alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>
                                                                   Exhibit 10.36


                                     BELIZE
                              CERTIFICATE OF LEASE
                          THE REGISTERED LAND ACT, 1980
                          CHAPTER 194, REVISED EDITION
                                 LAWS OF BELIZE

                                LEASE / SUB-LEASE

REGISTERED SECTION                          BLOCK                      PARCEL
San Pedro                                     7                        1870/1
---------                                  -------                     ------

Area: 1.186 Acres

LESSOR            Government of Belize

RENT              $1.00 p.a.

TERM              33 years          27/4/93

THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT    BELIZE WATER LTD.

of                     #37 Regent Street, Belize City, Belize District

Is now registered as the proprietor of the leasehold interest above referred to,
subject to the agreements and other matters contained in the registered lease,
to the entries in the register relating to the lease and to such of the
overriding interests set forth in section 31 of the Registered Land Ord. 1977 as
may for the time being subsist and affect the land comprised in the lease.

At the date thereof the following entries appear in the register relating to the
lease:

PART A- Property Section (EASEMENTS, ETC.)


PART B- Proprietorship Section (INHIBITIONS, CAUTIONS AND RESTRICTIONS)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Not to transfer the land, lease or charge without written consent of Lessor.
Hereinafter subject to the lease conditions attached.


PART C- Incumbrances Section (LEASES, CHARGES,ETC.)


         GIVEN UNDER MY HAND AND THE SEAL OF THE LAND REGISTRY
                           THIS 2nd DAY OF January, 2004

                                           /s/ E. WELCH
                                           -------------------------------------
                                           REGISTRAR OF LANDS
#### Robert D. Douglass et al., as Executors of Robert G. Dun, Deceased, Respondents, *v.*Mary R. Chisholm et al., Individually and as Executors of Ellen M. Chisholm, Deceased, et al., Appellants.

*Dun*v. *Chisholm,*148 App. Div. 907, affirmed.

(Argued March 26, 1912;

decided April 9, 1912.)

Appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division- of the Supreme Court in the first judicial department, entered February 20, 1911, affirming a judgment in favor of plaintiffs entered upon a decision of the court on trial at Special Term in an action to foreclose a mortgage.

*Joseph H. Choate, Jr.,*and *Herbert B. Smith*for appellants.

*Charles W. Pierson*for respondents.

Judgment affirmed, with costs; no.opinion.

Concur: Cullen, Ch. J., Gray, Haight, Vann, Werner, Hiscock and Collin, JJ.
#### LOUIS VALENTINE, PLAINTIFF, DEFENDANT IN CERTIORARI, v. FRANKLIN SURETY COMPANY, INCORPORATED, AND IN THE ALTERNATIVE LLOYDS CASUALTY COMPANY, INCORPORATED, DEFENDANTS, PROSECUTORS IN CERTIORARI.

Submitted May 12, 1933

Decided August 29, 1933.

Before Justices Case, Bodine and Donges.

For the prosecutors, *Schneider & ■Schneider (Samuel*Press).

For the defendant, *Ovidio O. Bianchi.*

Per Curiam.

The writ brings up for review the refusal of the District Court of the city of Orange to set aside the service of process upon the Commissioner of Banking and Insurance as attorney for two foreign insurance companies doing business in this state. Process and the statutory fee were received by the commissioner. But the record does not disclose that process was served as required by the statute. 2 *Comp. Stat., p.*2855, § 70 (3) and *p.*2857, § 64. In fact, the process was not served. The process which the commissioner, as attorney, may accept is the process which “may be served” and “is served.”

The jurisdiction of the District Court was co-extensive with the confines of the county of Essex, and its process did not run into the county of Mercer. 2 *Comp. Stat., p.*1962, § 29.

