alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 10.38

 

Addendum #4 to the Revolving Line of Credit Agreement

 

	
[$139,029]

	
[12/31/2014]




 

This Addendum to the Revolving Line of Credit Agreement by and between Elite Data Services, Inc., a Florida Corporation (the "BORROWER") and Sarah Myers an Individual ("LENDER") is made and executed as of the date referred to above. An additional principal sum totaling Two Thousand Four Hundred and Twenty-Nine Dollars ($2,429) has been added to the Revolving Line of Credit Agreement Promissory Note dated September 1, 2013 (the "LOAN AGREEMENT"), bringing the Loan Agreement to a total sum of One Hundred and Thirty-Nine Thousand Twenty-Nine Dollars ($139,029). The default date under the Loan Agreement has been extended to December 31, 2015.

 

This Addendum shall be governed by and construed and enforced in accordance with the laws of Florida.

 

	
By:

	
/s/ Charles Rimlinger

	 
	 	
Charles Rimlinger, CEO

	 


 

	
By:

	
/s/ Sarah Myers

	 
	 	
Sarah Myers, Lender
#### § 5.24 The basic hourly rate of pay.

“The basic hourly rate of pay” is that part of a laborer's or mechanic's wages which the Secretary of Labor would have found and included in wage determinations prior to the 1964 amendments. The Secretary of Labor is required to continue to make a separate finding of this portion of the wage. In general, this portion of the wage is the cash payment made directly to the laborer or mechanic. It does not include fringe benefits.
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 Transportation

###### Federal Aviation Administration

          - 14 CFR Part 71
          - [Airspace Docket No. 2000-ASW-08]

# AGENCY:

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

# ACTION:

Direct final rule; confirmation of effective date. 

# SUMMARY:

This notice confirms the effective date of a direct final rule which revises Class E airspace at Waco, TX.

# EFFECTIVE DATE:

The direct final rule published at 65 FR 14856 is effective 0901 UTC, August 10, 2000.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Donald J. Day, Airspace Branch, Air Traffic Division, Southwest Region, Federal Aviation Administration, Fort Worth, TX 76193-0520, telephone: 817-222-5593.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    The FAA published this direct final rule with a request for comments in the                     **Federal Register**                     on March 20, 2000, (65 FR 14856). The FAA uses the direct final rulemaking procedure for a noncontroversial rule where the FAA believes that there will be no adverse public comment. This direct final rule advised that public that no adverse comments were anticipated, and that unless a written adverse comment, or a written notice of intent to submit such an adverse comment, were received within the comment period, the regulation would become effective on August 10, 2000. No adverse comments were received, and, thus, this action confirms that this direct final rule will be effective on that date.                

Issued in Fort Worth, TX, on May 16, 2000.

JoEllen Casilio,

Assistant Manager, Air Traffic Division, Southwest Region.

[FR Doc. 00-13178  Filed 5-24-00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-M
§ 501.41 Decision and order of Administrative Law Judge. ( a ) The ALJ will prepare, within 60 calendar days after completion of the hearing and closing of the record, a decision on the issues referred by the WHD Administrator.
( b ) The decision of the ALJ shall include a statement of the findings and conclusions, with reasons and basis therefor, upon each material issue presented on the record. The decision shall also include an appropriate order which may affirm, deny, reverse, or modify, in whole or in part, the determination of the WHD Administrator. The reason or reasons for such order shall be stated in the decision.
( c ) The decision shall be served on all parties and the ARB.
( d ) The decision concerning civil money penalties, debarment, monetary relief, and/or enforcement of other contractual obligations under 8 U.S.C. 1188, 20 CFR part 655, subpart B, and/or this part, when served by the ALJ shall constitute the final agency order unless the ARB, as provided for in § 501.42, determines to review the decision.
**Exhibit 99.1**

 

CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report ofThe Boyds Collection, Ltd. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ending September30, 2002 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the datehereof (the “Report”), I, Jean-Andre Rougeot, Chief Executive Officer of theCompany, certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant toSection 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

(1)           The Report fully complies with the requirements of section13 (a) or 15 (d) 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 ofthe Company.

