alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 10.5

 

TREBIA ACQUISITION CORP.
  41 Madison Avenue, Suite 2020
 New York, NY 10010
 [·], 2020

 

BGPT Trebia LP
  41 Madison Avenue, Suite 2020

New York, NY 10010

 

Ladies and Gentlemen:

 

This letter will confirm our agreement that, commencing on the effective date (the “Effective Date”) of the registration statement (the “Registration Statement”) for the initial public offering (the “IPO”) of the securities of Trebia Acquisition Corp. (the “Company”) and continuing until the earlier of (i) the completion by the Company of an initial business combination or (ii) the Company’s liquidation (in each case as described in the Registration Statement) (such earlier date hereinafter referred to as the “Termination Date”), BGPT Trebia LP shall take steps directly or indirectly to make available to the Company certain office space, secretarial and administrative services as may be required by the Company from time to time, situated at 41 Madison Avenue, Suite 2020, New York, NY 10010 (or any successor location).  In exchange therefore, the Company shall pay BGPT Trebia LP a sum of $10,000 per month, respectively, on the Effective Date and continuing monthly thereafter until the Termination Date.  BGPT Trebia LP hereby agrees that it does not have any right, title, interest or claim of any kind in or to any monies that may be set aside in a trust account (the “Trust Account”) that may be established upon the consummation of the IPO (the “Claim”) and hereby waives any Claim it may have in the future as a result of, or arising out of, any negotiations, contracts or agreements with the Company and will not seek recourse against the Trust Account for any reason whatsoever.

 

	
 
    	
Very   truly yours,
    
	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
TREBIA ACQUISITION   CORP.
    
	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
By:
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
Name: 
    	
Tanmay   Kumar
    
	
 
    	
Title: 
    	
Chief   Financial Officer
    


 

	
AGREED TO   AND ACCEPTED BY:
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
BGPT TREBIA LP
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
By:
    	
Bridgeport   Partners GP LLC, its general partner
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
By:
    	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
Name:
    	
Frank   Martire, III
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
Title:
    	
Sole Member
#### § 263.21 May a State use the TANF grant to fund IDAs?

If the State elects to operate an IDA program, then the States may use Federal TANF funds or WtW funds to fund IDAs for individuals who are eligible for TANF assistance and exercise flexibility within the limits of Federal regulations and the statute.
#### § 400.212 Restrictions in the use of funds.

Federal funding under this part is not available for travel outside the United States without the written approval of the Director.

[60 FR 33604, June 28, 1995]
#### § 1641.12 Procedures for suspension.

Before suspending an IPA, the OIG shall provide the IPA with a show cause hearing in accordance with the procedures set out in §§ 1641.13 through 1641.15. Such hearing shall be held entirely by written submissions, except that a meeting may be held under § 1641.15(c).
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 17-6064

WILLIAM COLEMAN,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

JAMES MCRAE,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at 

Charlotte. Frank D. Whitney, Chief District Judge. (3:16-cv-00131-FDW)

Submitted: April 25, 2017 Decided: April 28, 2017

Before MOTZ, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinoin.

William Coleman, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

William Coleman seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing as untimely 

his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice 

or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2012). A 

certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a 

constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012). When the district court denies relief 

on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists 

would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or 

wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 

322, 336-38 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the 

prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that 

the petition states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 529 U.S. 

at 484-85. 

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Coleman has not 

made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and 

dismiss the appeal. 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. 

DISMISSED
#### § 400.300 Waivers.

If a State wishes to apply for a waiver of a requirement of this part, the Director may waive such requirement with respect to such State, unless required by statute, if the Director determines that such waiver will advance the purposes of this part and is appropriate and consistent with Federal refugee policy objectives. To the fullest extent practicable, the Director will approve or disapprove an application for a waiver within 130 days of receipt of such application. The Director shall provide timely written notice of the reasons for denial to States whose applications are disapproved.

