alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>
                                                                  Exhibit 10.6.3

                        ALPHA SECURITY GROUP CORPORATION
                              328 West 77th Street
                            New York, New York 10024


                                                                March 16, 2007


Mr. Steven M. Wasserman
328 West 77th Street
New York, New York 10024

Dear Mr. Wasserman:

         By signing and dating this letter where indicated below, you hereby
agree with Alpha Security Group Corporation ("Alpha") as follows:

         1.       You shall loan to Alpha, upon Alpha's request, up to Two
                  Hundred Fifty Thousand ($250,000) Dollars (the "Loan"), in
                  addition to any and all sums previously advanced by you to
                  Alpha, to be utilized by Alpha for the payment of costs and
                  expenses associated with the offer and sale by Alpha of
                  6,000,000 shares of its common stock in a public offering
                  underwritten by Maxim Group LLC and I-Banker Securities, Inc.
                  (the "Offering").

         2.       No interest shall accrue on the unpaid principal balance of
                  the Loan.


         3.       The principal balance of this Loan shall be repayable within
                  ninety (90) days of the date on which Alpha consummates the
                  Offering, from interest earned on the trust account, as set
                  forth in the Registration Statement on Form S-1 relating to
                  the Offering.


         4.       This Agreement shall be construed in accordance with and
                  enforced in accordance with the laws of the State of New York,
                  without regard to the principles of conflicts of laws.

         5.       Any provision contained in this Agreement which is prohibited
                  or unenforceable in any jurisdiction shall, as to such
                  jurisdiction, be ineffective to the extent of such prohibition
                  or unenforceability without invalidating the remaining
                  provisions hereof, and any such prohibition or
                  unenforceability in any jurisdiction shall not invalidate or
                  render unenforceable such provision in any other jurisdiction.


         6.       This agreement supercedes in its entirety that certain letter
                  agreement regarding the Loan dated January 12, 2007



                                                 ALPHA SECURITY GROUP
                                                 CORPORATION


                                                 By: /s/ Robert B. Blaha
                                                     -----------------------
                                                     Robert B. Blaha
                                                     Chief Management Officer
ACCEPTED AND AGREED TO:


/s/ Steven M. Wasserman
-----------------------------
Steven M. Wasserman
Date: March 16, 2007
No. 11-5667.

#### Abron *v.*Swarthout, Warden.

C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.
**EXHIBIT 23**

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the following Registration Statements of Matrix Service Company of our reports datedSeptember 28, 2010 relating to the consolidated financial statements and financial statement schedule appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K and the effectiveness of Matrix Service Company’s internal control over financial reportingfor the year ended June 30, 2010: 

Registration Statement on Form S-3 (Registration No. 333-156814)related to the registration of $400,000,000 of Common Stock, Preferred Stock, Debt Securities, Warrants and Units 

Registration Statement on Form S-3 (File No. 333-129155) related to the registration of 2,307,692 shares of CommonStock 

Registration Statement on Form S-8 (File No. 33-36081) related to the Matrix Service Company 1990Incentive Stock Option Plan 

Registration Statement on Form S-8 (File No. 333-56945) related to the MatrixService Company 1991 Incentive Stock Option Plan, as amended 

Registration Statement of Form S-8 (FileNo. 333-02771) related to the Matrix Service Company 1995 Nonemployee Directors’ Stock Option Plan 

Registration Statement on Form S-8 (File No. 333-119840) related to the Matrix Service Company 2004 Stock Option Plan

***/S/ DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP***

Tulsa, Oklahoma 

September 28, 2010
- [Untitled]
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

ALEXANDER HOLLAND,

 

 Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

State.

§

§

§

§

§

§

No. 08-19-00249-CR

Appeal from the

 299th District Court

of Travis, Texas 

(TC# D-1-DC-19-904012)

O R D E R

The Court GRANTS the Appellant’s third motion for extension of time within which to 

file the brief until April 16, 2020. NO FURTHER MOTIONS FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO 

FILE THE APPELLANT’S BRIEF WILL BE CONSIDERED BY THIS COURT.

It is further ORDERED that the Hon. Dal Ruggles, the Appellant’s attorney, prepare the 

Appellant’s brief and forward the same to this Court on or before April 16, 2020.

IT IS SO ORDERED this 18th day of March, 2020.