 

 
| /s/  Jean-Andre Rougeot  |   |
|--------------------------|--------|
| Jean-Andre  Rougeot      |   |
| Chief  Executive Officer |   |
| November  12, 2002       |   |

 

----
EX-10.4



 Exhibit 10.4 
  

			
	 Enbridge Pipelines Inc.
 3000, 425-1st Street SW
 Calgary, AB T2P 3L8
		





 Enbridge Energy Limited Partnership 

1100 Louisiana Street, Suite 3300 
 Houston, TX 77002 

March 13, 2015 
 United Refining Company and 

Kiantone Pipeline Corporation 
 823 11th Ave. 
 New York, New York 10019 

Attention: J. Nelson Happy 
  

			
	Subject:		Amendment to the Letter Agreement between Enbridge Pipelines Inc., Enbridge Energy Limited Partnership, United Refining Company and Kiantone Pipeline Corporation dated July 31, 2014 (the “Letter
Agreement”)

 The parties agree that Section C.1 of the Letter Agreement shall be amended by replacing “March 13, 2015” with
“March 27, 2015.” 
 Please acknowledge your agreement to the terms and conditions contained herein by signing the enclosed duplicate copy in the
space provided below and returning the acknowledged copy to the undersigned. 
  

									
	ENBRIDGE ENERGY, LIMITED PARTNERSHIP BY ENBRIDGE PIPELINES (LAKEHEAD) L.L.C. ITS GENERAL PARTNER				ENBRIDGE PIPELINES INC.
					
	Per:		 /s/ Chris Kaitson
				Per:		 /s/ R.T. Schwertz

			 Chris Kaitson
 Vice President – U.S.
Law
						 R.T. Schwertz
 V.P., Liquid Pipelines Law
& Deputy General Counsel


  

									
	UNITED REFINING COMPANY				KIANTONE PIPELINE CORPORATION
					
	Per:		 /s/ John A. Catsimatidis
				Per:		 /s/ John A. Catsimatidis

			 John A. Catsimatidis
 Chairman &
CEO
						 John A. Catsimatidis
 Chairman &
CEO
§ 2700.52 Expedition of proceedings. ( a ) *Motions.* In addition to making a written motion pursuant to § 2700.10, a party may request expedition of proceedings by oral motion, with concurrent notice to all parties. Oral motions shall be reduced to writing within 24 hours.
( b ) *Timing of hearing.* Unless all parties consent to an earlier hearing, an expedited hearing on the merits of the case shall not be held on less than 4 days notice.
[58 FR 12164, Mar. 3, 1993, as amended at 71 FR 44208, Aug. 4, 2006]
JEROME SCOTT

,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA

,

Appellee

. IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D 14

- 5146

___________ __________________/

Opinion filed February 24, 2015.

An appeal from an order of the Circuit Court for Jefferson County

. Karen A. Gievers , Judge

.

Jerome Scott, pro se , Appellant.

No appearance for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

MARSTILLER, R AY, and SWANSON, JJ., CONCUR.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD 

MARCIA MOCNY,

Appellant,

v.

OFFICE OF PERSONNEL 

MANAGEMENT,

Agency.

DOCKET NUMBER

CH-831E-15-0295-I-1

DATE: June 28, 2016

Matthew L. Edwards, Chicago, Illinois, for the appellant. 

Delores A. Saunders, Washington, D.C., for the agency. 

BEFORE

Susan Tsui Grundmann, Chairman

Mark A. Robbins, Member

ORDER

¶1 The appellant has filed a petition for review of the initial decision, which

affirmed the reconsideration decision of the Office of Personnel Management 

denying her application for disability retirement. The two Board members cannot 

agree on the disposition of the petition for review. Therefore, the initial decision 

now becomes the final decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board in this 

appeal. Title 5 of the Code of Federal Regulations, section 1200.3(b) (5 C.F.R. 

