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

                                                                   Exhibit 10.11

                               WEINER & BIBLO, LLP
                                ATTORNEYS AT LAW
                         555 BROADHOLLOW RD., SUITE 274
                              MELVILLE, N.Y. 11747
                            Telephone (516) 752-4040
                            Facsimile (516) 752-4049

                                                                December 9, 1999

J.A. Bernstein & Co., Inc.                            Axonyx, Inc.
825 Third Avenue                                      825 Third Avenue
New York, New York 10022                              New York, NY 10022
Attn: Jay Bernstein                                   Attn: Michael Strage

Re:  825 Third Avenue, New York, New York

Dear Jay & Michael;

          The following is agreed to by the undersigned  parties:

          1.   The parties hereto agree that they are not partners, but rather
               have merely agreed to share space in the building located at 825
               Third Avenue, New York, New York.

          2.   J.A. Bernstein & Co., Inc. shall pay $5,000.00 per month for rent
               and Axonyx, Inc. shall pay $9,000.00 each month.

          3.   Each party agrees to indemnify and hold harmless the other party
               for their share of the rent and for any damages, costs, and
               expenses arising from their use and occupancy of the premises.

          4.   Each party agrees to perform all provisions of the Occupancy
               Agreement.

          5.   Each party shall have the exclusive right to use the rooms as
               designated on the attached drawing.

          6.   J.A. Bernstein shall be solely responsible for the 1%
               administrative cost in paragraph 3 of the Occupancy Agreement.

         Please confirm your agreement with the above by signing where
         indicated.

                                            Very truly yours,

                                            /s/ Laryy Biblo
                                            ------------------------
                                            Larry Biblo

         J.A. Bernstein & Co., Inc.         Axonyx, Inc.

         By:      /s/ Jay Bernstein         By:      /s/ Michael M. Strage
            --------------------------         -----------------------------
                  Jay Bernstein                      Michael M. Strage
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26 ORDER DENYING MOTION

FOR RECONSIDERATION - 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

CRISTINA JACKSON, 

Plaintiff,

v.

BARBARA MASON, et al.,

Defendants

Case No. C06-789L

ORDER DENYING MOTION 

FOR RECONSIDERATION

This matter comes before the Court on defendant Barbara Mason’s “Objection to

Plaintiffs’ Motion for Order of Default Judgment as to Defendant Barbara Mason Only”

(the “Objection”) (Dkt. #16). The Court denied plaintiff’s motion for default judgment

as premature because plaintiff had not yet sought or obtained an order of default. On

January 17, 2007, plaintiff filed a motion for default against Mason. The Clerk of the

Court granted the motion on January 24, 2007. On January 30, 2007, Mason mailed the

Objection.

If Mason sought to prevent the entry of default, she sent the Objection too late. 

Because Mason is proceeding pro se, the Court construes the Objection as a motion for

reconsideration. However, Mason has not shown that the order of default was issued in

Case 2:06-cv-00789-RSL Document 17 Filed 02/06/07 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26 ORDER DENYING MOTION

FOR RECONSIDERATION - 2

error. Instead, default was warranted because Mason was served with a copy of the

summons and complaint, but did not enter a notice of appearance or file an answer. 

Mason has not explained why she has failed to defend. The Objection does not show

good cause to set aside the default. Accordingly, construing the Objection as a motion

for reconsideration, it is denied.

Mason may move to set aside the default for good cause shown pursuant to

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55(c) or, if plaintiff files a motion for entry of default

judgment pursuant to Local Rule 55(b), she can file a response to that motion.

DATED this 6th day of February, 2007.

A

Robert S. Lasnik

United States District Judge

 

Case 2:06-cv-00789-RSL Document 17 Filed 02/06/07 Page 2 of 2
***CERTIFICATION      PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED***

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

|   | (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. |
|--------|-----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|                                                                                                                                                                                                            |   |   |   |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|--------|--------|
| /s/                        Samuel Chapman                                                                                                                               |   |   |   |
|                                                                                                                                                                                                                 |   |   |        |
| Name:                 Samuel ChapmanTitle:    Executive Officer and Chairman                of the Board                    (Principal                ExecutiveOfficer) |   |   |   |

|                                                                                                                                   |   |   |   |
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|--------|--------|
| /s/        William                McDunn                                                       |   |   |   |
|                                                                                                                                        |   |   |        |
| Name:                 William McDunnTitle:    Chief Financial Officer                (Principal Financial Officer) |   |   |   |

----
From: jsyoung@everestkc.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 1:47:57 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing today to ask in the strongest way possible that you rescind the unjust and coercive

mandate that all "contraceptives" and sterilization procedures be covered by private health insurance

with no co-pay to patients. If you do not reverse course I ask you to expand conscience protections for

any organizations that provide individual and group insurance and have moral or religious objections. I

strongly oppose the government forcing free insurance coverage on Americans especially for drugs and

devices that I oppose because some of these can cause an abortion (such as ella and Plan B).

