alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
PROMISSORY NOTE




Englewood, Colorado$100,000.00
April 4, 2007




Nathaniel Energy Corporation, a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business at 8001 South InterPort Blvd., Suite 260, Englewood, Colorado 80112 (the “Payor”), for value received, hereby unconditionally promises to pay to the order of RICHARD C. STRAIN,an individual residing at 15 Loockerman Avenue, Poughkeepsie, New York 12601 (the “Payee”), on the earlier of (i) the date of commencement of any bankruptcy, insolvency or similar proceedings in respect of the Payor and (ii) a demand therefore by the Payee in the lawful money of the United States of America, the principal sum of ONE HUNDRED THOUSAND and 00/100 ($100,000.00) DOLLARS, together with interest thereon as hereinafter provided: provided that no demand for payment shall be made by the Payee pursuant to the paragraph (ii) hereinabove prior to September 30, 2007.




SECTION 1.  Interest. Interest shall accrue and be payable quarterly on the outstanding principal amount of this Promissory Note at the rate of nine percent (9%). Interest shall be computed based upon a 365 day year.




SECTION 2.  Priority. This Promissory Note shall not be subordinated or junior in right of payment or distribution to any other indebtedness, liabilities or obligation of any kind or nature whatsoever and shall be senior or pari passuin right of payment and distribution to any and all such other indebtedness, liabilities and obligations of the Payor.




SECTION 3.  Security. The obligations under this Note are secured by the Security Agreement between Payor and Payee of even date herewith.





SECTION 4.  Miscellaneous. (a) The Payor hereby waives presentment, demand, protest and notice of any kind whatsoever in connection with this Promissory Note. The nonexercise by the holder of any of its rights hereunder in any particular instance shall not constitute a waiver thereof in that or any subsequent instance.




(b)           The Payor may prepay all or part of the principal hereof at any time without penalty.




(c)           This Promissory Note shall be construed in accordance with and governed by the law of the State of New York.









(d)           All borrowings evidenced by this Promissory Note and all payments  and prepayments of the principal hereof and interest hereon shall be recorded by such holder in its internal records, provided, however,that the failure of the holder hereof to make such a notation or any error in such a notation shall not affect the obligation of the Payor under this Promissory Note. All payments and prepayments payments received by the Payee shall be applied first to accrued interest and, thereafter, to principal.




IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has caused this Promissory Note to be duly executed as of the day and year first above written.




NATHANIEL ENERGY CORPORATION




the principal hereof and interest hereon shall be recorded bysuch holder in its internal records, provided, however, that the failure of the holder hereof to make such anotation or anyenor in such anotation shall
Before the First Division,

May 28, 1959

No. 63111.

#### J. B. Wood Shipping Co., Inc., and Inter Maritime Fwdg. Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

protests 58/16287 and 58/20542 (New York).

Opinion by

Oliver, C. J.

The protests were dismissed.
(Reap. Dec. 10736)

#### Kurt Orban Company, Inc. *v.*United States

Entry No. 4326-H, etc.

(Decided April 28, 1964)

*Sharretts, Paley*<6 *Garter*for the plaintiff.

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

Oliver, Chief Judge:

The appeals for reappraisement enumerated in schedule “A,” hereto attached and made a part hereof, are before me for decision on a written stipulation, reading as follows:

> IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by counsel for the parties hereto:

> That the merchandise covered by the appeals to reappraisement set forth in Schedule A, attached hereto and made a part hereof, consists of wire strand exported from Japan during the period beginning October 1, 1960 and ending November 1,1960; that wire strand is not identified in the Final List published by the Secretary of the Treasury pursuant to the Customs Simplification Act of 1956, T.D. 54521, effective February 27, 1958; that on or immediately preceding the date of exportation of each shipment of wire strand covered by each of the appeals to reappraisement set forth in Schedule A, the prices at which wire strand, such as or similar to the wire strand described on the invoices covered by the instant appeals to reappraisement were freely sold, or in the absence of sales, offered for sale in the principal market of Japan in the usual wholesale quantity and in the ordinary course of trade, for exportation to the United States, including the cost of all containers and coverings of whatever nature and all other expenses incidental to placing the merchandise in condition, packed ready for shipment to the United States, was $249. per metric ton for wire strand *537of % inch diameter and $245. per metric ton for wire strand of ineli diameter (United States funds).

> IT *IS*FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that the appeals to reap-praisement set forth in Schedule A, attached hereto and made a part hereof, are submitted for decision upon this stipulation and the entry file covered by each appeal.

On the agreed facts, I find tliat the proper basis for appraisement of the merchandise in question is export value, as defined in section 402(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, and that such statutory-value therefor is $249 per metric ton for wire strand of %-inch diameter and $245 per metric ton for wire strand of %6-inch diameter (United States funds).

