alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
ex10-15.htm


    
      

    

    EXHIBIT
10.15

    

    
      


       

      IT
Service Agreement

      By
and Between

      ADM
Tronics Unlimited, Inc. and its Subsidiaries (ADMT) and Ivivi Technologies, Inc.
(IVVI)

      Dated:

      February
1, 2008

      


      


      This
agreement between the above referenced parties is to document the information
technology (IT) services that IVVI will provide to
ADMT.  Therefore:

      


      
        	 
      	
                1.

              	
                IVVI
      in conjunction with its outside IT professionals will service ADMT’s IT
      needs on an as needed basis.

              
	 
      	
                2.

              	
                IVVI
      will invoice ADMT monthly for any time it spends in providing such
      services to ADMT.

              
	 
      	
                3.

              	
                Rate
      that IVVI will charge ADMT will be determined at date of
      Invoice.

              
	 
      	
                4.

              	
                Such
      invoices that IVVI issues ADMT with respect to such services will be due
      within 30 days.

              


      

      


      Definitions:

      


      
        	 
      	
                a.

              	
                IT
      Services: Include, but are not limited to: Computer hardware and software
      related issues, network administration, e-mail hosting and administration,
      telephone and cabling installations and
  maintenance.

              


      

      


      


      Both ADMT
and IVVI confirm that this Agreement does not infer any other relationship
between ADMT IVVI and does not obligate either party to be responsible for any
debts or other liabilities of the other.  Both ADMT and IVVI are
separate entities and each is responsible for any liabilities
created.

      


      This
Agreement shall be construed and enforced in accordance with the laws of the
State of New Jersey and shall not be modified or terminated except by a written
instrument executed by the parties hereto.

      


      This
Agreement supersedes any previous IT Service agreements between the parties
hereto, whether written, oral or by practice.

      


      This
agreement shall be reciprocal between both companies.

      


      In
confirmation of the foregoing, the parties hereto have executed this agreement
as of the day and year first above written.

      


      


      
        	
                /s/ Andre’
      DiMino

              	 	
                /s/ Ed
      Hammel

              	 
      
	
                Andre’
      DiMino, CEO

              	 	
                Ed
      Hammel, EVP

              	 
      
	
                ADM
      Tronics Unlimited, Inc.

              	 	
                Ivivi
      Technologies, Inc.
#### Wilson *vs.*The State of Georgia.

1. There was no error in overruling the motion for new trial in this case. The evidence demanded the verdict.

2. There was no error in admitting the testimony of Eubanks after the State and the defendant had closed their testimony. Eubanks’s testimony was in rebuttal of the defendant’s statement.

3. The newly-discovered evidence would not probably change the verdict on a new trial.

Judgment affirmed. (Head-notes by the court.)

October 28, 1887.

Simmons, Justice.

[Indictment for assault with intent to murder. The evidence showed the following facts: As Allen, the prosecutor, was going home, he encountered some boys, who threw snowballs at him' as he approached. He went among them, and saw the defendant (who had probably been pelted by snowballs before his arrival) approaching. *358lie pui’sued his way homeward, and was overtaken by her near her house. She asked him who the boys in the crowd were; he replied that he did not know. Coming from his home shortly afterwards, he met the defendant near her house. She stopped him, asked if he had had her “ arrested yet,” accused him of having a pistol (both of which he denied), and then called another woman from the house, and cut Allen in the shoulder with a razor, cursing him, and saying she would cut his throat. He threw a rock at her, and the other woman ran up and struck him with a pair of tongs. The difficulty was then stopped by a man, who testified as a witness for the State.

Two witnesses were introduced by the defendant, but their testimony amounted to nothing; neither saw the difficulty. In her statement, the defendant claimed that Allen hit her with snowballs, cursed her and cut her hand Avith a knife, at the same time hitting her sister with a rock. In explanation of hoAv Allen was cut, she stated that the man who came to stop the difficulty “ tried to cut around the boy’s shoulder and cut his overcoat.” She denied ever having used a razor. In rebuttal of her statement the State was allowed, over objection, to introduce testimony of one Eubanks, tending to contradict it and to support the evidence for the State already in.