[60 FR 33604, June 28, 1995]
IIA 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. J. RES. 122 

Providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United 

States Code, of the rule submitted by the Environmental Protection 

Agency relating to ‘‘Waste Emissions Charge for Petroleum and Natural 

Gas Systems: Procedures for Facilitating Compliance, Including Netting 

and Exemptions’’. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

DECEMBER 17 (legislative day, DECEMBER 16), 2024 

Mr. HOEVEN (for himself, Mrs. CAPITO, Mr. LEE, Mr. LANKFORD, Mrs. 

BRITT, Mr. DAINES, Mr. MARSHALL, Mr. CRAMER, Ms. LUMMIS, Mr. 

RISCH, and Mr. SCOTT of Florida) introduced the following joint resolution; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works 

JOINT RESOLUTION 

Providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of 

title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted by 

the Environmental Protection Agency relating to ‘‘Waste 

Emissions Charge for Petroleum and Natural Gas Systems: Procedures for Facilitating Compliance, Including 

Netting and Exemptions’’. 

1 Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives

2 of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 That Congress disapproves the rule submitted by the En4 vironmental Protection Agency relating to ‘‘Waste EmisVerDate Sep 11 2014 02:53 Dec 19, 2024 Jkt 059200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\SJ122.IS SJ122

kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•SJ 122 IS 

1 sions Charge for Petroleum and Natural Gas Systems: 

2 Procedures for Facilitating Compliance, Including Netting 

3 and Exemptions’’ (89 Fed. Reg. 91094 (November 18, 

4 2024)), and such rule shall have no force or effect. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
BEFORE THE FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION 

IndieMatterof ) 

) All-22 

Proposed Final Audit Report on the State ) Agenda Documents No. 14-25 and No. 

Democratic Executive Committee of ) 14-25-A 

Alabama ) 

CERTIFICATION 

I, Shawn Woodhead Werth, recording secretary for the Federal Election Commission 

open meeting on April 23,2014, do hereby certify that the Commission decided by a vote of 6-0 

to approve Agenda Document No. 14-25-A, the Proposed Final Audit Report on the State 

Democratic Executive Committee of Alabama. 

Commissioners Goodman, Hunter, Petersen, Ravel, Walther, and Weintraub voted 

afSimatively for the decision. 

Attest: 

