alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
March  31,  2004

Via  Telecopier
---------------
SpaceDev,  Inc.
13855  Stowe  Drive
Poway,  CA  92064
Attention:  Richard  Slansky

                    Re:     Waiver  Letter
                            --------------
Dear  Mr.  Slansky:

     Reference  is  hereby made to that certain Security Agreement dated June 3,
2003  by and between SpaceDev, Inc. (the "Company") and Laurus Master Fund, Ltd.
("Laurus")  (the  "Security Agreement").  Capitalized terms used but not defined
herein  shall have the meanings ascribed them in the Security Agreement and that
certain  waiver  letter  dated  June 3, 2003 between the Company and Laurus (the
"June  Waiver").  Laurus is hereby notifying you of its decision to exercise the
discretion granted to it pursuant to Section 2 (ii) of the Security Agreement to
make  a Revolving Credit Advance to the Company in the amount of $779,850 on the
date  hereof  (the  "Advance"),  which such amount would otherwise exceed eighty
five  percent  (85%)  of  the  Company's  Eligible  Accounts on the date hereof.

In  connection  with  making  the  advance  made  under the June Waiver and this
Advance,  for  a  period  of six (6) months from the date hereof (the "Period"),
Laurus  hereby  waives  compliance  with Sections 3 and 5(b)(iv) of the Security
Agreement  solely  as  they  relate  to  the immediate repayment requirement for
Overadvances  and the fees accruing thereto.  Laurus further agrees that, solely
for such Period, neither the advance made under the June Waiver nor this Advance
shall  be  deemed  an  Overadvance  and  shall  not  trigger an Event of Default
requiring a five (5) day cure under Section 19(a) of the Security Agreement.  As
of the date hereof, no Event of Default has occurred and is continuing under the
Security  Agreement  or  the  Note  and  all  other  terms and provisions of the
Security Agreement and the Ancillary Agreements remain in full force and effect.

                                   LAURUS  MASTER  FUND,  LTD.



                                   By: /s/ David Grin
                                   ------------------
                                   David  Grin


Agreed  and  accepted  on  the  date  hereof

SPACEDEV,  INC.


By:  /s/ Richard B. Slansky
     ----------------------
     Name:  Richard  B.  Slansky
     Title:  Chief  Financial  Officer
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

    CIVILIAN CASUALTY REPORT

    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 (0.78 MB)
 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
yearId sourceTypeIDsourceTypePopulation

2016 11 5650

2016 21 71117

2016 31 53650

2016 32 28205

2016 41 144

2016 42 75

2016 43 976

2016 51 83

2016 52 5652

2016 53 726

2016 54 1307

2016 61 1205

2016 62 1442
EBSA-2010-0050-DRAFT-1300.html[7/22/2015 10:02:47 PM]

PUBLIC SUBMISSION

As of: July 16, 2015

Received: July 08, 2015

Status: Pending_Post

Tracking No. 1jz-8jve-9ycs

Comments Due: July 21, 2015

Submission Type: Web

Docket: EBSA-2010-0050

Definition of the Term ‘‘Fiduciary’’; Conflict of Interest Rule—Retirement Investment Advice; Notice of

 proposed rulemaking and withdrawal of previous proposed rule.

Comment On: EBSA-2010-0050-0205

Definition of Fiduciary; Conflict of Interest Rule-Retirement Investment Advice and Related Proposed

 Prohibited Transaction Exemptions; Hearing and Comment Period Extension

Document: EBSA-2010-0050-DRAFT-1300

Comment on FR Doc # 2015-14921

Submitter Information

Name: Anonymous Anonymous

General Comment

I've worked my entire adult life for the prevledge to retire and live the way I choose in this FREE country.