The order under review will be set aside.
§ 350.227 What activities are eligible for reimbursement under MCSAP? ( a ) *General.* The primary activities eligible for reimbursement under MCSAP are: ( 1 ) Activities that support the national program elements listed in § 350.203; and
( 2 ) Sanitary food transportation inspections performed under 49 U.S.C. 5701.
( b ) *Additional activities.* If part of the approved CVSP and accompanied by an appropriate North American Standard Inspection and inspection report, additional activities eligible for reimbursement are: ( 1 ) Enforcement of CMV size and weight limitations at locations, other than fixed-weight facilities, where the weight of a CMV can significantly affect the safe operation of the vehicle, such as near steep grades or mountainous terrains, or at ports where intermodal shipping containers enter and leave the United States; and
( 2 ) Detection of, and enforcement activities taken as a result of, criminal activity involving a CMV or any occupant of the vehicle, including the trafficking of human beings.
( c ) *Traffic enforcement activities.* ( 1 ) Documented activities to enforce State traffic laws and regulations designed to promote the safe operation of CMVs are eligible for reimbursement under MCSAP.
( 2 ) Documented activities to enforce State traffic laws and regulations relating to non-CMVs are eligible for reimbursement under MCSAP if: ( i ) The documented activities are necessary to promote the safe operation of CMVs;
( ii ) The number of motor carrier safety activities, including safety inspections, is maintained at a level at least equal to the average level of such activities conducted in the State in fiscal years 2014 and 2015; and
( iii ) The State does not use more than 10 percent of its MCSAP funds for enforcement activities relating to non-CMVs, unless the Administrator determines that a higher percentage will result in significant increases in CMV safety.
[85 FR 37796, June 24, 2020, as amended at 87 FR 59035, Sept. 29, 2022]
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997             DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1997             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997             JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                           2,682                   2,682
<SECURITIES>                                     9,583                   9,583
<RECEIVABLES>                                  208,926                 208,926
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0                       0
<INVENTORY>                                          0                       0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               221,191                 221,191
<PP&E>                                          11,810                  11,810
<DEPRECIATION>                                   (270)                   (270)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 232,731                 232,731
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          210,633                 210,633
<BONDS>                                              0                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0                       0
<PREFERRED>                                          0                       0
<COMMON>                                             0                       0
<OTHER-SE>                                      22,098                  22,098
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   232,731                 232,731
<SALES>                                         21,513                  22,782
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                21,513                  22,782
<CGS>                                                0                       0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0                       0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 4,759                   8,819
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0                       0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 16,754                  13,963
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0                       0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             16,754                  13,963
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0                       0
<CHANGES>                                            0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                    16,754                  13,963
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0                       0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0                       0
        

</TABLE>
#### Andre Gusstaf, Respondent, v The American Steamship Company, Appellant.

Judgment and order denying new trial affirmed,' with costs. Opinion by

Dykman. J.
#### Jerome B. Wiggins, Respondent, v. Adney P. Donner, Appellant.

order affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements.
#### William H. Butler, as Administrator of the Estate of Benjamin Butler, Deceased, Appellant, *v.*Buffalo, Rochester and Pittsburg Railway Company, Respondent, Impleaded with Others.

*Butler*v. *Buffalo, R. & P. Ry. Co,,*143 App. Div. 383, affirmed.

(Argued April 8, 1912;

decided April 30, 1912.)

Appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the fourth judicial department, entered February 2, 1911, affirming a judgment in favor *571of defendants entered upon a verdict in an action to recover for the death of plaintiff’s intestate alleged to have been occasioned through the negligence of defendants.

*E.*_D. *Northrup*and *Charles Van Voorhis*for appellant.

*Samuel M. Havens*and *James S. Havens*for respondent.

Judgment affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

Concur: Culler, Oh. J., G-ray, Werrer, Willard Bartlett, Hiscock, Chase and Collin, JJ.
<PAGE>


                                                                     EXHIBIT 23





                              ACCOUNTANTS' CONSENT


The Board of Directors
Zygo Corporation:


We consent to incorporation by reference in Registration Statements No.
333-44333, No. 33-62087, No. 33-57060, No. 33-20880, and No. 33-34619 on Forms
S-8 of Zygo Corporation of our reports dated August 16, 2002, with respect to
the consolidated balance sheets of Zygo Corporation and subsidiaries as of June
30, 2002 and 2001 and the related consolidated statements of operations,
stockholders' equity, and cash flows and related schedule for each of the years
in the three-year period ended June 30, 2002, which reports appear in or are
incorporated by reference into the June 30, 2002 Annual Report on Form 10-K/A
of Zygo Corporation.


KPMG LLP

Hartford, Connecticut
July 9, 2003
EXHIBIT 32.2



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. §1350, AS ADOPTED

PURSUANT TO §906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the annual report of Spire Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-KSB (the Report) for the year ended December
31, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Gregory G. Towle, Financial Controller and Treasurer (Principal Financial and Accounting Officer) of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as
adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



| | (1) | 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 results of operations of the Company.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                      |  |     |  |                                             
|--------------------- |  | --- |  | --------------------------------------------
|Dated: March 30, 2004 |  | By: |  | /s/ Gregory G. Towle                        
|                      |  |     |  | Gregory G. Towle                            
|                      |  |     |  | Financial Controller and Treasurer          
|                      |  |     |  | (Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)



A signed original of
this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signatures that appear in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been
provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

**Certification of Chief Executive Officer**

Certification Pursuant To 18 U.S.C. Section 1350

Created by Section 906

of The Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

 