I also ask you to reconsider your definition of religious employer and offer an authentic conscience

protection for any organization and business that has moral or religious objection to providing such

insurance to their employees. This legal mandate clearly violates the spirit of conscience laws which

prohibit government discrimination against those who object to various health services on moral or

religious grounds. The definition of "religious employer" in the regulation is so narrow as to only include

churches, but will still mean that a host of businesses and organizations that have conscience objections

will be required to choose between either violating their conscience or not being able to offer employees

health insurance.

Please protect the conscience rights of insurers, providers and people like me who object to being

forced by the federal government to offer or subsidize contraceptives and sterilization services, especially

when some of these drugs can take the life of early unborn children. No Americans should be forced by

the federal government to essentially subsidize services they object to. I again urge you in the strongest

way possible to reverse course and remove contraceptives and sterilizations from the list of mandatory

preventive services.

Sincerely,

Shelley Young

Overland Park, KS 66210
[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 196 (Thursday, October 12, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Page 70640]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-22484]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

Foreign-Trade Zones Board

[B-53-2023]


Foreign-Trade Zone 124; Application for Expansion of Subzone 
124A; Valero Refining--New Orleans L.L.C.; Destrehan, Louisiana

    An application has been submitted to the Foreign-Trade Zones (FTZ) 
Board by the Port of South Louisiana, grantee of FTZ 124, requesting an 
expansion of Subzone 124A on behalf of Valero Refining--New Orleans 
L.L.C. The application was submitted pursuant to the provisions of the 
Foreign-Trade Zones Act, as amended (19 U.S.C. 81a-81u), and the 
regulations of the FTZ Board (15 CFR part 400). It was formally 
docketed on October 5, 2023.
    The applicant is requesting authority to expand Subzone 124A to 
include a new site located at 11842 River Road in St. Rose (Site 2, 
2.63 acres). No authorization for additional production activity has 
been requested at this time.
    In accordance with the FTZ Board's regulations, Camille Evans of 
the FTZ Staff is designated examiner to review the application and make 
recommendations to the FTZ Board.
    Public comment is invited from interested parties. Submissions 
shall be addressed to the FTZ Board's Executive Secretary and sent to: 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#eb8d9f91ab9f998a8f8ec58c849d"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="1e786a645e6a6c7f7a7b30797168">[email protected]</span></a>. The closing period for their receipt is November 21, 
2023. Rebuttal comments in response to material submitted during the 
foregoing period may be submitted during the subsequent 15-day period 
to December 6, 2023.
    A copy of the application will be available for public inspection 
in the ``Online FTZ Information Section'' section of the FTZ Board's 
website, which is accessible via www.trade.gov/ftz.
    For further information, contact Camille Evans at 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#9eddfff3f7f2f2fbb0dbe8fff0eddeeaecfffafbb0f9f1e8"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="b2f1d3dfdbdeded79cf7c4d3dcc1f2c6c0d3d6d79cd5ddc4">[email protected]</span></a>.

    Dated: October 5, 2023.
Elizabeth Whiteman,
Executive Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2023-22484 Filed 10-11-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

ORDER

Page - 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT TACOMA

CELERINO CARRASCO,

 Plaintiff,

v.

UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT,

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND

SECURITY, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. C06-5084RJB

ORDER

 The Court, having reviewed the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge J. Kelley

Arnold, objections to the report and recommendation, if any, and the remaining record, does hereby find

and ORDER:

(1) The Court adopts the Report and Recommendation;

(2) Plaintiff’s complaint and causes of action are DISMISSED for lack of prosecution; 

(3) The Clerk is directed to send copies of this Order to plaintiff and to the Hon. J. Kelley

Arnold.

ARobert J. Bryan

United States District Judge 

Case 3:06-cv-05084-RJB Document 29 Filed 12/26/06 Page 1 of 1
Exhibit
32.1











CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO


18
U.S.C. Section 1350,


AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002








In connection with the Amended Annual
Report of ESE Corporation.(the "Company") on Form 10-K for the year ended May 31, 2009 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date here of (the "report"),
I, Christopher M.
Armstrong, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to
18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 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 this Report fairly presents, in all material
      respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
      Company.








Dated this 31st day of August,
2009.