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 48 (Tuesday, March 13, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 11369]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-4455]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. 2004N-0257]


Agency Information Collection Activities; Announcement of Office 
of Management and Budget Approval; Recordkeeping Requirements for Human 
Food and Cosmetics Manufactured From, Processed With, or Otherwise 
Containing, Material from Cattle

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing that a 
collection of information entitled ``Recordkeeping Requirements for 
Human Food and Cosmetics Manufactured From, Processed With, or 
Otherwise Containing, Material from Cattle'' has been approved by the 
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act 
of 1995.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jonna Capezzuto, Office of the Chief 
Information Officer (HFA-250), Food and Drug Administration, 5600 
Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20857,301-827-4659.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the Federal Register of October 11, 2006 
(71 FR 59653), the agency announced that the proposed information 
collection had been submitted to OMB for review and clearance under 44 
U.S.C. 3507. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not 
required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays 
a currently valid OMB control number. OMB has now approved the 
information collection and has assigned OMB control number 0910-0597. 
The approval expires on January 31, 2010. A copy of the supporting 
statement for this information collection is available on the Internet 
at http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets.

    Dated: March 6, 2007.
Jeffrey Shuren,
Assistant Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. E7-4455 Filed 3-12-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-01-S
Exhibit 31.1

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

(Section 302 Certification)

I, Thomas E. Vessey, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of 1st Centennial Bancorp;

2. Based on my knowledge, this
annual 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 the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the
period covered by this annual report;

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

4. The registrants other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and
procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant 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 registrant, including its consolidated subsidiary, is made known to us by
others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;

(b) Evaluated the
effectiveness of the registrant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 the annual report any change in the Registrants internal control over financial
reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter (the registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the
registrants internal control over financial reporting; and

5. The registrants other certifying officer and I
have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the audit committee of the registrants Board of Directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

(a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial
reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

(b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves Management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrants internal control over financial reporting.

Date: March 22, 2006



|                                                       
|-------------------------------------------------------
|/s/    THOMAS E. VESSEY                                
|Thomas E. Vessey, President and Chief Executive Officer
COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA

Present: Judges Elder, Felton and Senior Judge Willis

SHIRLEY SIMMONS

MEMORANDUM OPINION*

v. Record No. 2596-03-1 PER CURIAM

FEBRUARY 24, 2004

MARSHALL DARDEN

FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF NORFOLK

Marc Jacobson, Judge

(Curtis T. Brown, on brief), for appellant.

(André A. Foreman, on brief), for appellee.

Shirley Simmons appeals the September 16, 2003 order of the circuit court denying her

motion to disallow a reduction in Marshall Darden’s child support obligation. On appeal, Simmons

contends the trial court erred by ruling (1) severance pay invested by Darden into an individual

retirement account should not be considered as imputed income; and (2) Darden could receive a

reduction in his child support obligation following his voluntary retirement. Upon reviewing the

record and briefs, we conclude that this appeal is without merit. Accordingly, we summarily affirm

the decision of the trial court. See Rule 5A:27.

Analysis

Simmons’ counsel endorsed the court’s order “Seen and Objected to” and did not

particularize the basis for her objection. The parties’ written statement of facts also contains no

information regarding the basis for Simmons’ objection to the order.

 * Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, this opinion is not designated for publication. 
- 2 -

Rule 5A:18 provides that “[n]o ruling of the trial court . . . will be considered as a basis

for reversal unless the objection was stated together with the grounds therefor at the time of the

ruling, except for good cause shown or to enable the Court of Appeals to attain the ends of

justice.” “Ordinarily, endorsement of an order ‘Seen and objected to’ is not specific enough to

meet the requirements of Rule 5A:18 because it does not sufficiently alert the trial court to the

claimed error.” Herring v. Herring, 33 Va. App. 281, 286, 532 S.E.2d 923, 926 (2000) (quoting

Mackie v. Hill, 16 Va. App. 229, 231, 429 S.E.2d 37, 38 (1993)). Therefore, Rule 5A:18 bars

our consideration of Simmons’ arguments on appeal. Moreover, the record does not reflect any

reason to invoke the good cause or ends of justice exceptions to Rule 5A:18.

Accordingly, we summarily affirm the decision of the trial court. See Rule 5A:27.

Affirmed.
(Reap. Dec. 10413)

#### Gitkin Co. *v.*United States

Entry No. 5317.

(Decided January 8, 1963)

*Barnes, Richardson & Colburn*for the plaintiff.

*Joseph D. Guilfoyle,*Acting Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Oliver, Chief Judge:

Counsel for the parties have submitted the above-enumerated appeal for reappraisement upon stipulation, reading as follows:

> 1. That the merchandise and the issues involved in the above-entitled appeal for reappraisement are the same in all material respects as those involved in *United States*v. *Gitkin Co.,*A.R.D. 132, and that the record in the cited case may be incorporated in the record herein.

> 2. That at the time of exportation of the merchandise involved herein, the prices at which such or similar merchandise was freely offered for sale to all purchasers in the principal markets of the country of exportation for exportation to the United States, in the usual wholesale quantities and in the ordinary course of trade including the cost of all containers and coverings of whatever nature and all other costs, charges and expenses incident to placing the merchandise in condition packed ready for shipment to the United States, were as follows:

> (a) With regard to the items marked “D” in red ink: the appraised red; ink unit prices, net packed.