After verdict of guilty, the defendant moved for a new trial on the grounds that the verdict was contrary to law and evidence; because of the admission of the testimony of Eubanks after the evidence for both sides had closed; and because of the newly-discovered evidence of two witnesses, to the effe ctthat Allen first accosted defendant and assaulted her with the rock before she said or did anything to him; that other boys in the crowd then threw rocks at her and her sister, the largest one cutting her hand with a large pocket-knife over the shoulder ” of Allen; and that this was the only cutting that was done, defendant having no razor or knife, and only trying to defend herself from the assaults of the boys. The new trial was refused, and she excepted.]
Exhibit 31.2

                                 CERTIFICATIONS

I, Stanley Tepper, certify that:

         1. I have reviewed this quarterly  report on Form 10-KSB of Family Room
entertainment Corporation (the "Company");

         2. Based on my  knowledge,  this  report  does not  contain  any untrue
statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact  necessary to make
the statements made, in light of circumstances  under which such statements were
made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report; and

         3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the
financial condition,  results of operations and cash flows of the Company as of,
and for, the periods presented in this report.

         4. The Company's  other  certifying  officers and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining  disclosure  controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the Company and have:

                 a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures,  or caused
such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to
ensure  that  material  information  relating  to  the  Company,  including  its
consolidated subsidiaries,  is made known to us by others within those entities,
particularly during the period in which this quarterly report is being prepared;

                  b) evaluated the  effectiveness  of the  Company's  disclosure
controls and procedures and presented in this report our  conclusions  about the
effectiveness  of the disclosure  controls and procedures,  as of the end of the
period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

                  c)  disclosed  in this  report  any  change  in the  Company's
internal  control over financial  reporting  that occurred  during the Company's
most recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely
to materially affect, the Company's internal control over financial reporting;

         5. The Company's other certifying officers and I have disclosed,  based
on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial  reporting,  to
the Company's  auditors and the audit  committee of Company's board of directors
(or persons performing the equivalent functions);

                  a) all significant  deficiencies in the design or operation of
internal  controls which could adversely affect the Company's ability to record,
process,  summarize  and  report  financial  data  and have  identified  for the
Company's auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; and

                  b)  any  fraud,   whether  or  not  material,   that  involves
management  or other  employees  who have a  significant  role in the  Company's
internal controls over financial reporting.


Date: October 15, 2003


/s/ Stanley Tepper




Stanley Tepper
Chief Financial Officer
### Regulatory Evaluation

Docket No. FAA

- 

### 2016

- 0465 Directorate Identifier: 

### 2015

- NM

- 096

- AD

If you make changes to the values in the table below, you must ensure the totals update accordingly. If they do not, click (or Tab) into a nd then out of the changed cell

.

**Estimated Costs:**
Action (e.g., Inspection, replacement) Do not include on

condition costs here Costs per **Product** (e.g., aircraft, engine,

propeller, appliance) Work

- hours (include access, testing, and close

- up) Labor

c ost (@$8 5 /h our) Parts Cost Total Costs (labor + parts) Number of

**U.S. Registered**  **Products** Total Cost

for U.S. Fleet



### Inspection 2

. 0 $ 170.00 $ 170.00 

### 95 $ 16,150.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0. 00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00


### The known number of products in compliance: 

### 0 Total Costs of compliance for U.S. fleet: $ 16,150 

### Costs covered under warranty ( if known ) $ 

### 0

**On**

**- Conditio**  **n Costs:**
Action (e.g., Inspection, replacement) Work

- hours

(include access, testing, and close

up) Labor cost

(@$85/hour) Parts Cost Cost per Product

$ 0.00 $0 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00


### Special considerations for Economic Analysis ( Use this field to explain anything in the Estimated Costs table that was assumed or might not be obvious. This field can also be used to ex plain warranty costs) 

### :

### Executive Order 12866:

Could the AD be considered a “significant regulatory action”?
YES * NO

* Explanation: **DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures:**
Is the AD significant?
YES * NO

* Explanation: **Regulatory Flexibility Act:**
Will the AD h ave a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities? E xplain for
either a Yes or No answer.
YES NO Explanation:
**Intrastate Aviation in Alaska:**
This AD could affect intrastate aviation in Alaska. Is it appropriate to include specific requir ements for aircraft operated in Alaska where aviation might be the only mode of transportation?
YES * NO



### * Explanation 

### :
IN THE UNITED STATES OF DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA 

 

 : MDL DOCKET NO. 1203 

IN RE DIET DRUGS : 

(PHENTERMINE/FENFLURAMINE/ : 

DEXFENFLURAMINE) PRODUCTS : 

LIABILITY LITIGATION : MDL NO. 02-20135 

 : 

 : 

PEGGY MARTINEZ, ET AL. : 

(ALFONSO INTERVENTION) : 

 : 

v. : 

 : 

AMERICAN HOME PRODUCTS : 

CORPORATION, ET AL. : 

 : 

PRETRIAL ORDER NO. 