§ 1200.3(b)). This decision shall not be considered as precedent by the Board in 

any other case. 5 C.F.R. § 1200.3(d).
2

NOTICE TO THE APPELLANT REGARDING

YOUR FURTHER REVIEW RIGHTS

You have the right to request review of the final decision by the U.S. Court 

of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. You must submit your request to the court at 

the following address: 

United States Court of Appeals

for the Federal Circuit

717 Madison Place, N.W.

Washington, DC 20439

The court must receive your request for review no later than 60 calendar days 

after the date of this order. See 5 U.S.C. § 7703(b)(1)(A) (as rev. eff. Dec. 27, 

2012). If you choose to file, be very careful to file on time. The court has held 

that normally it does not have the authority to waive this statutory deadline and 

that filings that do not comply with the deadline must be dismissed. See Pinat v. 

Office of Personnel Management, 931 F.2d 1544 (Fed. Cir. 1991). 

If you need further information about your right to appeal this decision to 

court, you should refer to the Federal law that gives you this right. It is found in 

title 5 of the United States Code, section 7703 (5 U.S.C. § 7703) (as rev. eff. 

Dec. 27, 2012). You may read this law as well as other sections of the 

United States Code, at our website, http://www.mspb.gov/appeals/uscode/htm. 

Additional information is available at the court’s 

website, www.cafc.uscourts.gov. Of particular relevance is the court’s “Guide 

for Pro Se Petitioners and Appellants,” which is contained within the 

court's Rules of Practice, and Forms 5, 6, and 11. 

If you are interested in securing pro bono representation for an appeal to 

the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, you may visit our website 

at http://www.mspb.gov/probono for information regarding pro bono 

representation for Merit Systems Protection Board appellants before the Federal 

Circuit. The 
3

Merit Systems Protection Board neither endorses the services provided by any 

attorney nor warrants that any attorney will accept representation in a given case. 

FOR THE BOARD:

Washington, D.C.

______________________________

Jennifer Everling

Acting Clerk of the Board
For international travelers departing from Pakistan:

If rice, soybeans, chickpeas, or safflower seeds 

are found in passenger baggage arriving in 

the United States, it will be confiscated and 

destroyed. When you arrive in the United States, you 

must declare all food and agricultural items on your 

Customs Declaration Form 

and verbally to officers or 

agriculture specialists with 

U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP). Passengers who fail to 

declare agricultural items may be subject to penalties of up to $1,000 

or more per violation.

Khapra Beetle: A Devastating Agricultural Pest

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits these agricultural items because they could be harboring 

the Khapra beetle (Trogoderma granarium). This insect is one of the world’s most destructive pests of grain 

products and seed. In response to increasing numbers of Khapra beetle detections in passenger baggage from 

countries where Khapra beetle is known to occur, USDA issued Federal Orders on July 8, 2011, that prohibit 

rice, soybeans, chickpeas, or safflower seeds from entering the United States in passenger baggage and noncommercial packages sent via international mail or express courier.

Please help to keep the Khapra beetle out of the United States. Simply leave these items behind and avoid 

confiscations, fines, and penalties.

United States Department of Agriculture

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service

Program Aid No. 2090

Issued August 2011 

USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer. 

USDA/APHIS, Indira Singh 

U.S. Customs and Border Protection

Khapra beetle (Trogoderma granarium)

Ministry of Agriculture and Regional Development Archive, 

Ministry of Agriculture and Regional Development, Bugwood.org

Rice, soybeans, chickpeas, and 

safflower seeds from Pakistan 

and other countries where the 

Khapra beetle exists 

or is known to occur are 

prohibited from entering the 

United States.

USDA/APHIS, Indira Singh
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 Energy

###### Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

          - [Project No. 1962-000]

Take notice that there will be a full group meeting of the Rock Creek-Cresta Relicensing Collaborative on Monday, June 5, 2000, from 9 a.m. to 4 p.m. at the PG&E offices, 2740 Gateway Oaks Drive, in Sacramento, California. Mark Robinson of the Commission's Office of Energy Projects has been invited to participate by phone for a brief update of the settlement status. Expected participants need to give their names to William Zemke (PG&E) at (415) 973-1646 so that they can get through security.

For further information, please contact Elizabeth Molloy at (202) 208-0771.

Linwood A. Watson, Jr.,

Acting Secretary.