The undersigned officer of FileNet Corporation (the “Company”), hereby certifies, to such officer’s knowledge, that:

 

 (i)          the accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the fiscal period ended June 30, 2006 (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

 

 (ii)         the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

 

Dated:  August 9, 2006
| */s/ Lee D. Roberts*** |
|------------------------|

Lee D. Roberts 

Chairman of the Board and

Chief Executive Officer
USS Halyburton assists Yemeni dhow
 By Ensign David Taylor , USS Halyburton Public Affairs
  USS HALYBURTON, At Sea (Feb. 3, 2011) — USS Halyburton (FFG 40) assisted a Yemeni fishing dhow in the Gulf of Aden that had been adrift at sea for 10 days, Jan. 28.  Halyburton was conducting routine counter-piracy operations when the dhow mariners were observed waving their arms in distress. Crew members deployed a rigid-hulled inflatable boat with a boarding team to assess the condition of the dhow and its 10 crew members. The team learned the vessel’s engine had failed and needed repairs. While Halyburton towed the dhow toward Yemeni national waters, a repair team fixed its engine. Halyburton also provided food and water to the fishermen, and medical personnel assessed them to be in good health.  The repair team was able to get the engine running and the ship’s master was confident the dhow could make it back to port in Yemen. Halyburton is deployed to the 5th Fleet area of responsibility, conducting counter-piracy operations to ensure safety and stability in the region.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

CHRISTOPHER JAMES HENSON,

Plaintiff

- Appellant,

v.

CORIZON HEALTH, INC.; et al.,

Defendants

- Appellees,

and

STEWART, Unknown; et al.,

Defendants. No. 20

- 15117

D.C. No. 2:19

- cv

- 04396

- MTL

DMF

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Arizona

Michael T. Liburdi, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted May 6, 2020 * *

Before: BERZON, N.R. SMITH, and MILLER, Circuit Judges.

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 

# FILED

MAY 14 2020

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2 20

- 15117

Arizona state prisoner Christopher James Henson appeals pro se from the

district court’s orders denying his motions for a preliminary injunction and his

motion for reconsideration of the denial of a preliminary injunction in his 42

U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging constitutional violations. We have jurisdiction under

28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1). We review for an abuse of discretion. Jackson v. City &

County of San Francis co , 746 F.3d 953, 958 (9th Cir. 2014) (denial of preliminary

injunction ); Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah Cty., Or. v. ACandS, Inc. , 5 F.3d 1255,

1262 (9th Cir. 1993) (denial of reconsideration ). We affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Henson’s motions

for a preliminary injunction because Henson failed to demonstrate that such relief

is warranted. See Jackson , 746 F.3d at 958 (plaintiff seeking preliminary

injunction must establish that he is likely to succeed on the merits, likely to suffer

irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, the balance of equities tips in

his favor, and an injunction is in the public interest).

The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Henson’s motion

for reconsid eration because Henson failed to demonstrate any basis for such

relief. See Sch. Dist. No. 1J , 5 F.3d at 1263 (grounds for relief under Fed. R. Civ.

P. 59(e)).

We do not consider arguments and allegations raised for the first time on

appeal. See Padgett v. Wright , 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009)

.3 20

- 15117

AFFIRMED.
Consent of Ernst & Young LLP



 Exhibit 10.2 
 Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm 
 We consent to the incorporation by
reference in the Registration Statements (Form F-3 Nos. 333-131387, 333-130534 and 333-111132, and Form S-8 No. 333-131274) of Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Limited and in the related Prospectuses of our report dated March 9, 2006, with respect to
the consolidated financial statements of IVAX Corporation included in this Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Limited Annual Report (Form 20-F) for the year ended December 31, 2005. 
  

	
	/s/ Ernst & Young LLP
	Certified Public Accountants


 Miami, Florida 
 March 13, 2006
#### Buffalo Lubricating Oil Company, Respondent, v. The Standard Oil Company of New York and others, Appellants.

Ordered, that the order appealed from be amended by inserting therein after the word “ten” the following: “ Also from and including the word “ that ” in the fourth line of folio 17, to and including the .word “corporations” in fifth line, folio 19; also from and including the words “the-amount ” in ninth line, folio 20, to and including the word “ market ” in sixth line, folio 21; also from and including the words “ and was ” in line three, folio 26, to and including the word “ organized ” in line sixth, same folio,, and as so modified affirmed, without costs.
Here's how you know
 **Official websites use .mil** .mil
 **Secure .mil websites use HTTPS** lock () https://


Skip to main content (Press Enter).
 Toggle navigation
            
            U.S. Central Command
                CENTCOM
        Search
                    Search CENTCOM:
                        Search
                Search CENTCOM:
                    Search
    Home