PER CURIAM

Before Alley, C.J., Rodriguez and Palafox, JJ.
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4748 Introduced in House (IH)]

103d CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4748

   To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow the Internal 
Revenue Service to prescribe and update a standard mileage rate for the 
               charitable use of a passenger automobile.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             July 13, 1994

  Mr. Moran introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow the Internal 
Revenue Service to prescribe and update a standard mileage rate for the 
               charitable use of a passenger automobile.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. REPEAL OF STATUTORY LIMITATION ON STANDARD MILEAGE RATE FOR 
              CHARITABLE USE OF PASSENGER AUTOMOBILE.

    (a) In General.--Section 170 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 
is amended by striking subsection (i) (relating to standard mileage 
rate for use of passenger automobile).
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) shall 
apply to taxable years beginning after the date of the enactment of 
this Act.
                                 <all>
```
§ 73.157 Antenna testing during daytime. ( a ) The licensee of a station using a directional antenna during daytime or nighttime hours may, without further authority, operate during daytime hours with the licensed nighttime directional facilities or with a nondirectional antenna when conducting monitoring point field strength measurements or antenna proof of performance measurements.
( b ) Operation pursuant to this section is subject to the following conditions: ( 1 ) No harmful interference will be caused to any other station.
( 2 ) The FCC may notify the licensee to modify or cease such operation to resolve interference complaints or when such action may appear to be in the public interest, convenience and necessity.
( 3 ) Such operation shall be undertaken only for the purpose of taking monitoring point field strength measurements or antenna proof of performance measurements, and shall be restricted to the minimum time required to accomplish the measurements.
( 4 ) Operating power in the nondirectional mode shall be adjusted to the same power as was utilized for the most recent nondirectional proof of performance covering the licensed facilities.
[50 FR 30947, July 31, 1985]
24 September 2015

275P15

#### State v. Reco Kamson

1. Defs *Pro Se*Petition for *Writ of Certiorari*to Review Order of Superior Court of Mecklenburg County

1. Dismissed

2. Defs *Pro Se*Motion to Proceed *In Forma Pauperis*

2. Allowed

3. Defs *Pro Se*Motion to Appoint Counsel

3. Dismissed as moot
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-7027

STEVEN W. BELL,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

JAMES B. FRENCH,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. W. Earl Britt, District

Judge. (CA-96-506-5-BR)

Submitted: January 9, 1997 Decided: January 23, 1997

Before HALL and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Steven W. Bell, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals the district court's order denying relief on

his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (1994), amended by Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-

132, 110 Stat. 1214. We have reviewed the record and the district

court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny

a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. Bell v. French, No. CA-96-506-5-BR

(E.D.N.C. June 24, 1996). We deny Appellant's motion for the

appointment of counsel and 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
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

March 19, 2018

No. 04-16-00283-CV

Lee Nick MCFADIN III,

Appellant

v.

BROADWAY COFFEEHOUSE, LLC and Marcus Rogers, as Trustee for the Saks Children 

Trusts a/k/a ATFL&L, A Texas Trust,

Appellees

From the 73rd Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2013-CI-17001

Honorable Antonia Arteaga, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

Sitting: Marialyn Barnard, Justice

Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice

Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

On July 6, 2016, we dismissed this appeal for want of jurisdiction. Thereafter, we denied 

appellant’s motion for en banc reconsideration. Appellant filed a petition for review with the 

Texas Supreme Court. After review, the supreme court reversed our judgment of dismissal and 

remanded the matter back to this court for further proceedings. The supreme court’s mandate 

