alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
ex10_1.htm


    CONVERTIBLE DEMAND
PROMISSORY NOTE

     

    


     

    $25,000.00

     

    


     

    July 24,
2007

     

    


     

    FOR VALUE
RECEIVED, the undersigned Arthur Kaplan Cosmetics, Inc. (“Payor”), promises to
pay to the order of Arthur Kaplan (“Holder”), on demand, at such address as may
be designated in writing by Holder of this Note, the principal amount of Twenty
Five Thousand ($25,000.00) together with interest on the unpaid principal amount
from July 24, 2007, at the rate of ten percent (10%) per annum.

     

    All
payments of principal, interest or other amounts payable on or in respect of the
Note shall be made in lawful currency of the United States of America in
immediately available funds, to the Holder, unless otherwise directed in writing
by Holder.

     

    Any
waiver of any payment due hereunder or the acceptance by the Holder of partial
payments hereunder shall not, at any other time, be taken to be a waiver of the
terms of this Note or any other agreement between the Payor and the
Holder.

     

    Holder of
this note may, at his option and at any time prior to payment in full of any
outstanding principal and interest payments on this Note, convert all or any
portion of the Note to equity of Payor at $0.01 per share of Payor’s Common
Stock.

     

    


     

    Presentment
for payment, notice of dishonor, protest and notice of protest are hereby
waived.

     

    This Note
shall be governed by and interpreted in accordance with the law of the State of
Nevada.

     

    IN
WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this Note as of the date first
written above.

     

    


     

    Arthur
Kaplan Cosmetics, Inc.

     

    


     

    By: /s/ Arthur
Kaplan

     

    Its:
/s/
President
No. 64070.

protest 59/19171 (New York).

#### Trans World Shipping Corporation *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Rao, J.

Since the protest was filed more than 60 days after liquidation, it was dismissed as untimely, by virtue of section 514, Tariff Act of 1930.
**Part 1, Section VI: USSGL Crosswalks to Reclassified Statements**

This section includes crosswalks for use in Fiscal Year 2018 GTAS Reporting. These crosswalks map USSGL accounts to external reports in accordance with TFM Volume I, Part 2, Chapter 4700, Agency Reporting Requirements for the *Financial Report of the United States Government.*Each report crosswalk lists the proper USSGL accounts and applicable attributes for each line and/or column on the reports.

Attributes identify information subsidiary to the basic 6-digit USSGL accounts. This subsidiary information is necessary to meet external reporting requirements. See Section IV for additional information on attributes.

The following are crosswalks from the USSGL Chart of Accounts to standard external reports required by Fiscal Service:

Page 1 of 1

# image1.png
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

ROBERT S. CHEATLE, JR., et al. : CIVIL ACTION

:

v. :

:

DAVID A. KATZ, et al. : NO. 02-4405

O R D E R

AND NOW, this 10th day of October, 2003, pursuant to the Scheduling Order of

Judge Thomas J. Rueter in the above captioned matter, a settlement conference has been

scheduled before the undersigned on FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 21, 2003 at 10:00 a.m., in Room

3041, United States Courthouse, 601 Market St., Philadelphia, PA 19106.

The senior attorney in charge of the matter for each of the parties, AND THE

PARTIES THEMSELVES, or if a corporation, an official of the corporation with settlement

authority are REQUIRED to attend the conference IN PERSON. The parties and counsel must

be prepared to discuss settlement or other disposition of the matter.

Counsel are directed to fax confidential position papers not longer than 2 pages

directly to Chambers (fax. no. 215-580-2163) not later than 2 business days prior to the date of

the conference. The position paper should address the party’s settlement position, as well as any

other issue that counsel believes will be of assistance to the Court in helping the parties resolve

this matter. THIS DOCUMENT IS NOT TO BE SHARED WITH OPPOSING

COUNSEL NOR FILED OF RECORD. THIS IS FOR JUDGE HART'S EYES ONLY.

 

 JACOB P. HART, M.J.

 

 Copies faxed to: Copies mailed to:

 John C. Fenningham, Esq.; Francis Recchuiti, Esq.

Case 2:02-cv-04405-HH Document 16 Filed 10/10/2003 Page 1 of 1
Case 2:05-cv-05934-MK   Document 10   Filed 02/23/06   Page 1 of 1
**Exhibit32.1**

 

 

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

The undersignedhereby certifies, in his capacity as Chief Executive Officer of American BankNote Holographics, Inc. (the “Company”), that the Quarterly Report of theCompany on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2004, as filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”) fullycomplies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Actof 1934 and that the information contained in the Report fairly presents, inall material respects, the financial condition of the Company at the end of theperiod covered by the Report and the results of operations of the Company forthe period covered by the Report.