    ABOUT US
    
        COMMAND PRIORITIES

    LEADERSHIP

    COMPONENT COMMANDS

    HISTORY

    POSTURE STATEMENT

    CENTCOM AOR
    
        CENTCOM COALITION

    OPERATIONS AND EXERCISES
    
        USMTM

    CONTACT
    
        OPERATIONAL CONTRACT SUPPORT

    COMMUNITY RELATIONS

    THEATRE MEDICAL CLEARANCE

    INNOVATION VENDOR PORTAL

    MILITARY MEMBER INNOVATION PORTAL

    MEDIA
    
        SOCIAL MEDIA

    NEWS ARTICLES

    PRESS RELEASES

    STATEMENTS

    IMAGERY

    VIDEOS

    TRANSCRIPTS

    VISITORS AND PERSONNEL
    
        FAMILY CENTER

    FAMILY READINESS

    CENTCOM WEBMAIL

    SOCIAL MEDIA SECURITY

    ACCOUNTABILITY

    EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS

    USCENTCOM UNCLASSIFIED REGULATIONS

    FOIA LIBRARY

    INNOVATION OASIS

    WELCOME GUIDE  Search
 Search
 All Images All ImagesCommunity RelationsOtherPreviousCommanders
 Upload Date Upload DatePhoto DateTitle
  Share
  
 Small () Medium () Full Size (0.56 MB)
 
 cjtf-oir isis Operation Inherent Resolve
 Photo Gallery
 About UsCommand PrioritiesLeadershipComponent
   CommandsHistoryPosture Statement
   Area of
   ResponsibilityCENTCOM Coalition
   Operations And
   ExercisesOperation Inherent
   ResolveResolute Support
   MediaSocial MediaNews ArticlesPress ReleasesVideo And Imagery
   Visitors And
   PersonnelFamily ReadinessCENTCOM WebmailSocial MediaSecurityAccountabilityEmergency
   Preparedness
   ContactCommunity Relations
                    Stay Connected
                
                Privacy & Security  Inspector General  FOIA  Privacy Act
            

Hosted by Defense Media Activity - WEB.mil
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

October 31, 2016

No. 04-16-00363-CR

Elincharles WILSON,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 175th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2013CR7155C

Honorable Mary D. Roman, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

Appellant’s court-appointed attorney has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 

368 U.S. 738 (1967), asserting there are no meritorious issues to raise on appeal, and has 

informed the appellant of the right to file his own pro se brief. Nichols v. State, 954 S.W.2d 83, 

85 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1997, no pet.); Bruns v. State, 924 S.W.2d 176, 177 n.1 (Tex. App.

—San Antonio 1996, no pet.). The State has filed a letter waiving its right to file an appellee’s 

brief unless appellant files a pro se brief. Appellant has timely filed a written request for a copy 

of the appellate record to use in preparing a pro se brief. See Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313 

(Tex. Crim. App. 2014).

 

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that appellant shall be promptly provided with a copy of 

the appellate record. Appellant’s pro se brief is due within thirty (30) days from the date of this 

order. See Bruns, 924 S.W.2d at 177 n.1. If the appellant files a pro se brief, the State may file a 

responsive brief no later than thirty (30) days after the date the appellant’s pro se brief is filed in 

this court.

_________________________________

Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 31st day of October, 2016.

___________________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.1

         CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT
   OF 2002 (SUBSECTIONS (a) AND (b) OF SECTION 1350, CHAPTER 63 OF TITLE 18,
                              UNITED STATES CODE)

Pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and
(b) of section 1350, chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code), each of the
undersigned officers of Zygo Corporation, a Delaware corporation (the
"Company"), does hereby certify with respect to Amendment No. 2 to the Annual
Report of the Company on Form 10-K405/A for the period ended June 30, 2001 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "10-K405/A Report") that:

(1)      the 10-K405/A Report fully complies with the requirements of section
         13(a) and 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(2)      the information contained in the 10-K405/A Report fairly presents, in
         all material respects, the financial condition and results of
         operations of the Company as of and for the periods presented therein.

Dated:  July 14, 2003

/s/ J. Bruce Robinson
---------------------
J. Bruce Robinson
Chairman, President, and
Chief Executive Officer of
Zygo Corporation

Dated: July 14, 2003

/s/ Richard M. Dressler
-----------------------
Richard M. Dressler
Vice President, Finance,
Chief Financial Officer of
Zygo Corporation
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

ROBERT L. ROHRBACH,

Petitioner :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 336 MAL 2023

Petition for Allowance of Appeal

from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 29th day of November, 2023

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal

is DENIED

.