 LEAVE MY RETIREMENT ACCOUNTS ALONE!!!
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 19

- 10282 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee

v.
JOHN PURIFOY , Defendant

- Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 4:18

- CR

- 277

- 1

Before WIENER, HAYNES, and COSTA, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *
Defendant

- Appellant John Purifoy pleaded guilty to possession with intent to distribute a controlled substance in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(C). At sentencing, t he district court declined a requested downward depart ure and sentenced Purifoy to the guidelines sentence of 240 months of imprisonment and three years of supervised release. Purifoy timely appealed.

* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5 , the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED December 18, 2019 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 19-10282 Document: 00515241875 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/18/2019No. 19

- 10282

2 We lack jurisdiction to review the denial of a downward departure unless
the denial was based on the district court’s mistaken belief that it lacked the authority to depart. United States v. Lucas , 516 F.3d 316, 350

- 51 (5th Cir. 2008); United States v. Alaniz , 726 F.3d 586, 627 (5th Cir. 2013). The record does not indicate that the district court mistakenly be lieved that it could not grant the motion for a downward departure for lack of

a uthority to depart from the Guidelines . N either does Purifoy allege that the district court was unaware of such authority. Rather, the record reflects that
the district court knew of its authority to grant the motion but concluded that the facts and circumstances of the case did not warrant a downward departure

. As such, this court lacks jurisdiction to review the district court’s denial of Purifoy’s request for a downward de parture. See Lucas , 516 F.3d at 350. The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. Case: 19-10282 Document: 00515241875 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/18/2019
```

[Congressional Bills 107th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1184 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

107th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1184

 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
 at 2853 Candler Road in Decatur, Georgia, as the ``Earl T. Shinhoster 
                             Post Office''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             July 17, 2001

Mr. Cleland (for himself and Mr. Miller) introduced the following bill; 
  which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Governmental 
                                Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
 at 2853 Candler Road in Decatur, Georgia, as the ``Earl T. Shinhoster 
                             Post Office''.

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

SECTION 1. DESIGNATION OF EARL T. SHINHOSTER POST OFFICE.

    (a) In General.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 2853 Candler Road in Decatur, Georgia, shall be known and 
designated as the ``Earl T. Shinhoster Post Office''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the Earl T. 
Shinhoster Post Office.
                                 <all>
```
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-7593
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus VANNIS L. LIVERMAN, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Rebecca Beach Smith, District Judge. (CR-95-151) Submitted: February 27, 2004 Decided: March 23, 2004 Before WILLIAMS, MOTZ, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Vannis L. Liverman, Appellant Pro Se. Fernando Groene, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Newport News, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 2 - PER CURIAM: Vannis L. Liverman appeals the district court’s orders denying relief on his “motion to correct illegal sentence.” Our review of the record and the district court’s opinion discloses no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See United States v. Liverman , No. CR-95-151 (E.D. Va. June 24, 2003; filed Aug. 6, 2003 & entered Aug. 7, 2003). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
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 (0.06 MB)
 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
------------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Page 1 of2 

LEGAL PROCESSING DIVfS10N 


PUBLICATION & REGULATIONS 


BRANCH 


PUBLIC 

SUBMISSION 

As of: August 25,2010 

Received: August 10, 2010 

Status: Posted 

Posted: August 25, 2010 

Tracking No. 80b2d212 

Comments Due: August 16, 2010 

Submission Type: Web 

Docket: IRS-2010-0010 

Group Health Plans and Health Insurance Coverage Rules Relating to Status as a Grandfathered 

Health Plan Under the Patient Protection and Afforable Care Act 

Comment On: IRS-2010-0010-0001 

Group Health Plans and Health Insurance Coverage: Interim Final Rules for Relating to Statu~i as 

a Grandfathered Health Plan under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act 

Document: IRS-2010-0010-0385 

Comment on FR Doc # 2010-14488 

Submitter Information 

Name: Patrick Anthony Lalama 

Address: 

134 Westchester Drive 

Suite 4 

Austintown, 44515 

General Comment 

August 10, 2010 

Office of Consumer Information and Insurance Oversight 

Department of Health and Human Services 

Attention: OCIIO-9991-IFC 

P.O. Box 8016 

Baltimore, MD 21244-1850 

Re: Interim Final Rule for Group Health Plans and Health Insurance Coverage Relating to Stcltus 

as a Grandfathered Health Plan Under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act 

As a consumer and chiropractic physician I wish to take this opportunity to formally comment on 

the interim final rule regarding health plans and "grandfather" status (Document ID IRS-2010­

0010-0001). 