issued March 15, 2018. 

Based on the supreme court’s judgment and mandate, we ORDER this appeal reinstated. 

At the time we dismissed the appeal for want of jurisdiction, both the clerk’s and reporter’s 

records had been filed. Accordingly, we ORDER appellant to file his appellant’s brief in this 

court on or before April 18, 2018. Appellee’s brief will be due thirty days after appellant’s brief 

is filed. 

We order the clerk of this court to serve a copy of this order on all counsel. 
It is so ORDERED on March 19, 2018.

PER CURIAM

ATTESTED TO: ___________________________________

 KEITH E. HOTTLE,

 Clerk of Court
No. 11-5399.

#### Ludwig *v.*United States.

C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.
Exhibit 23.1

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

We consent to the incorporation
by reference in Registration Statement Nos. 333-136511, 333-147288, 333-148197,
333-149503, 333-156915, 333-160529, 333-176180,
333-190319 and 333-220559 on Form S-8 of our report dated February 21, 2017, relating to the consolidated financial
statements and financial statement schedule of Electronics For Imaging, Inc. and subsidiaries (the Company), and the effectiveness of the Companys internal control over financial reporting dated February 21, 2017
(September 8, 2017 and November 27, 2017 as to the effects of the material weaknesses described in Managements Report on Internal Control Over Financial Reporting (Revised), (which report expresses an adverse opinion on the
effectiveness of the Companys internal control over financial reporting because of the material weaknesses), appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K/A - Amendment No. 2 of the Company for the
year ended December 31, 2016.



|                         
|-------------------------
|/s/ DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP
|                         
|San Jose, California     
|November 27, 2017
ORIGINAL 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 

PR 07-0011 

IN THE MA 11ER OF CALLING A RETIRED 

DISTRICT JUDGE TO ACTIVE SERVICE ORDER FILED

MAY 1 5 2024 

Bowen Greenwood 

Clerk of Supreme Court 

State of Montana 

Honorable Luke Berger, Judge of the District Court for the Fifth Judicial District of 

the State of Montana, has requested the assistance of retired District Judge Gregory R. 

Todd to assume jurisdiction of Madison County Cause No. DP-29-2019-28, In re the Estate 

of Barry Rice. 

Judge Todd has retired under the provisions of the Montana Judges' Retirement 

System and, being subject to call for duty pursuant to § 19-5-103(a) and (b), MCA, has 

advised that he is agreeable to assisting the Fifth Judicial District Court with the 

above-listed matter. 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 

1. Honorable Gregory R. Todd, retired District Judge, is hereby called to active 

service in the District Court of the Fifth Judicial District of the State of Montana, to assume 

judicial authority of Madison County Cause No. DP-29-2019-28, In re the Estate of Barry 

Rice, and is hereby authorized to proceed with any and all necessary hearings, opinions, 

and orders, including final resolution of said matter. 

2. For all active service, Judge Todd shall be paid the salary compensation to which 

he is entitled by § 19-5-103(2)(b), MCA, and actual expenses, if any, shall be reimbursed. 

3. A copy of this Order shall be filed with the Clerk of Court of the Fifth Judicial 

District, Madison County, with the request that this Order be sent to all counsel of record 

in the above-listed matter. 

05/15/2024

Case Number: PR 07-0011
4. A copy of this Order shall also be furnished to Honorable Luke Berger, Honorable 

Gregory R. Todd, and to Cathy Pennie, Office of the Supreme Court Administrator. 

The Chief Justice enters this Order pursuant to Article VII, Section 6(3) of the 1972 

Montana Constitution, and statutes enacted in conformity therewith and in implementation 

thereof. 

DATED this t day of May, 2024. 

Chief Justice 

2
Fourth Amendment
                                to the
              AMP Incorporated Deferred Compensation Plan


     Pursuant to an action taken by the Board of Directors of AMP Incorporated
on July 22, 1997, the AMP Incorporated Deferred Compensation Plan, as first
adopted effective January 1, 1995 and subsequently amended on three prior
occasions (the "Plan"), is further amended effective as of July 22, 1997 in the
following respect:

     1.   Section 2.6(a)(iii) of the Plan is amended to delete the term "50%" in
          subpart (A) thereof and to substitute the term "66 2/3%" in lieu
