona fide executive, administrative, or professional capacity, as those terms are defined and delimited in 29 CFR part 541.
( f ) *FLSA-covered workers performing in connection with covered contracts for less than 20 percent of their work hours in a given workweek.* This part does not apply to FLSA-covered workers performing in connection with covered contracts, *i.e.,* those workers who perform work duties necessary to the performance of the contract but who are not directly engaged in performing the specific work called for by the contract, that spend less than 20 percent of their hours worked in a particular workweek performing in connection with such contracts. This exclusion is inapplicable to covered workers performing on covered contracts, *i.e.,* those workers directly engaged in performing the specific work called for by the contract.
[79 FR 60721, Oct. 7, 2014, as amended at 83 FR 48542, Sept. 26, 2018; 86 FR 67224, Nov. 24, 2021]
PCeASe 

:L-ARTIv!itNTOr 

"i^Xl FCD i b P I- Ub 

—Keep-the-non-stop— 

Lansing to 

Washington D.C. 

route offered by 

Sun Country Airlines!! 

Sun country slot exemption 

Docket No. FAA-2012-0089 

Name (^5^ ht.(L(ljU n^fAEP 

Address 3629 Quadrille cane J 

City, State, Zip _ Holt, Ml 48842 .. 

Email ^4-hJ ^ k^<^ (^ ^ ^ /- Can\
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 01-7134

CHARLES TERRENCE BARLOW,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

STEPHEN M. DEWALT,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. W. Earl Britt, Senior

District Judge. (CA-01-401-5-BR)

Submitted: January 31, 2002 Decided: February 6, 2002

Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Charles Terrence Barlow, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Charles Terrence Barlow appeals from the district court’s

order dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (1994) petition without prejudice, which the court properly construed as a 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255

(West Supp. 2001) motion. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly,

we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Barlow v.

Dewalt, No. CA-01-401-5-BR (E.D.N.C. filed June 12, 2001; entered

June 14, 2001). 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.

AFFIRMED
§ 2200.31 Caption; titles of cases. ( a ) *Notice of contest cases.* Cases initiated by a notice of contest shall be titled: Secretary of Labor, Complainant, v. (Name of Employer), Respondent.
( b ) *Petitions for modification of abatement period.* Cases initiated by a petition for modification of the abatement period shall be titled: (Name of employer), Petitioner, v. Secretary of Labor, Respondent.
( c ) *Location of title.* The titles listed in paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section shall appear at the left upper portion of the initial page of any pleading or document (other than exhibits) filed.
( d ) *Docket number.* The initial page of any pleading or document (other than exhibits) shall show, at the upper right of the page, opposite the title, the docket number, if known, assigned by the Commission.
[No. 26956-2-II.

Division Two.

November 26, 2002.]

#### The State of Washington, *Respondent,*v. Gregory Allen Brown, *Respondent.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for Cowlitz County, No. 00-1-00554-4, Stephen M. Warning, J., entered January 26, 2001. *Affirmed*by unpublished opinion per Houghton, J., concurred in by Morgan and Bridgewater, JJ.
#### R. D. TISDALE v. THE UNITED STATES

[No. M-223.

Decided June 7, 1937]

*488
      *Mr. John W. Price*for the plaintiff. *Mr. Rees B. Gillespie*"was on the brief.

*Mr. Frank J.*Keating, with whom was *Mr. Assistant Attorney General James W.*Morris, for the defendant.

*491LittletoN, Judge,

delivered the opinion of the court:

Counsel for defendant filed a counterclaim for the period July 1, 1929, to June 30, 1930, on the ground that during this period plaintiff’s mother kept boarders and received from them payments for room and board. The facts show, however, that plaintiff’s mother instead of making anything from the operation of the boarding house suffered a considerable loss. The reasonable and necessary cost of conducting the boarding house far exceeded the gross income she received from those who had rooms and boarded there from time to time, and for that reason she discontinued the venture in June 1930. The evidence does not support the counterclaim and it is therefore denied.

For the period during which plaintiff claims increased rental and subsistence allowances authorized by law to an officer of his rank, the facts clearly show chief dependency of his mother from July 1, 1930, to December 12, 1932, the last date on which testimony herein was taken.1 The plain*492tiff seeks judgment for these increased allowances to and. including December 6, 1934. He married on December 7,, 1934, since which time he has received increased allowances. Judgment will be entered in favor of plaintiff for the increased allowances claimed, but entry of judgment will be-withheld to allow the plaintiff to submit further proof as to-dependency between January 12,1932, and December 7,1934,, unless the parties can agree upon the fact as to chief dependency ; in either event judgment will be entered for the amount due plaintiff to the proper date upon the filing by the parties; of a statement showing the amount due or the submission of' further proof as to dependency. It is so ordered.

Whaley, *Judge;*Williams, *Judge;*Greek, *Judge;*and'. Booth, *Chief*Justice, concur.

Note: Order of court January 20, 1938, amending findings showing dependency between January 12, 1932, and December 6, 1934, and entering judgment for plaintiff in sum of $5,455.94.
#### MARDIGAN v STATE

Ohio Appeals, 8th Dist, Cuyahoga Co

No. 10429.

Decided January 20, 1930

Mr. Ben P. Rabb, Esq., Cleveland, for Mardigan.

Mr. Julius Kovachy, Esq., Cleveland, for State.

VICKERY, PJ.

We fail to see where there is any evidence in this record that would warrant a conviction of the plaintiff in error for violating the liquor law. In other words, it is an exceedingly weak case, there being no evidence to show a trafficking in liquor and the explanation of the party being made, we think that the conviction was wrong and the judgment of the court will be reversed, and there being no evidence to warrant a conviction, the plaintiff in error is discharged.

Levine, J., concurs. Sullivan, J., not participating.
#### § 1987.115 Special circumstances; waiver of rules.

In special circumstances not contemplated by the provisions of the rules in this part, or for good cause shown, the ALJ or the ARB on review may, upon application, after three days notice to all parties, waive any rule or issue such orders that justice or the administration of FSMA requires.