Dat naff* • ' Qtiaum WnnrlliAa/l WPTMI T e ' ' Shawn Woodhead Werth 

Secretary and Clerk of the Ccfcmnission
§ 2552.91 What is the process for application and award of a grant? Cross Reference
Link to an amendment published at 89 FR 70544 , Aug. 30, 2024.
( a ) *How and when may an eligible organization apply for a grant?* ( 1 ) An eligible organization may file an application in response to CNCS' published request, such as a Notice of Funding Opportunity or a Notice of Funding Availability. Applicants are not assured of selection or approval and may have to compete with other applicants.
( 2 ) The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Executive Order 12372, “Intergovernmental Review of Federal Programs,” (3 CFR, 1982 Comp., p. 197) in 45 CFR part 1233 and any other applicable requirements.
( b ) *Who reviews the merits of an application and how is a grant awarded?* ( 1 ) CNCS reviews and determines the merit of an application by its responsiveness to published guidelines and to the overall purposes and objectives of the program. When funds are available, CNCS awards a grant in writing to each applicant whose grant proposal provides the best potential for serving the purpose of the program.
( 2 ) The award will be documented by the Notice of Grant Award (NGA). CNCS and the sponsoring organization are the parties to the NGA. The NGA will document the sponsor's commitment to fulfill specific programmatic objectives and financial obligations. It will document the extent of CNCS' obligation to provide financial support to the sponsor.
( c ) *What happens if CNCS rejects an application?* CNCS will return an application that is not approved for funding to the applicant with an explanation of CNCS' decision.
( d ) *For what period of time does CNCS award a grant?* CNCS awards a Foster Grandparent grant for a specified period that is usually three years in duration.
[83 FR 64652, Dec. 17, 2018]
**Exhibit 31.1****CERTIFICATION**I, C.E. Andrews, certify that:     1. I have reviewed this report on Form 10-K, and all reports on Form 10-D required to be filedin respect of the period covered by this report on Form 10-K of SLMStudent Loan Trust 2006-8 (the“Exchange Act periodic reports”);     2. Based on my knowledge, the Exchange Act periodic reports, taken as a whole, do not containany untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make thestatements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, notmisleading with respect to the period covered by this report;     3. Based on my knowledge, the distribution, servicing and other information required to beprovided under Form 10-D for the period covered by this report is included in the Exchange Actperiodic reports;     4. Based on my knowledge and the servicer compliance statements required under this reportunder Item 1123 of Regulation AB, and except as disclosed in the Exchange Act periodic reports, theservicer and administrator have fulfilled their obligations under the servicing agreement andadministration agreement, as applicable, in all material respects; and     5. All of the reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backedsecurities and their related attestation reports on assessment of compliance with servicingcriteria for asset-backed securities required to be included in this report in accordance with Item1122 of Regulation AB and Exchange Act Rules 13a-18 and 15d-18 have been included as an exhibit tothis report, except as otherwise disclosed in this report. Any material instances of noncompliancedescribed in such reports have been disclosed in this report on Form 10-K. In giving thecertifications above, I have reasonably relied on information provided to me by Deutsche Bank TrustCompany Americas, as indenture trustee.Date: March 23, 2007   /s/ C.E. Andrews   C.E. Andrews  Chief Financial Officer  SLM Funding LLC
**HOME | 	  ABOUT US | 	  CONTACT | 	  REGIONAL MANAGERS**Nautical Charts & Pubs****Surveys & Wrecks****GIS & Other Products****Research & Development****Customer Service****Business Opportunities****Education****NGA Chart: 81023          Scale: 1,000,000          Edition: 5          Edition Date: 12-AUG-89          CORRECTED TO NTM:  1989/42**Notice Listing-  **Click the +/- buttons and drag the slider tool (solid triangle) 				to zoom in and out.** 
-  **Click the arrow buttons to pan left/right and up/down.** 
-  **Drag 				the navigation box in the upper left hand corner to move around 				the chart image.								This chart display or derived product can be used as a planning or analysis tool and may not be used as a navigational aid. 								NOTE: Use the official, full scale NGA nautical chart for real navigation whenever possible.  These are available from authorized 				NGA nautical chart sales agents.  Screen captures of the on-line viewable charts available here do NOT fulfill chart carriage 				requirements for regulated commercial vessels under Titles 33 and 46 of the Code of Federal Regulations.								Adobe Flash Player		  		is required to view the chart image.				Powered by Zoomify.** 
Privacy  |  Disclaimer  |  NOAA's National Ocean Service  |  NOAA  |  U.S. Department of Commerce **
**Exhibit      32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION      PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. § 1350,**

**AS      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

| 1. | The                report of the Company for the twelve month period ended June 30,                2008 as                filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on this date (the                “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)                of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;                and |
|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| 2. | The                information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material                respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the                Company. |
|----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Date: September                29, 2008 | By:                                    | /s/                Jeffrey Eisenberg  |
|----------------------------------------------|----------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------|
|                                         | Jeffrey                Eisenberg       |
|                                         | Chief                Executive Officer |

----
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

LARRY D. OLIPHANT,

Petitioner :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 414 EAL 2016

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from

the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 22nd day of February, 2017