          thereof.

     Except as provided above, all terms, conditions and provisions of the Plan
shall remain in full force and effect and without any further change or
modification whatsoever.

Executed this 25th day of September, 1997.

                                        AMP Incorporated
                                        
   Attest:___________________      By:  _________________________
          Corporate Secretary              J. E. Marley
                                           Chairman
#### § 80.219 Special requirements for narrow-band direct-printing (NB-DP) equipment.

NB-DP and data transmission equipment installed in ship and coast stations before October 1, 1990, that operates on the frequencies in the 4,000-27,500 kHz bands must be capable of operation in accordance with the technical requirements of either ITU-R M.476-5 or ITU-R M.625-3 (both incorporated by reference, *see* § 80.7), and may be used indefinitely. Equipment installed on or after October 1, 1990, must be capable of operation in accordance with the technical requirements of ITU-R M.625-3, 1995 (incorporated by reference, see § 80.7). NB-DP and data transmission equipment are additionally permitted to utilize any modulation, so long as emissions are within the limits set forth in § 80.211(f) and the equipment is also capable of operation in accordance with ITU-R M.625-3 (incorporated by reference, see § 80.7).

[76 FR 67611, Nov. 2, 2011]
II

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 486

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

NOVEMBER 23, 1993

Received

AN ACT

To provide for the addition of the Truman Farm Home

to the Harry S Truman National Historic Site in the

State of Missouri.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. PROPERTY ACQUISITION.

4 The first section of the Act entitled ‘‘An Act to estab5 lish the Harry S Truman National Historic Site in the

6 State of Missouri, and for other purposes’’, approved May

7 23, 1983 (97 Stat. 193), is amended by adding at the end

8 the following:

9 ‘‘(c) The Secretary is further authorized to acquire

10 from Jackson County, Missouri, by donation, the real

11 property commonly referred to as the Truman Farm

12 Home located in Grandview, Jackson County, Missouri,
2

•HR 486 RDS

1 together with associated lands and related structures,

2 comprising approximately 5.2 acres.

3 ‘‘(d) The Secretary is authorized and directed to pro4 vide appropriate political subdivisions of the State of Mis5 souri with technical and planning assistance for the devel6 opment and implementation of plans, programs, regula7 tions, or other means for minimizing the adverse effects

8 on the Truman Farm Home of the development and use

9 of adjacent lands.’’.

Passed the House of Representatives November 23

(legislative day, November 22), 1993.

Attest: DONNALD K. ANDERSON,

Clerk.
No. 11-5497.

#### Swafford *v.*United States.

C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.
Mr. Au Mirzakhalili, DirectorDivision of Air and Waste Management

Delaware Department of Natural Resources

and Environmental Control

655 South Bay Road, Suite 5N

Dover, Delaware 19901

Dear Mr. Mirzakhalili:

By letter and enclosures dated July 19, 2010, the Delaware Department ofNatural

Resources and Environmental Control (DNREC) submitted to the U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency, Region ifi (EPA) a data completeness substitution package for its Brandywine ambientair ozone monitoring site (AIRS ID# 10-003-10 10) in accordance with the regulatoty

requirements of 40 CFR Part 50 Appendix I. 2.3(b) — National Primary and Secondary Ambient

Air Quality Standards. The regulatory requirements of 40 CFR Part 50 Appendix 1.2.3 (b)prescribe the following:

• .When computing whether the minimum data completeness requirements have been

met, meteorological or ambient data maybe sufficient to demonstrate that meteorologicalconditions on missing days were not conducive to concentrations above the level ofthe

standard. Missing days assumed, less than the level ofthe standard, are counted for the

purpose of meeting the minimum data completeness requirement, subject to the approvalofthe appropriate Regional Administrator.”

The DNREC data substitution package contained documentation and analysis showing

that meteorological conditions for the concurred missing days was not conducive to formingelevated concentrations of ground-level ozone which would have exceeded the 8-hour ozonestandard of 0.075 parts per million. DNREC further substantiated its analysis by providing