 

 

By: /s/ Kenneth H. Traub

KennethH. Traub

Presidentand Chief Executive Officer

 

Date:  November 12, 2004

 

 

Asigned original of this written statement required by Section 906, orother document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting thesignature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of thiswritten statement required by Section 906, has been provided to AmericanBank Note Holographics, Inc. and will be retained by American Bank NoteHolographics, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commissionor its staff upon request.

 

----
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                           3,032
<SECURITIES>                                       457
<RECEIVABLES>                                   17,843
<ALLOWANCES>                                     6,774
<INVENTORY>                                      5,856
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                35,786
<PP&E>                                          12,540
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  74,262
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           28,315
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         2,979
<OTHER-SE>                                       2,223
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    74,262
<SALES>                                         72,911
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                75,264
<CGS>                                           61,934
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   76,347
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 939
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (1,083)
<INCOME-TAX>                                       135
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (1,218)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (1,218)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.41)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.41)



</TABLE>
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

 On September 11, 2006, petitioner filed a document styled, “Objections To Magistrate 1

Judges [sic] Findings An [sic] Recommedations [sic].” However, the court construes petitioner’s

objections as a request for reconsideration of the court’s September 1, 2006 order denying

petitioner’s motion for the appointment of counsel. 

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LARRY JOSEPH THOMAS, No. 2:04-cv-0733-MCE-DAD-P

Petitioner, 

v. ORDER

A.K. SCRIBNER, Warden, et al.,

Respondents.

 /

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed an application for a writ of habeas

corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate

Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local General Order No. 262.

On September 1, 2006, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein

which were served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that any objections to

the findings and recommendations were to be filed within ten days. Neither party has filed

objections to the findings and recommendations.

1

Case 2:04-cv-00733-MCE -DAD Document 64 Filed 09/21/06 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

2

The court has reviewed the file and finds the findings and recommendations to be

supported by the record and by the magistrate judge’s analysis. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY

ORDERED that:

1. The findings and recommendations filed September 1, 2006, are adopted in full;

2. Respondents’ November 7, 2005 motion to dismiss is denied; and 

3. Respondents are ordered to file an answer to the amended petition for a writ of habeas

corpus, filed on April 29, 2004.

DATED: September 21, 2006

___________________________________

MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:04-cv-00733-MCE -DAD Document 64 Filed 09/21/06 Page 2 of 2
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

**Written Statement of the Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer**

**Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350**

 

Solely for the purposes of complying with 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, we, the undersigned Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of Interstate Power and Light Company (the “Company”), hereby certify, based on our knowledge, that the Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the year ended December 31, 2008 (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

/s/ William D. Harvey

William D. Harvey

Chairman and Chief Executive Officer

 

/s/ Patricia L. Kampling

Patricia L. Kampling

Vice President-Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer

 

February 27, 2009
Sixth Amendment to Employment Agreement



 Exhibit 10.54(g) 
 SIXTH AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT 
 This Sixth Amendment to Employment Agreement is made and
entered into as of October 1, 2007, by and between PriceSmart, Inc., a Delaware Corporation (“Employer”) and Jose Luis Laparte (“Executive”). 
 Recitals 
  

	 	A)	On June 3, 2004 an Employment Agreement was made and entered into by and between Employer and Executive. 

  

	 	B)	Said Employment Agreement has been amended on five prior occasions; 

  

	 	C)	Employer and Executive now desire to amend the Employment Agreement, as set forth hereinbelow: 

 Agreement 
 1. Section 3.1 of the Agreement which provides: 
 3.1 Term. The term of Executive’s employment hereunder shall commence on October 8, 2004 and shall continue until
October 7, 2007, unless sooner terminated or extended as hereinafter provided (the “Employment Term”). 
 is hereby amended,
to provide as follows: 
 3.1 Term. The term of Executive’s employment hereunder shall commence on October 8, 2004
and shall continue until October 7, 2008, unless sooner terminated or extended as hereinafter provided (the “Employment Term”). 
 2. All other terms of the Employment Agreement, as amended, shall remain unaltered and fully effective. 
 Executed in San Diego, California, as of
the date first written above. 
  

									
	EXECUTIVE	 		 	EMPLOYER
			
		 		 	PRICESMART, INC.
				
