alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>   1


                                                                  EXHIBIT 10.25a

                        ADDENDUM TO THE SPORTSTICKER SUBSCRIPTION AGREEMENT

       THIS ADDENDUM TO THE SPORTSTICKER SUBSCRIPTION AGREEMENT, dated as of
January 1, 1998 (the "Agreement"), by and between Sportsticker Enterprises L.P.
("ST") and Intelligent Information, Inc. ("").

The Agreement shall be amended as follows:

1.     ST grants to III the non-exclusive right to redistribute ST information
       through wireless devices offered directly by III to individuals solely
       for their personal, private, non-commercial use.

2.     III shall pay to ST the greater of the monthly fee noted in the Agreement
       or [*] of gross revenues generated from the sale of ST information to the
       end user.

              For the purposes of this Agreement, the term Subscriber shall mean
              any end user who receives, through any III products, any portion
              of the ST information for any period during the month. The gross
              revenues shall be based on the number of subscriptions at the end
              of each month.

3.     The term of this Agreement shall be for an initial term of two (2) years
       commencing on the first day of service operation, and shall continue
       thereafter for twelve (12) months unless terminated by either party upon
       thirty (30) days prior written notice.

4.     Each month during the term of the Agreement, III shall pay ST those
       charges noted in the Agreement by the first of the month, and shall pay
       the royalty within thirty (30) days of the end of the month. Should III
       become delinquent with these payments, ST may discontinue service on ten
       (10) days written notice.

5.     III shall provide to ST complete and accurate monthly usage subscriber
       reports for each month, and upon reasonable advance notice, III will
       permit ST to audit III's records relating only to those subscribers
       accessing the ST information. ST agrees that all of III's records will be
       treated as confidential and will not be used for any purpose other than
       the audit as described herein.

6.     The terms and conditions of this Agreement and this Addendum shall be
       kept confidential by III and not disclosed to any third party.

7.     III shall provide to ST, [*], two (2) III pagers for the purpose of ST
       monitoring the use of the ST information on the DS service.

8.     III shall not use the ST names, trademarks, or other corporate
       identification for promotional or any advertising purposes without the
       express written consent of ST, except for copyright purposes.


       -----------------------------------    ----------------------------------
       For: Intelligent Information, Inc.     For: SportsTicker Enterprises L.P.

       Date: 2/11/97                          Date: 6/29/98
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. 

HECTOR LOZANO-REYES,

Defendant.

____________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. 06-219M

DETENTION ORDER 

Offense charged: 

Illegal Reentry After Deportation in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a).

Date of Detention Hearing: May 4, 2006.

The Court, having 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) Defendant is a native and citizen of Mexico who has been previously deported.

(2) A detainer has been placed on defendant by Immigration and Customs

Enforcement.

(3) Defendant has stipulated to detention, due to the immigration detainer lodged

against him, but reserves the right to contest his continued detention if there is a change in

circumstances.

(4) Defendant is associated with nine different aliases and two different dates of birth.

Case 2:06-cr-00152-JCC Document 6 Filed 05/05/06 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

(5) 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.

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 5th day of May, 2006.

AJAMES P. DONOHUE

United States Magistrate Judge 

Case 2:06-cr-00152-JCC Document 6 Filed 05/05/06 Page 2 of 2
Exhibit
34.2




Report
of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm




The Board
of Directors


Citibank,
N.A.:




We have
examined management’s assertion, included in the accompanying Appendix I, that
the Agency and Trust division of Citibank, N.A. (or “Company”) complied with the
servicing criteria set forth in Item 1122(d) of the Securities and Exchange
Commission’s Regulation AB for publicly-issued (i.e., transaction-level
reporting initially required under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended) automobile loan or lease-backed securities and student loan-backed
securities issued on or after January 1, 2006 for which the Company provides
trustee and paying agent services (the “Platform”), except for servicing
criteria 1122(d)(1)(i)-1122(d)(1)(iv), 1122(d)(2)(i), 1122(d)(2)(iii),
1122(d)(2)(vi)-1122(d)(2)(vii), 1122(d)(3)(i) and 1122(d)(4)(i)-1122(d)(4)(xv),
which the Company has determined are not applicable to the activities it
performs with respect to the Platform, as of and for the twelve months ended
December 31, 2008.  Management is responsible for the Company’s
compliance with those servicing criteria. Our responsibility is to express an
opinion on management’s assertion about the Company’s compliance based on our
examination.




Our
examination was conducted in accordance with the standards of the Public Company
Accounting Oversight Board (United States)and, accordingly,
included examining, on a test basis, evidence about the Company’s compliance
with the servicing criteria specified above and performing such other procedures
as we considered necessary in the circumstances.  Our examination
included testing selected asset-backed transactions and securities that comprise
the Platform, testing selected servicing activities related to the Platform, and
determining whether the Company processed those selected transactions and
performed those selected activities in compliance with the servicing
criteria.  Furthermore, our procedures were limited to the selected
transactions and servicing activities performed by the Company during the period
covered by this report.  Our procedures were not designed to determine
whether errors may have occurred either prior to or subsequent to our tests that
may have affected the balances or amounts calculated or reported by the Company
during the period covered by this report for the selected transactions or any
other transactions. We believe that our examination provides a reasonable basis
for our opinion.  Our examination does not provide a legal
determination on the Company’s compliance with the servicing
criteria.