information that showed that reported ozone concentrations at nearby monitoring sites were well

below the 8-hour ozone standard for the concurred missing days. Therefore, based on our review

ofthe analysis and supporting documentation provided by DNREC, EPA hereby approvesDNREC’s rcquest to allow missing ambient air ozone concentrations for the days during calendar

year 2009, as provided below, to be counted when calculating yearly data completeness

requirements of 40 CFR Part 50 Appendix 1:

0 Printed on 100% recycled/recyclable paper will, 100%posr-consurnerfiber and process clilorinefree

Customer Service Holline: 1-800-438-2474
6/11109 1

9/10/09 1

10/2/09 — 10/8/09 710/10/09 — 1 0t20/09 11

10/22/09 1

TOTAL 55

If you have any questions regarding this approval action, please do not hesitate to contact

Ms. Diana Esher, Director, Air Protection Division, at (215) 814-2706 or Mr. Walter K. Wilkie,

Associate Director ofthe Office of Air Monitoring and Analysis, at (215) 814-2150.

cc: Mr. Ron Amirikian, DNREC

Ms. Betsy Frey, DNRECMr. Joseph Martini, DNRECMr. David Lutz, EPA-OAPQS

0 Printed on 100% recycled/recyclable paper with 100% post-consumerfiber and process chlorinefree.

Customer Service Hotline: 1-800-438-2474

Regional
## SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

## Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

**974 CA 16-01030**  PRESENT: SMITH, J.P., CARNI, LINDLEY, DEJOSEPH, AND SCUDDER, JJ.

FRANCES JACKSON AND JOHN JACKSON, PLAINTIFFS-RESPONDENTS-APPELLANTS,

V ORDER

ESTATE OF KENNETH P. SADLER, JR., DECEASED, DEFENDANT, AND COUNTY OF ALLEGANY, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT-RESPONDENT.

---------------------------------- COUNTY OF ALLEGANY, THIRD-PARTY PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT,

V

TOWN OF SCIO, THIRD-PARTY DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

WEBSTER SZANYI LLP, BUFFALO (MICHAEL P. MCCLAREN OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT-RESPONDENT AND THIRD-PARTY PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT.
WELCH, DONLON & CZARPLES, PLLC, CORNING (JACOB P. WELCH OF COUNSEL), FOR PLAINTIFFS-RESPONDENTS-APPELLANTS.
LIPPMAN O’CONNOR, BUFFALO (MATTHEW J. DUGGAN OF COUNSEL), FOR THIRD-PARTY DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

Appeals and cross appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Allegany County (Thomas P. Brown, A.J.), entered November 6, 2015. The order granted in part and denied in part the motion of defendant County of Allegany for summary judgment and denied the motion of third-party defendant Town of Scio for summary judgment.
Now, upon the stipulation of discontinuance signed by the attorneys for the parties on July 25, 2016, by Thomas P. Brown, A.J., on August 3, 2016, and filed in the Allegany County Clerk’s Office on August 5, 2016,
It is hereby ORDERED that said appeals and cross appeal are unanimously dismissed without costs upon stipulation.

Entered: November 10, 2016 Frances E. Cafarell Clerk of the Court
§ 25.124 Unified space station and earth station authorization. ( a ) A single authorization may be issued for the operations of a GSO space station or NGSO space station(s) and the blanket-licensed earth stations that will operate within that satellite system, excluding GSO FSS and NGSO FSS satellite systems operating in bands below 10 GHz and bands subject to § 25.136. The available frequency bands are: ( 1 ) Non-Voice, Non-Geostationary MSS: 137-138 MHz, 148-150.05 MHz, 399.9-400.05 MHz, and 400.15-401 MHz;
( 2 ) 1.5/1.6 GHz MSS: 1525-1559 MHz and 1626.5-1660.5 MHz;
( 3 ) 1.6/2.4 GHz MSS: 1610-1626.5 MHz and 2483.5-2500 MHz;
( 4 ) 2 GHz MSS: 2000-2020 MHz and 2180-2200 MHz;
( 5 ) GSO FSS: 10.7-12.2 GHz, 14-14.5 GHz, 18.3-18.8 GHz, 19.7-20.2 GHz, 28.35-28.6 GHz, 29.25-30 GHz, 40-42 GHz, and 48.2-50.2 GHz;
( 6 ) NGSO FSS: 10.7-12.7 GHz, 14-14.5 GHz, 17.8-18.6 GHz, 18.8-19.4 GHz, 19.6-20.2 GHz, 28.35-29.1 GHz, 29.5-30 GHz, 40-42 GHz, and 48.2-50.2 GHz; and
( 7 ) GSO and NGSO MSS: 19.7-20.2 GHz and 29.5-30 GHz.
( b ) An application for a satellite system license described in paragraph (a) must contain: ( 1 ) The information required by § 25.114 or, for a non-U.S.-licensed space station, § 25.137;
( 2 ) A certification that earth station operations under the satellite system license will comply with part 1, subpart I and part 17 of this chapter; and
( 3 ) Any additional information required under this part, including under § 25.115, for operation of the blanket-licensed earth stations that is not duplicative or unnecessary due to the information provided for the space station operation.
[86 FR 11887, Mar. 1, 2021]