I believe the consumer protections included as part of the new health care law are vitally 

important and should be extended to as many people as possible. Accordingly, every effort 

should be made to increase the number of individuals covered by the Patient Protection and 

Affordable Care Act (PPACA) via the above regulations. The triggers or conditions that would 

extend these protections to consumers under currently existing "grandfathered" plans should not 

be weakened or reduced in any way. I specifically support the position and detailed comments 

https:llfdms.erulemaking.netlfdms-web-agency/componentlsubmitterInfoCoverPage?Call=... 8/25/2010 
Page 2 of2 

offered by the American Chiropractic Association with respect to the implementation of these 


regulations. 


Respectfully submitted, 


Patrick A. Lalama, D.C. 


https:llfdms.erulemaking.netlfdms-web-agency/componentlsubmitterInfoCoverPage?Call=... 8/25/2010
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                              94
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                             728
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                     0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                      7,463
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                             287
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                               297
<LOANS>                                         23,640
<ALLOWANCE>                                        168
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  32,865
<DEPOSITS>                                      21,474
<SHORT-TERM>                                         0
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                                465
<LONG-TERM>                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            66
<OTHER-SE>                                      10,859
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                  32,865
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                  1,451
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                  318
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                     0
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                 1,769
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                                 755
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 755
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                            1,013
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                        5
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                    581
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    445
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                         445
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       289
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .34
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .34
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                     4.4
<LOANS-NON>                                          0
<LOANS-PAST>                                         0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                   164
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                        2
<RECOVERIES>                                         0
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                  168
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                               168
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0
        

</TABLE>
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MOIMED DA 20-0488 

### OCT 20 2020
IN RE THE ADOPTION OF: Bowen Greenvvooci Clerk of Supreme Court State of Montana B.H., ORDER A Minor Child.

The Appellate Defender Division (ADD),on behalfofAppellant Father K.P.H.,has petitioned for leave to file an out-of-time appeal on Father's behalf in the above-titled matter, pursuant to M.R. App. P. 4(6). ADD states that Father was involved in a private adoption action seeking termination ofhis parental rights. An evidentiary hearing was held on August 19, 2020. On August 25, 2020, a document entitled, "Petitioner's Proposed Findings ofFact, Conclusions ofLaw and Order"was filed. In its heading, this document contained the name and contact information for petitioner's attorney who prepared and submitted the document to the court for consideration. Oddly,thisproposed document was signed and dated by District Court Judge Marks. On September 16,2020 the District Court issued a Decree ofAdoption—containing Judge Marks' name and contact information in the heading. In the Decree ofAdoption, the prior "proposed findings" were referenced as an actual court order,not merely a proposed document,terminating Father's parental rights. Upon receipt of the Decree of Adoption, Father's trial counsel contacted ADD to attempt to preserve Father's right to appeal. ADD advises Petitioner's counsel was contacted but did not respond as to Petitioner's position on the out-of-time appeal request. 