In our
opinion, management’s assessment that the Company complied with the
aforementioned servicing criteria as of and for the twelve months ended December
31, 2008 is fairly stated, in all material respects.








(Signed)
KPMG LLP


Chicago,
Illinois


February
27, 2009
From: jjmoss12@gmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 10:15:51 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,

Jason Moss

Beaverton, OR 97008
No. 57037.

protests 188098-K, etc. (New York).

#### Pongees Corp. et al. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Ford, J.

It was stipulated that certain items of the involved merchandise consist of woven silk fabrics, valued at more than $5.50 per pound, the-same in all material respects as those passed upon in *Walter Strassburger & Co., Inc., et al.*v. *United States*(26 Cust. Ct. 210, C. D. 1326). Accepting the stipulation as a statement of fact and following the cited authority, it was held that the-merchandise imported or withdrawn from warehouse prior to January 1, 1948,. is dutiable at 45 percent under paragraph 1205, as modified by T. D. 48316, and that which was imported or withdrawn from warehouse subsequent to said date is dutiable at 25 percent under said paragraph, as modified by T. D. 51802.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

WESTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

JAMES W. CRISE,

Petitioner :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 352 WAL 2018

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from

the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 21st day of February, 2019

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal

is DENIED

.
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 Quarterly Report of Digitran Systems, Incorporated on
Form 10-QSB for the period ending July 31, 2002 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on September 5, 2002 I, Scott Lybbert, Secretary 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, to the best of my
knowledge and belief:


     (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.




                       September 5, 2002


                                         By:/s/ Scott Lybbert

                                         By: Scott Lybbert
                                         (Treasurer)
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of State

          - [Public Notice: 12210]

# SUMMARY:

                        Acting in compliance with section 743 of Division C of the                               ( print page 68905)                            Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2010, the Department of State is publishing this notice to advise the public of the availability of the FY 2021 Service Contract Inventory. The FY 2021 Service Contract Inventory includes the FY 2021 Planned Analysis, and the FY 2020 Meaningful Analysis. The inventory was developed in accordance with guidance issued by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Office of Federal Procurement Policy (OFPP). The Department of State has posted its FY 2021 Service Contract Inventory at the following link:                         *https://csm.state.gov/​index2.html.*

# DATES:

The inventory is available on the Department's website as of September 29, 2023.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

                        Marlon D. Henry, Management and Program Analyst, A/EX/CSM, 771-204-7977,                         *HenryMD@state.gov*

Marlon D. Henry,

Management and Program Analyst, Collaborative Strategy and Management Division, Department of State. 

[FR Doc. 2023-22072 Filed 10-3-23; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4710-24-P
(Reap. Dec. 10802)

#### John H. Faunce, Phila., Inc. *v.*United States

Entry No. C-9957.

(Decided August 20, 1964)

*Sharp & Bogan*for the plaintiff.

*John W. Douglas,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Rao, Judge:

The appeal for reappraisement listed above has been submitted for decision upon the following stipulation :

> IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by the undersigned, subject to the approval of the Court:

> 1. That the subject merchandise consists of hardboard exported from Sweden as to which the Secretary of the Treasury issued a finding of dumping, published in 89 T.D. 197, T.D. 53567, made pursuant to the Antidumping Act of 1921 (19 U.S.O., 160 et seq.).

> 2. That pursuant to Section 168 of said Antidumping Act, the appraiser reported the purchase price (Sec. 162) and the foreign market value (Sec. 164) as to the merchandise listed on Schedule A attached hereto and made a part hereof.

> 3. That pursuant to Sections 500 and 402 of the Tariff Act of 1930 as amended, the appraiser appraised all of the merchandise in the appeals for appraisement enumerated on Schedule A for regular duty purposes.

> 4. That the plaintiff duly filed appeals for reappraisement as to the values referred to in the above paragraphs Nos. 2 and 3.

> *3875. That at the times relevant herein the purchase price and the foreign market value under the said Antidumping Act are as specified in the aforesaid Schedule A attached hereto.

> 6. That as to all other items of merchandise not identified on Schedule A, the appraiser’s reports of purchase price and of foreign market value are correct.

> 7. That the appraiser’s findings of value under the provisions of Section 402 of the Tariff Act of 1930 as amended, are correct.

> 8. That said appeals are submitted for decision upon this stipulation and said Schedule A.

Upon the agreed facts, I find foreign market value, as defined in section 164 of the Antidumping Act of 1921, for the merchandise described in said schedule A, and the purchase price thereof, within section 162 of said act, to be as indicated in said schedule. As to all other items of merchandise not identified in schedule A, I find the foreign market values and purchase prices to be as reported by the appraiser. In all other respects, the values of all merchandise are as returned by the appraiser.