	Jose Luis Laparte	 		 	By:	 	/s/    ROBERT M. GANS
	/s/    JOSE LUIS
LAPARTE        	 		 	Name:	 	Robert M. Gans
		 		 		 	Its:	 	Executive Vice President
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MERRICK JOSE MOORE,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-0871 MCE EFB P

vs.

J. SLOSS, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER & WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

 / AD TESTIFICANDUM

Merrick Jose Moore, inmate # H-82249, a necessary and material witness in

proceedings in this case on September 7, 2010, is confined in Salinas Valley State Prison, 31625

Highway 101, P.O. Box 1020, Soledad, CA 93960, in the custody of the Warden; in order to

secure this inmate's attendance it is necessary that a Writ of Habeas Corpus ad Testificandum

issue commanding the custodian to produce the inmate in Court, 14th Floor, Courtroom 7,

United States Courthouse, 501 I Street, Sacramento, California on September 7, 2010, at 9:00

a.m. 

ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that:

1. A Writ of Habeas Corpus ad Testificandum issue, under the seal of this court,

commanding the Warden to produce the inmate named above to testify in United States District

Court at the time and place above, and from day to day until completion of court proceedings or

as ordered by the court; and thereafter to return the inmate to the above institution; 

2. The custodian is ordered to notify the court of any change in custody of this

inmate and is ordered to provide the new custodian with a copy of this writ; and

3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to serve a courtesy copy of this order and

writ of habeas corpus ad testificandum on the Out-To-Court Desk.

WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS AD TESTIFICANDUM

To: Warden Anthony Hedgpeth, Salinas Valley State Prison, 31625 Highway 101, P.O.

Box 1020, Soledad, CA 93960:

WE COMMAND you to produce the inmate named above to testify before the

United States District Court at the time and place above, and from day to day until completion of

the proceedings or as ordered by the court; and thereafter to return the inmate to the above

institution.

FURTHER, you have been ordered to notify the court of any change in custody

of the inmate and have been ordered to provide the new custodian with a copy of this writ.

DATED: August 3, 2010.

Case 2:04-cv-00871-MCE -EFB Document 152 Filed 08/04/10 Page 1 of 1
UNITED STATES NAVY-MARINE CORPS 

COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

WASHINGTON, D.C.

Before

D.C. KING, A.Y. MARKS, B.T. PALMER

Appellate Military Judges

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v.

JONATHAN J. OTTO

ELECTRONICS TECHNICIAN THIRD CLASS (E-4), U.S. NAVY

NMCCA 201500410

GENERAL COURT-MARTIAL

Sentence Adjudged: 27 August 2015.

Military Judge: CDR Robert P. Monahan, Jr., JAGC, USN.

Convening Authority: Commander, Navy Region Mid-Atlantic, 

Norfolk, VA.

Staff Judge Advocate's Recommendation: CDR A.R. House, JAGC, 

USN.

For Appellant: CAPT Bree A. Ermentrout, JAGC, USN.

For Appellee: Mr. Brian K. Keller, Esq.

29 February 2016

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

OPINION OF THE COURT 

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

 

 After careful consideration of the record, submitted without 

assignment of error, we affirm the findings and sentence as 

approved by the convening authority. Art. 66(c), Uniform Code of 

Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. § 866(c). 

 For the Court 

 R.H. TROIDL 

 Clerk of Court
II 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 3941 

To repeal the wage requirements of the Davis-Bacon Act. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MARCH 14, 2024 

Mr. LEE (for himself, Mr. BUDD, Mr. CRUZ, and Mr. SCOTT of Florida) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions 

A BILL 

To repeal the wage requirements of the Davis-Bacon Act. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Davis-Bacon Repeal 

5 Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. REPEAL OF DAVIS-BACON WAGE REQUIREMENTS. 

7 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subchapter IV of chapter 31 of 

8 title 40, United States Code, is repealed. 

9 (b) REFERENCE.—Any reference in any law to a re10 quirement under subchapter IV of chapter 31 of title 40, 

11 United States Code, shall be null and void. 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 3941 IS

1 SEC. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE AND LIMITATION. 

2 Section 2, and the amendment made by such section, 

3 shall take effect 30 days after the date of enactment of 

4 this Act but shall not affect any contract that is— 

5 (1) in existence on the date that is 30 days 

6 after such date of enactment; or 

7 (2) made pursuant to an invitation for bids out8 standing on the date that is 30 days after such date 

9 of enactment. 

Æ 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BRIAN LEE CHRISTMAN,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-0884 FCD PAN P

vs.