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal

is DENIED

.
§ 264.61 What happens if a state fails to report or demonstrate it has implemented and maintained the policies and practices required in § 264.60? ( a ) Pursuant to Section 409(a)(16) of the Act and in accordance with 45 CFR part 262, a penalty of not more than five percent of the adjusted SFAG will be imposed for failure to report by February 22, 2014 and each succeeding fiscal year on the state's implementation of policies and practices required in § 264.60. The penalty will be imposed in the succeeding fiscal year, subject to § 262.4(g) of this chapter.
( b ) Pursuant to Section 409(a)(16) of the Act and in accordance with 45 CFR part 262, a penalty of not more than five percent of the adjusted SFAG will be imposed for FY 2014 and each succeeding fiscal year in which the state fails to demonstrate the state's implementation of policies and practices required in § 264.60. The penalty will be imposed in the succeeding fiscal year subject to § 262.4(g) of this chapter.
( c ) A penalty applied under paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section may be reduced based on the degree of noncompliance of the state.
( d ) Fraudulent activity by any individual in an attempt to circumvent the policies and practices required by § 264.60 shall not trigger a state penalty under paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section.
[81 FR 2105, Jan. 15, 2016]
TREATIES AND OTHER INTERNATIONAL ACTS SERIES 03-1224 

________________________________________________________________________ 

INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT 

Article 98 

 Agreement between the 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

and LAOS 

Signed at Vientiane December 24, 2003 

 

 
 NOTE BY THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE 

 Pursuant to Public Law 89—497, approved July 8, 1966 

(80 Stat. 271; 1 U.S.C. 113)—

“. . .the Treaties and Other International Acts Series issued 

under the authority of the Secretary of State shall be competent 

 evidence . . . of the treaties, international agreements other than 

treaties, and proclamations by the President of such treaties and 

international agreements other than treaties, as the case may be, 

therein contained, in all the courts of law and equity and of maritime 

jurisdiction, and in all the tribunals and public offices of the 

United States, and of the several States, without any further proof 

or authentication thereof.” 
LAOS 

International Criminal Court: Article 98 

Agreement signed at Vientiane December 24, 2003; 

 Entered into force December 24, 2003.
Strafford,

No. 5686.

#### Yee Chun Helen Kuo *v.*Shan Sun Kuo.

Argued November 8, 1967.

Decided January 30, 1968.

*461
      *Bums, Bryant, Hinchey & Nadeau*and *Ross V. Deachman (Mr. Deachman*orally ), for the plaintiff.

*Arthur J. Reinhart*(by brief and orally), for the defendant.

Duncan, J.

Examination of the transcript discloses its adequacy to support the finding of the existence of cause for the legal separation granted. Similarly the Court could properly find that the cause arose while the parties were domiciled in this state (RSA 458:6) and that it was in existence at the time of the filing of the petition. RSA 458:8.

Evidence of cruelty or other misconduct by the defendant before the parties came to New Hampshire was properly received to explain the plaintiff’s apprehension concerning the defendant’s conduct toward her while they were domiciled here. Contrary to the suggestion of the defendant’s brief, tire evidence of conduct injurious to health was not confined to “one selected instance.”

The testimony presented issues of fact which were peculiarly for the Trial Court *(Morgan*v. *Morgan,*101 N. H. 470, 471) whose determination is binding here, since there was evidence to support it. *Szulc v. Szulc,*96 N. H. 190; *Buck*v. *Buck,*97 N. H. 178; *Kotarba*v. *Kotarba,*97 N. H. 252.

Much of the extended hearing was devoted to examination of the assets of the parties, with respect to which the Court ordered a division of property. The defendant has questioned the order for allowance toward the fees of plaintiff’s counsel. Although the authority of the Court to make such an order does not appear to us to be questionable, it is to be exercised with reasonable restraint. RSA 458:27; RSA 458:19; *Guay*v. *Association,*87*462N. H. 216, 222; *Veino*v. *Veino,*96 N. H. 439, 441. See, *Salito*v. *Salito,*107 N. H. 77.

The record discloses no error, and the order is

*Exceptions overruled.*

All concurred.
Editorial Note on Subpart E of Part 170
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to subpart E of part 170 appear at 80 FR 62755, Oct. 16, 2015.