CHRISTOPHER M. ARMSTRONGChristopher
      M. ArmstrongChief
      Executive Officer and Chief Financial
Officer
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
AMERICAN  NORTEL  COMMUNICATIONS,  INC.  MARCH  31,  2000  THIRD  QUARTER  2000
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1

<S>                                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                           9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                       JUN-30-2000
<PERIOD-START>                          JUL-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                            MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                     2415384
<SECURITIES>                              10465178
<RECEIVABLES>                              3376810
<ALLOWANCES>                                     0
<INVENTORY>                                      0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                          16578991
<PP&E>                                       83759
<DEPRECIATION>                               43182
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                            18396125
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                      1834529
<BONDS>                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                            0
<PREFERRED>                                      0
<COMMON>                                  21938202
<OTHER-SE>                                       0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               7622460
<SALES>                                    5293884
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                           5293884
<CGS>                                      4303524
<TOTAL-COSTS>                              4303524
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            482714
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           33701
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            2136310
<INCOME-TAX>                                 85000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                         507645
<DISCONTINUED>                                   0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                  0
<CHANGES>                                        0
<NET-INCOME>                               2051310
<EPS-BASIC>                                  .13
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  .13


</TABLE>
Exhibit 32.1 CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF
EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C.
SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002  In connection with the Annual Report
of jetPADS, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31,
2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
(the Report), I, Robert Kanaat, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial
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 result of operations of the Company. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this
certification as of 6th day of August, 2010.  /s/ Robert Kanaat Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer
No. 58752.

protests 199378-K, etc. (San Francisco).

#### Pacific Dry Goods Company *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise is the same in all material respects as the articles the subject of Abstract 57716, the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
Ex Parte Ricardo

DeleonAppellant/s

Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

February 25, 2014

No. 04-14-00127-CV

EX PARTE Ricardo DELEON

Original Habeas Corpus Proceeding1

ORDER

Sitting: Catherine Stone, Chief Justice

Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice

Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

On February 21, 2014, relator filed an original pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus.

The court has considered relator’s petition and is of the opinion that relator is not entitled to the

relief sought. Accordingly, the petition for writ of habeas corpus is DENIED. See TEX. R. APP. P.

52.8(a). The court’s opinion will issue at a later date.

It is so ORDERED on February 25th, 2014.

_____________________________

Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said

court on this 25th day of February, 2014.

_____________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court

1 This proceeding arises out of Cause No. 2003EM504909, styled In the Interest of R.D. IV, et al., Children, pending

in the 73rd Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas, the Honorable Jim Rausch presiding.

FILE COPY
01 

02

03

04

05

06

07

08

09

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

DETENTION ORDER 15.13

18 U.S.C. § 3142(i) Rev. 1/91

PAGE 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v. 

GUTAMA JOTE DINKA,

a/k/a “G,” a/k/a “Bobby,”

Defendant.

____________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. CR06-026-RSL-JPD

DETENTION ORDER 

Offenses Charged: 

Count 1: Conspiracy to Distribute Cocaine Base in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1),

841(b)(1)(A), and 846.

Counts 7 through 11: Possession of Cocaine Base with Intent to Distribute in violation

of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 841(b)(1)(B), and 841(b)(1)(C).

Date of Detention Hearing: May 18, 2006.

At the initial arraignment, the Court, conducted a detention hearing pursuant to 18 U.S.C.

§ 3142(f), and based upon the factual findings and statement of reasons for detention hereafter

set forth, finds:

FINDINGS OF FACT AND STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR DETENTION

(1) Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3142(e), there is a rebuttable presumption that defendant

is a flight risk and a danger to the community based on the nature of the pending charges. 

Case 2:06-cr-00026-RSL Document 161 Filed 05/18/06 Page 1 of 2
01 

02

03

04

05

06

07

08

09

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

DETENTION ORDER 15.13

18 U.S.C. § 3142(i) Rev. 1/91

PAGE 2

(2) Defendant has stipulated to detention, but reserves the right to contest his

continued detention if there is a change in circumstances.

(3) There appear to be no conditions or combination of conditions other than

detention that will reasonably assure the defendant’s appearance at future Court hearings or the

safety of the community. 

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED:

(1) Defendant shall be detained pending trial and committed to the custody of the

Attorney General for confinement in a correction facility separate, to the extent

practicable, from persons awaiting or serving sentences or being held in custody

pending appeal;

(2) Defendant shall be afforded reasonable opportunity for private consultation with

counsel;

(3) On order of a court of the United States or on request of an attorney for the

government, the person in charge of the corrections facility in which defendant

is confined shall deliver the defendant to a United States Marshal for the purpose

of an appearance in connection with a court proceeding; and

(4) The Clerk shall direct copies of this Order to counsel for the United States, to

counsel for the defendant, to the United States Marshal, and to the United States

Pretrial Services Officer.

DATED this 18th day of May, 2006.AJAMES P. DONOHUE

United States Magistrate Judge 

Case 2:06-cr-00026-RSL Document 161 Filed 05/18/06 Page 2 of 2
Before the Third Division,

December 20, 1951

No. 56192.

protests 175140-K and 175172-K (New York).

#### Norman Thomas *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Ekwall, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of live birds similar in all material respects to those the subject of *Alfred Mazer*v. *United States*(25 cust. Ct. 67, C. D. 1265), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.