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF

CORRECTIONS, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff has requested the appointment of counsel. The United States Supreme

Court has ruled that district courts lack authority to require counsel to represent indigent

prisoners in § 1983 cases. Mallard v. United States Dist. Court, 490 U.S. 296, 298 (1989). In

certain exceptional circumstances, the court may request the voluntary assistance of counsel

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991);

Wood v. Housewright, 900 F.2d 1332, 1335-36 (9th Cir. 1990). In the present case, the court

does not find the required exceptional circumstances. Plaintiff’s motion for the appointment of

counsel will therefore be denied.

/////

/////

/////

Case 2:04-cv-00884-FCD-EFB Document 59 Filed 04/10/06 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

2

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s March 13, 2006 motion

for the appointment of counsel is denied.

DATED: April 7, 2006.

/mp

chri0884.31

Case 2:04-cv-00884-FCD-EFB Document 59 Filed 04/10/06 Page 2 of 2
**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 Quarterly Report of Flagship Global Health, Inc. (the
“Company”) on Form 10-Q for the three months ended March 31, 2008 as filed with
      the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Form 10-Q”), I,
      John H. Flood III, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company,
      certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of
      the
      Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that;




(1)  The
      Form
      10-Q 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 Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material
      respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
      Company.




Dated:
      May 15, 2008




/s/
                John H. Flood IIIJohn H. Flood III, President and Chief Executive Officer
No. 66784.

#### John H. Graham & Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

protest 60/21853 (New York).

*460Opinion by

Rao, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of foot rot secateurs similar in all material respects to those the subject of Abstract 64713, the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
# Fourth Court of Appeals
San Antonio, Texas

September 12, 2022

No. 04

- 22

- 00223

- CV

REVERSE MORTGAGE SOLUTIONS, INC.

,

Appellant

v.

ALLSTATE VEHICLE AND PROPERTY INSURANCE COMPANY

, Appellees

Fr om the 288th Judicial District Court

, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2020

- CI

- 10472 Honorable Antonia Arteaga , Judge Presiding



### O R D E R

Appellees’ motion for extension of time to file its brief is GRANTED. Appellees’ brief is due October 18, 2022.

_________________________________ Liz a A. Rodriguez , Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said court on this 12th day of September, 2022

.

___________________________________ M ichael A. C ruz , Clerk of Court
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-25-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-25-1999
<CASH>                                              32
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      815
<ALLOWANCES>                                        16
<INVENTORY>                                        560
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 1,467
<PP&E>                                           2,182
<DEPRECIATION>                                     937
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   3,713
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            1,261
<BONDS>                                            587
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             5
<OTHER-SE>                                       1,704
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     3,713
<SALES>                                         14,075
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                14,075
<CGS>                                           13,173
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   13,173
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   374
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  45
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    483
<INCOME-TAX>                                       170
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                313
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       313
<EPS-BASIC>                                       3.39
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     3.36


</TABLE>
No. 58524.

protests 166836-K, 182058-K, and 200159-K (New York).

#### Sinaco Co., Inc., and H. W. Robinson & Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

*434Opinion by

Johnson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of Rockingham earthenware similar in all material respects to that the subject of *United States*v. *M. & D. Miller, Inc.*(41 C. C. P. A. 226, C. A. D. 556), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
Alcoa Massena West Plant 

2012 January February March April

Total Roof Vent Fluoride Emissions (lb/Ton Al) 0.89 1.68 0.63 0.81

Total Primary Control Fluoride Emissions (lb/Ton Al) 0.08 0.12 0.06 0.07

Total Fluoride Emissions (lb/Ton Al) 0.96 1.80 0.69 0.88
May June July August September October November December

0.46 0.77 1.08 1.06 0.96 1.29 0.61 0.83

0.06 0.08 0.10 0.10 0.09 0.11 0.07 0.08

0.52 0.85 1.18 1.16 1.05 1.40 0.68 0.92
YTD

0.92

0.09

1.01
Reynolds Metals Co. (Alcoa East) 

2012 January February March April

Total Roof Vent Fluoride Emissions (lb/Ton Al) 1.91 2.13 1.88 2.19

Total Primary Control Fluoride Emissions (lb/Ton Al) 0.07 0.07 0.06 0.07

Total Fluoride Emissions (lb/Ton Al) 1.98 2.20 1.94 2.26
May June July August September October November December

2.08 1.93 1.69 2.13 2.18 2.21 2.09 2.17

0.07 0.07 0.07 0.06 0.07 0.02 0.02 0.02

2.15 2.00 1.76 2.19 2.25 2.23 2.11 2.19
YTD

2.05

0.06

2.10