Judgment will be entered accordingly.
| Skip to Content*Release Date: March 12, 2015*Release dates |  Announcements |   Coded tables |  Historical data | Technical Q&AsCurrent release |  Screen reader |  PDF (450 KB) |  Data Download Program (DDP)**L.119.b Federal Government Employee Retirement Funds Defined Benefit Plans 1** |
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
From: "Latimer, Gary" <Gary.Latimer@carotek.com>

To: 'Dan-Tam Nguyen' <Dan-Tam.Nguyen@erg.com>

CC: "McIntosh, Damon" <damon.mcintosh@carotek.com>

Date: 7/8/2011 10:43 AM

Subject: Waste water Heat Exchangers

Attachments: Wasterwater100GPM.rtf; Wasterwater500GPM.rtf; Wastewater1500GPM.rtf

Dan-Tam,

Per ITT, They believe 20,000 mg/l(ppm) to be extremely high for SS, especially since the plates are usually .019" thick. Chlorides in high 

concentrations will attack SS or lead to stress cracking. We have made some selections for you. Please note that we have made some assumptions 

(10 psi pressure drop, cooling water at 75% of wastewater flow). So consider this budget especially since you have assumed the water temp. 

Below are Titanium plates/ titanium connections. Since there are unknowns, we have assumed water/water properties and have included 10%

excess surface area. Eventually, you may not consider excess surface area as plates may always be added at a later date.

100 GPM Model P14-25-TMTL-42- $ 5,000.00

500 GPM Model P21-85-TM- $ 11,000.00

1500 GPM- Model P65-93-TK- $ 26,000.00**

** In lieu of 75% cooling water rate- 1125 GPM cooling water), we tried 60% or 900 GPM cooling water- the appx net adder would be appx 

18%. Thus, the above budget may increase or decrease dependent upon cooling water rate and/or pressure drop allowed.

Titanium plates may take up to 20 weeks depending upon model.

Thanks,

Gary Latimer - Applications Specialist

[cid:image001.png@01CC3D5A.B1730D40]<http://www.carotek.com/>

700 Sam Newell Road, PO Box 1395, Matthews, NC 28106

Email: gary.latimer@carotek.com | http://www.carotek.com

Office: 704-844-1100 | Fax: 704-844-8432
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE  CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL  INFORMATION  EXTRACTED FROM QUARTERLY
FINANCIAL  STATEMENTS  AND IS  QUALIFIED  IN ITS  ENTIRETY BY  REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                                            <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                 9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          OCT-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUL-31-1999
<CASH>                                       2,520,435
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  479,978
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    100,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             3,132,441
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               3,172,418
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,253,647
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                  1,907,300
<COMMON>                                     2,709,524
<OTHER-SE>                                 (2,747,303)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 3,172,418
<SALES>                                        591,092
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               591,092
<CGS>                                          533,066
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  490,625
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 5,895
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,857
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (440,350)
<EPS-BASIC>                                    (.06)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
### MANDATE

THE STATE OF TEXAS

TO THE 57TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF B EXAR COUNTY, GREETIN GS:

Before our Court of Appeals for the Fourth District of Texas on July 19, 2017, the cause upon appeal to revise or reverse your judgment between

In the Interest of T.A.P., Jr. et al. Children, Appellant

V.

No. 04

- 17

- 00137

- CV and Tr. Ct. No. 2015PA02543

was determined, and therein our said Court of Appeals made its order in these words:



## In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, the trial court’s
Order of Termination is AFFIRMED.

No costs of appeal are assessed against appellant because she is indigent.

WHEREFORE, WE COMMAND YOU to observe the order of our said Court of Appeals for the Fourth District of Texas, in this behalf and in all things have the order duly recognized, obeyed, and executed.

WITNESS the Hon. Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice of the Court of Appeals for the Fourth District of Texas, with the seal o f the Court affixed and the City of San Antonio on September 27, 2017

.

KEITH E. HOTTLE, CLE RK

____________________________ Cynthia A. Martinez Deputy Cl erk, Ext. 53853BILL OF COSTS



### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, FOURTH DISTRICT, AT SAN ANTONIO

No. 04

- 17

- 00137

- CV

In the Interest of T.A.P., Jr. et al. Children

v.

(NO. 2015PA02543 IN 57TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT CO URT OF BEXAR COUNTY)

TYPE OF FEE CHARGES PAID BY

C LERK'S RECORD FILING $491.00 $205.00 INDIGENT INDIGENT

Balance of costs owing to the Fourth Court of Appeals, San Antonio, Texas: 0.00

**Court costs in this cause shall be paid as per the Judgment issued by this Court.**

I, KEITH E. HOTTLE, CLE RK OF THE FOURTH COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF TEXAS, do hereby certify that the above and foregoing is a true and correct copy of the cost bill of THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS, showing the charges and payments, in the above numbered and styled cause, as the same appears of record in this office.

IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, witness my hand and the Seal of the COURT OF APPEALS for the Fourth District of Texas, this September 27, 2017

.

KEITH E. HOTTLE, CLE RK

____________________________ Cynthia A. Martinez Deputy Clerk, Ext. 53853