 AND NOW TO WIT: This ____ day of _______________, 2005, it having been 

reported that the issues between the parties have been settled with respect to plaintiff Bianca 

Doubleday in the above-captioned action, and upon Order of the Court pursuant to Rule 41.1(b) 

of the Local Rules of Civil Procedure of this Court, it is hereby 

 ORDERED that, pursuant to agreement of counsel, all claims of plaintiff Bianca 

Doubleday in the above-captioned action are DISMISSED with prejudice and without costs as to 

all named Defendants. 

MICHAEL E. KUNZ, Clerk of Court 

BY: ____________________________ 

Katherine Gallagher 

Deputy Clerk 

Case 2:02-cv-20135-HB Document 20 Filed 04/13/2005 Page 1 of 1
<PAGE>

                                                                     EXHIBIT 23



                         INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT


The Board of Directors
Fleet Financial Group, Inc.

We consent to incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements 
(Nos. 333-00701, 333-15435 and 33-36707) on Form S-3, the Registration 
Statements (Nos. 33-19425, 33-22045, 33-48818, 33-56061, 33-57501, 33-57677, 
33-62367, 33-58933, 33-64635, 33-59139 and 333-16037) on Form S-8, and the 
Registration Statements (Nos. 33-58573 and 33-58933) on Form S-4 of Fleet 
Financial Group, Inc. of our report dated January 15, 1997, relating to the 
consolidated balance sheets of Fleet Financial Group, Inc. as of December 31, 
1996 and 1995, and the related consolidated statements of income, changes in 
stockholders' equity, and cash flows, for each of the years in the three-year 
period ended December 31, 1996, which report has been incorporated by 
reference in the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Fleet Financial Group, Inc for 
the year ended December 31, 1996.

                                               /s/ KPMG Peat Marwick LLP

Boston, Massachusetts
March 25, 1997
No. 62503.

#### A. Zerkowitz & Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

protest 327608-K (New York).

Opinion by

Wilson, J.

The protest was dismissed for lack of prosecution.
May 15, 1962

No. 66767.

#### Pharmacia Laboratories, Inc. *v.*United States,

protest 60/28308 (B).

Protest dismissed March 26, 1962. (Not published.) Plaintiff’s application for rehearing granted.
----

Appeal brought on 29 May 2006 by Develey Holding GmbH & Co. Beteiligungs KG against the judgment delivered by the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber) on 15 March 2006 in Case T-129/04 Develey Holding GmbH & Co. Beteiligungs KG v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)

(Case C-238/06 P)

(2006/C 212/15)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Appellant: Develey Holding GmbH & Co. Beteiligungs KG (represented by: H. Kunz-Hallstein)

Other party to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

Form of order sought

Pleas in law and main arguments

The appellant substantiates its appeal against the abovementioned judgment of the Court of First Instance as follows:

----

(1)  OJ C 108, p. 20

----
**Exhibit 23.1** **CONSENT    OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**     The Board of Directors of Husky Energy Inc.     We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration    Statement    (No. 333-137211)    on    Form F-9    of Husky Energy Inc. and inclusion in this annual report on    Form 40-F    of:     •     our audit report dated February 4, 2008, on the    consolidated balance sheets of Husky Energy Inc. as at    December 31, 2007 and 2006 and the consolidated statements    of earnings and comprehensive income, changes in    shareholders’ equity, and cash flows for each of the years    in the three-year period ended December 31, 2007,     •     our Comments by Auditors for United States readers on    Canada-United States Reporting Differences, dated    February 4, 2008,     •     our Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm    dated February 4, 2008 on the effectiveness of internal    control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2007,     •     our Report on the Reconciliation to Accounting Principles    Generally Accepted in the United States dated February 4,    2008,     each of which is contained in this annual report on    Form 40-F    of the Company for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2007.     /s/ KPMG llp        KPMG llp        Chartered Accountants    Calgary, Canada    March 10, 2008
# sf133_schp--OUTPUT

&"Arial,Bold"&10Bulletin No. 2023-11	&"Arial,Bold"&9V SF 133/Sch P - &P	&"Arial,Bold"&10IRC Handout August 23, 2023
Exhibit 32




CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. 1350




(As adopted pursuant to 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002)




For the Annual Report of Life Partners Holdings, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the period ending February 28, 2011 (the “Report”), the undersigned Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company hereby certify that:




(i)
The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and




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




Dated: November 22, 2011





/s/ Brian D. PardoChief Executive Officer/s/ David M. MartinChief Accounting Officer




A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Life Partners Holdings, Inc. and will be retained by it and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.