[FR Doc. 00-13108  Filed 5-24-00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pane l una ni m ous l yc onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l ar g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T DA L J I T S I NG H S AN DH U, P et i t i on er , v. E R I C H . H O L D E R , J r ., A tto rn e yG e n e r a l, R e s p o n d e n t. N o. 09- 71656 A ge nc yN o. A 076- 457- 451 ME MOR AN DU M *

O n P e t i t i on f

orR e vi e w of

a n O r de rof

the B o ar do f I m m ig r a tio n A p p e a ls S ubm i tt e d M ar c h 6, 2012 ** B efo re: B . F L E T C H E R , R E IN H A R D T , an dT A S H IM A , C i rcu i tJu d g es. D a l j i tS i ngh S andhu, ana t i ve a nd c i t i z e n of I ndi a , pe t i t i ons f

orr e vi e w of

the B oa r d of I m m i gr a t i on A ppe a l s ’ ( “ B I A ” ) or de rde ny i ng hi s m ot i on t o r e ope n. O ur j ur i s di c t i on i s gove rne d by8 U . S . C . § 1252. W e r e vi e w f orabus e of

di s c r e t i on the 

# FI LED MA R 13 2012 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS09- 71656 2 d e n ia l o f am o tio n to r e o p e n , T

ou f i gh iv. Mukasey , 5 3 8 F .3 d9 8 8 , 9 9 2 ( 9 th C i r . 2 0 0 8 ) , a n dwe d e n yi n p arta n dd i s m i s s i n p artth e p e t i t i o n f o rr e v i e w. T he B IA di d n otabuse i t s di sc re t i on i n d enyi ng S andh u’ s m ot i on t o reopen a s u n tim e lyw h e r e th e m o tio n w a s f ile ds ix y e ar s a f

te rth e B I A ’s f

in a l d e c is io n , se e 8 C . F . R . § 1 00 3. 2(c) (2), and S andh u fai l ed t o d em on strat e c hang ed ci rc um st ance s in I n d iato q u a lif

yf o rth e r e g u la to rye x c e p tio n to th e tim e lim it, se e 8 C. F. R. § 1 0 0 3 .2 ( c ) ( 3 ) ( ii) ; N

ajm abadi v. H

older , 59 7 F . 3d 98 3, 98 9-90 (9th C i r. 20 10 ). W e r e je c t S an d h u ’s c o n te n tio n th a t th e B I A d idn o t a d e q u a te lye x a m in e h is e v id e n c e . See Ferna ndezv. G on zales , 439 F . 3d 592, 603 ( 9th C i r . 2006) (pet i t i on erdi d n otov er com e the pres um pt i on thatthe B IA re vi ew ed the re cord); s e e al s o N ajm abadi , 5 9 7 F .3 da t 9 9 0 ( th e B I A “d o e s n o t h a v e to w r ite a n e x e g e s is o n e v e ryc o n te n tio n ” ) . F u rth e r , S an d h u ’s c o n te n tio n s th a t th e B I A f a ile dto ap p ly the pr ope rl e ga l s t anda r d orpr ope r l ya ddr e s s hi s c l a i m f orr e l i e f unde rthe C o n v e n tio n A g a in s t T o rtu r e a r e b e lie db yth e r e c o r d . F in ally, w e lac kju risd icti o n o v eran y c h allen g e S an d h u m ak es to th e B IA ’s 20 02 order a ff

i rm i ng the i m m i grat i on j ud ge’ s dec i si on fi nd i ng hi m no tcr edi bl e, b e c au s e S an d h u ’s p e titio n f o rr e v ie w is u n tim e lya s to th a t o r d e r . Se e T ouf i ghi , 538 F . 3d a t995. P E T IT IO N F O R R E V IE W D E N IE D i n p art; D IS M IS S E D i n p art.
UNITED STATES AIR FORCE

COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

________________________

No. ACM S32526

________________________

UNITED STATES

Appellee

v.

Randy R. BERTRAND

Senior Airman (E-4), U.S. Air Force, Appellant

________________________

Appeal from the United States Air Force Trial Judiciary

Decided 14 August 2018

________________________

Military Judge: Ryan Hendricks.