§ 170.557 Authorized testing and certification methods. ( a ) *ONC-ATL applicability.* An ONC-ATL must provide remote testing for both development and deployment sites.
( b ) *ONC-ACB applicability.* An ONC-ACB must provide remote certification for both development and deployment sites.
[81 FR 72466, Oct. 19, 2016]
DISMISS; and Opinion Filed March 14, 2014.

S

In The

Court of Appeals

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05-14-00004-CV

BOBBIE THOMAS, Appellant

V.

UNITED MORTGAGE TRUST, STERLING TRUST COMPANY, 

UMT LT TRUST, AND SOUTH CENTRAL MORTGAGE, INC., Appellees

On Appeal from the 191st Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. DC-13-02637

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Bridges, O’Neill, and Brown 

Opinion by Justice O’Neill

In a letter dated January 29, 2014, the Court questioned its jurisdiction over this appeal. 

Specifically, it appeared the notice of appeal was untimely. We requested that appellant file a 

letter brief addressing our jurisdictional concern and gave appellee an opportunity to respond. 

Appellant did not file a jurisdictional brief. Appellee filed a jurisdictional brief requesting that 

the appeal be dismissed.

If a party files a timely post-judgment motion extending the appellate timetable, the 

notice of appeal is due ninety days after the date the judgment is signed. See TEX. R. APP. P.

26.1(a). Without a timely filed notice of appeal, this Court lacks jurisdiction. See TEX. R. APP.

P. 25.1(b).
–2–

The trial court signed the judgment on September 10, 2013. Appellant filed a timely 

motion for new trial on October 10, 2013. Accordingly, the notice of appeal was due on 

December 9, 2013, ninety days after the date the judgment was signed. Appellant filed her 

notice of appeal on December 31, 2013, twenty-two days past the deadline. Because appellant 

did not file a timely notice of appeal, this Court lacks jurisdiction. Accordingly, we dismiss the 

appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(a).

140004F.P05

/Michael J. O'Neill/

MICHAEL J. O’NEILL

JUSTICE
–3–

Court of Appeals

S

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

JUDGMENT

BOBBIE THOMAS, Appellant

No. 05-14-00004-CV V.

UNITED MORTGAGE TRUST, 

STERLING TRUST COMPANY, UMT LT 

TRUST, AND SOUTH CENTRAL 

MORTGAGE, INC., Appellees

On Appeal from the 191st Judicial District 

Court, Dallas County, Texas.

Trial Court Cause No. DC-13-02637.

Opinion delivered by Justice O’Neill. 

Justices Bridges and Brown, participating.

In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, the appeal is DISMISSED.

It is ORDERED that appellees, UNITED MORTGAGE TRUST, STERLING TRUST 

COMPANY, UMT LT TRUST, AND SOUTH CENTRAL MORTGAGE, INC., recover their 

costs of this appeal from appellant, BOBBIE THOMAS.

Judgment entered this 14th day of March, 2014.

/Michael J. O'Neill/

MICHAEL J. O’NEILL

JUSTICE
BEFORE THE FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION 

In flie Matter of ) 

) A17-06 

Audit Division Recommendation ) Agenda Document No. 18-48-A 

Memorandum on Friends of Erik Paulsen ) 

(FEP)(A17-06) ) 

CERTIFICATIQN 

I, Dayna C. Brown, recording secretary for the Federal Election Commission open 

meeting on November IS, 2018, do hereby certify that the Commission failed by a vote of 2-2 to 

approve the recommendation in tlie Audit Division Recommendation Memorandum on Friends 

of Erik Paulsen (A17-06). 

Commissioners Walther and Weintraub voted affirmatively for the motion. 

Commissioners Hunter and Petersen dissented. 

Attest: 

/^/vn-fnhbi^ I'S.l.&lS' ^ 

Date Dayna C. Brown 

Secretary and Clerk of the Commission