This Section 906 certification accompanies the Report, but is not “filed” as part of the Report.
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



The undersigned, Kenneth A. Shewer, Co-Chief Executive Officer of the Managing Owner, Preferred Investment Solutions Corp. (the Managing Owner), of World
Monitor Trust  Series B (Series B), hereby certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



| | (1) | Series Bs Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 25, 2005, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Quarterly
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 Quarterly Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Series B.
| | --- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                          
|--------------------------
|/s/ Kenneth A. Shewer     
|Kenneth A. Shewer         
|Co-Chief Executive Officer
|May 9, 2005
# Fourth C ourt of Appeals San Antonio, Texas

September 20, 2019

No. 04

- 19

- 00637

- CR

Ramiro Rangel CAMPOS, Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas, Appellee

From the 187th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2016CR5716 Honorable Steve Hilbig, Ju dge Presiding



### O R D E R

The trial court imposed sentence in the underlying cause on March 27, 2017 . Because appellant did not file a motion for new trial within thirty days after sentence was imposed

, the notice of appeal was due to be filed on April 26, 2017

. T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 26.2(a)(1). A motion for extension of time to file the notice of appeal could have been filed within fifteen days after the deadli ne, i.e., by May 26, 2017. T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 26.3. Appellant did not file a timely motion for extension of time. O n September 13, 2019, a ppellant filed a “Motion for Out of Time Appeal” in the trial court

, which we construe as a notice of appeal. See Har kcom v. State , 484 S.W.3d 432, 434 (Tex. Crim. App. 2016). A late notice of appeal invokes the appellate court’s jurisdiction in a criminal case only if (1) it is filed within fifteen days of the last day allowed for filing the notice of appeal, (2) a mot ion for extension of time is filed in the court of appeals within the fifteen

- day grace period, and (3) the court of appeals grants the motion for extension of time. Olivo v. State , 918 S.W.2d 519, 522 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996).

Therefore, it is ORDERED t hat appellant show cause in writing why this appeal should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction within fourteen (14) days from the date of this order.

_________________________________ Liz a A. Rodriguez , JusticeIN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said

court on this 20th day of September, 2019

.

___________________________________ KEITH E. HOTTLE

, Clerk of Court
Part 1

SUPPLEMENT 

DRAFT 

Number Name Description

Fatal/Proposed

Analytical Type

Applicable SMAF Attribute

 / Domain Value Left Side Labe

138

Disaster Emergency Fund Code "Y" Balance Check

The sum of the pre-closing ending balances of USSGL accounts with Disaster Emergency Fund Code "Y" must equal zero for each reported TAS. USSGL / Zero All USSGL Accounts 

139

Disaster Emergency Fund Code "Z" Balance Check

The sum of the pre-closing ending balances of USSGL accounts with Disaster Emergency Fund Code "Z" must equal zero for each reported TAS. USSGL / Zero All USSGL Accounts 

U.S. Standard General Ledger

Data Edits - Summary Report

Bulletin No. 2021-17 DRAFT VII ESR - 1
```

[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 76 (Friday, April 19, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Page 23625]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-09281]

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

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

[Public Notice 8282]

Waiver of Restriction on Assistance to the Central Government of 
Lebanon

    Pursuant to Section 7031(b)(3) of the Department of State, Foreign 
Operations, and Related Programs Appropriations Act, 2012 (Div I, Pub. 
L. 112-74) (``the Act''), and Department of State Delegation of 
Authority Number 245-1, I hereby determine that it is important to the 
national interest of the United States to waive the requirements of 
Section 7031(b)(1) of the Act with respect to Lebanon and I hereby 
waive this restriction.
    This determination and the accompanying Memorandum of Justification 
shall be reported to the Congress, and the determination shall be 
published in the Federal Register.

    Dated: March 22, 2012.
 Thomas R. Nides,
 Deputy Secretary, for Management and Resources.
[FR Doc. 2013-09281 Filed 4-18-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4710-31-P
```
No. 49991.

#### Protests 970047-G, etc., of S. L. Abbott, Jr., Co. et al. (Los Angeles, etc.).

Opinion by

Oliver, P. J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
Case 2:05-cv-03395-GEKP Document 17 Filed 01/30/07 Page 1 of 2
Case 2:05-cv-03395-GEKP Document 17 Filed 01/30/07 Page 2 of 2