Approved sentence: Bad-conduct discharge, confinement for 45 days, reduction to E-1, and a reprimand. Sentence adjudged 2 April 2018 by 

SpCM convened at Joint Base Andrews, Maryland. 

For Appellant: Lieutenant Colonel R. Davis Younts, USAF.

For Appellee: None.

Before HARDING, HUYGEN, and POSCH, Appellate Military Judges.

________________________

This is an unpublished opinion and, as such, does not serve as 

precedent under AFCCA Rule of Practice and Procedure 18.4.

________________________

PER CURIAM:

The approved findings and sentence are correct in law and fact, and no error materially prejudicial to Appellant’s substantial rights occurred. Articles 

59(a) and 66(c), Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. §§ 859(a), 866(c). 
United States v. Bertrand, No. ACM S32526

2

Accordingly, the approved findings and sentence are AFFIRMED.

FOR THE COURT

CAROL K. JOYCE

Clerk of the Court
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 18-6151

LEONARD CARTER, JR.,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

TRACY S. RAY, Warden; A. MACK BAILEY, Assistant Warden; TERESA L. 

BRICKHEAD, Operation Manager; REBECCA OWENS, Correctional 

Institutional Recorded Counselor; GEARD PUGH, Unit Manager; W. ROLLINS, 

Unit Manager; ROBYN P. WALLACE, EBP Manager; J. MILLES, Unit Manager; 

B. T. PERKINS, Unit Manager; A. JAMES, Institutional Ombudsman/Grievance; 

MS. MOE WILLIS, Assistant Warden; MS. K. MITCHELL, Operation Manager,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at 

Richmond. Henry E. Hudson, District Judge. (3:17-cv-00608-HEH-RCY)

Submitted: May 17, 2018 Decided: May 21, 2018

Before KING and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Leonard Carter, Jr., Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Leonard Carter, Jr., appeals the district court’s order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. 

§ 1983 (2012) complaint for failure to prosecute. We have reviewed the record and find 

no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. 

Carter v. Ray, No. 3:17-cv-00608-HEH-RCY (E.D. Va., Jan. 23 & 24, 2018). We deny 

Carter’s motion for default judgment and to proceed in forma pauperis and his motion for 

a writ of execution and to proceed in forma pauperis. We dispense with oral argument 

because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before 

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION

File Name: 11a0361n.06

Case No. 00-3409

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT

OUR GARAGE AND WRECKER

SERVICE ; TOWING & RECOVERY 1

ASSOCIATION OF OHIO,

Plaintiffs-Appellees,

v.

CITY OF COLUMBUS; DAVID WILSON;

BOBBIE BEAVERS,

Defendants-Appellants.

_______________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

ON APPEAL FROM THE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT

COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN

DISTRICT OF OHIO

BEFORE: BATCHELDER, Chief Judge; KEITH and MOORE, Circuit Judges.

ALICE M. BATCHELDER, Chief Judge. Plaintiffs-Appellees Ours Garage and Wrecker

Service, Inc., and the Towing and Recovery Association of Ohio brought suit against the City of

Columbus and certain cityofficials to enjoin enforcement of Chapter 549 of the Columbus CityCode

(the “towing ordinance”), which regulates consensual towing operations. The district court held that

the Interestate Commerce Act, 49 U.S.C. § 14501(c)(1), preempts the towing ordinance, and this

court affirmed. Our Garage & Wrecker Serv. v. City of Columbus, 257 F.3d 506 (6th Cir. 2001). 

The Supreme Court subsequently reversed the decision of this court and remanded the case for

consideration of whether the towing ordinance qualifies as an exercise of “‘safety regulatory

In both the district court and in this court, the caption of the case has identified the plaintiff as “Our

1

Garage” throughout the course of this litigation. The company’s name in fact is “Ours Garage,” but we continue to

use “Our Garage” in the caption to avoid confusion.
Case No. 00-3409, Our Garage v. City of Columbus

authority’ or otherwise fall[s] within § 14501(c)(2)(A)’s compass.” City of Columbus v. Ours

Garage & Wrecker Serv., Inc., 536 U.S. 424, 442 (2002). We now remand to the District Court for

proceedings consistent with the Supreme Court’s opinion.

2