# r grant out-of-time appeals under M.R.App.P.4(6)in the "infrequent harsh case and under extraordinary circumstances amounting to a gross miscarriage of justice." ADD argues that such would occur here if Father were denied his right to appeal when it was unclear the district court had issued a termination order entitled "Proposed Findings
. . ." We agree. 10/20/2020

Case Number: DA 20-0488Under the facts ofthis case, the untimeliness ofK.P.H.'s appeal is through no fault

ofhis own. Further,there was confusion on the part ofFather's trial counsel in that counsel thought the document entitled "Petitioner's Proposed Findings ofFact,Conclusions ofLaw and Order"was merely a document proposed by petitioner, not an actual order terminating Father's parental rights. Given the importance ofthe interests at stake for Father, IT IS ORDERED that the petition for leave to file an out-of-time appeal is GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that ADD shall promptly order the necessary transcripts for the appeal. The Clerk ofthis Court is directed to provide copies ofthis Order to all counsel of record.DATED this ?--tt) day ofOctober, 2020.

ChiefJustice
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

813 

CAF 13-01036 

PRESENT: SCUDDER, P.J., SMITH, PERADOTTO, SCONIERS, AND WHALEN, JJ. 

 

IN THE MATTER OF MELISSA A. FERRUSI, 

PETITIONER-RESPONDENT, 

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

SHARIFF K. JAMES, RESPONDENT-APPELLANT. 

(APPEAL NO. 1.) 

 

EMILY A. VELLA, SPRINGVILLE, FOR RESPONDENT-APPELLANT. 

SOUTHERN TIER LEGAL SERVICES, A DIVISION OF LEGAL ASSISTANCE OF

WESTERN NEW YORK, INC., OLEAN (JESSICA L. ANDERSON OF COUNSEL), FOR

PETITIONER-RESPONDENT.

WENDY A. TUTTLE, ATTORNEY FOR THE CHILD, ALLEGANY. 

 

Appeal from an order of the Family Court, Cattaraugus County

(Michael L. Nenno, J.), entered May 24, 2013 in a proceeding pursuant

to Family Court Act article 8. The order determined that respondent

violated the terms of an order of protection.

It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is

unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: Petitioner mother commenced this proceeding pursuant

to Family Court Act article 8 alleging that respondent father

willfully violated an order of protection directing him to stay away

from the mother and the parties’ child except during scheduled

visitation. In appeal No. 1, the father appeals from an order

finding, inter alia, that the mother met her burden of establishing

the allegations in the petition and, in appeal No. 2, the father

appeals from an order committing him to a jail term of six months, to

be served consecutively to a jail term imposed upon his violation of a

prior order of protection. Contrary to respondent’s contention in

appeal No. 1, the mother established by clear and convincing evidence

that the father willfully violated the terms of the order of

protection (see Matter of Ferrusi v James, 108 AD3d 1083, 1083; Matter

of Mary Ann YY. v Edward YY., 100 AD3d 1253, 1254). With respect to

the order in appeal No. 2, the father’s challenge to the commitment is

moot inasmuch as it has expired by its own terms (see Ferrusi, 108

AD3d at 1083), and we therefore dismiss the appeal from that order. 

Entered: July 3, 2014 Frances E. Cafarell

Clerk of the Court
From: Tristan Taormino-Tognazzini

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Thank you for supporting birth control access for all women

Date: Tuesday, August 02, 2011 9:49:43 PM

Dear Kathleen Sebelius, Secretary of Health & Human Services,

I commend the Department of Health & Human Services' landmark decision requiring health insurers to

cover the full cost of contraception, with no co-pay, beginning in August 2012.

This policy places a much-needed importance on women's health that is too-often not a priority in

health care policy. Birth control is a critical part of preventive care, and making contraception available

to all women, regardless of their insurance or ability to pay for it, will significantly reduce long-term

health care costs associated with unplanned pregnancies.

Thank you for prioritizing women's basic health care needs.

Sincerely,

Tristan Taormino-Tognazzini

35 Pine Hill Court

Greenville, NY 12083
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA MIDDLE DISTRICT COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, Respondent

v. AVON CONSTANT QUIERO, JR., Petitioner : : : : : : : : : : : No. 130 MAL 2015 Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER PER CURIAM AND NOW , this 7th day of July, 2015, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is DENIED
.