> *353(b) With regard to tbe other items on the invoice,: the invoice unit values, net packed.

> 3. That the involved merchandise was entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after February 27, 1958, and is not identified in the Final List published by the Secretary of the Treasury pursuant to the Customs Simplification Act of 1956 (T.D. 54521).

On the agreed facts, I find that export value, as defined in section 402(h) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as 'amended by the Customs Simplification Act of 1956, is the proper basis for the determination of the values of the merchandise involved and that such values were as set forth above in paragraph 2 (a) and (b) of the stipulation.

Judgment will issue accordingly.
##### 



Exhibit 10.33
 
 AMENDMENT NO. 3
TO THE TECHNOLOGY LICENSE AND DISTRIBUTION AGREEMENT
BETWEEN SUN MICROSYSTEMS, INC. AND OPENTV, INC.
    AMENDMENT
 1.0 Definitions.
     2.0 Additional Technology Exhibits.
  3.0 Schedule of Fees and Royalties.
  Upfront Source License Fee




---



##### 



Source Support (if applicable)
 Java Test Suite Support Fee
 Binary Distribution Royalties per unit Prepayment
   Example:
 Device Manufacturer (DM):
    
    DM Location:
    
    # Units SP Deploying:Motorola
    
    Chicago, Illinois
    
    250,000 Skylife




---



##### 



Branding; Royalty Rates for Branded and Unbranded Products
 4.0 Distribution; Compatibility Requirements.
 Licensee Products
 OpenTV Customer Products
 5.0 Amendment 3 Term.




---



##### 



SUN MICROSYSTEMS, INC.
    
    
    
    OPENTV, INC.By:
    
    /s/ Jerry Ashford
    
    
    
    By:
    
    /s/ Jim ChiddixName:
    
    Jerry Ashford
    
    
    
    Name:
    
    Jim ChiddixTitle:
    
    Sales Director
    
    
    
    Title:
    
    CEODate:
    
    June 30, 2005
    
    
    
    Date:
    
    June 30, 2005
No. 46125.

#### Protests 23464-K, etc., of Bullocks, Inc., et al. (Los Angeles, etc.).

Opinion by

Kincheloe, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
(Reap. Dec. 8174)

#### *F. W.*Woolworth Company *v.*United States

Entry Nos. 8165; 8726.

(Decided November 7, 1952)

*Sharretts, Hillis & Paley (Howard C. Carter*of counsel) for the plaintiff.

*Charles J. Wagner,*Acting Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Johnson, Judge:

These appeals for reappraisement have been submitted for decision upon tbe following stipulation of counsel for the parties hereto:

> IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED, by and between counsel for the plaintiff and the Acting Assistant Attorney General for the United States, that the market value or the price, at the time of exportation to the United States of the earthenware articles covered by the above named Appeals to Reappraisement, at which such or similar merchandise was freely offered for sale to all purchasers in the principal markets of the country from which exported, in the usual wholesale quantity and in the ordinary course of trade, for exportation to the United States, plus the cost of all containers and coverings of whatever nature and all other costs, charges and expenses incident to placing the merchandise in condition, packed, ready for shipment to the United States, was in each instance the appraised value less the amount added to meet advances made by the Appraiser in similar cases and that there is no foreign value.

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED, that these appeals to reappraisement be submitted on this stipulation.

On the agreed facts I find the export value, as that value is defined in section 402 (d) of the Tariff Act of 1930, to be the proper basis for the determination of the value of the earthenware articles here involved, and that such value in each instance was the appraised value, less the amount added to meet advances made by the appraiser in similar cases.

Insofar as the appeals relate to all other merchandise they are hereby dismissed.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
No. 66843.

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

protest 61/11500 (San Francisco).

Opinion by

Richardson, J.

The protest was dismissed.
```
Grant Administration: CDC Oversight of Grantees' Activities Needs
Improvement (Letter Report, 12/10/93, GAO/HRD-94-12).

This report discusses funding by the Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention (CDC) to promote "safer sex" as a way of controlling the
spread of the virus that causes AIDS.  GAO examined whether grant
recipients used federal money to engage in prohibited lobbying;
improperly advocate cultural, institutional, ideological, economic, or
other causes; or encourage homosexuality or the illegal use of
intravenous drugs.  Although CDC did not find grantees engaging in
prohibited lobbying, its oversight was not accompanied by adequate
controls over the use of federal funds to pay membership dues to
organizations.  During GAO's review, CDC strengthened its controls by
requiring staff to gather information on the organizations receiving
dues and the purpose of these payments.  Also, the Public Health Service
revised its grants administration policy on the extent of organizations'
lobbying to determine the allowability of such dues reimbursement.
CDC's oversight of AIDS-related materials produced with federal funds
has fallen short.

--------------------------- Indexing Terms -----------------------------

 REPORTNUM:  HRD-94-12
     TITLE:  Grant Administration: CDC Oversight of Grantees' Activities 
             Needs Improvement
      DATE:  12/10/93
   SUBJECT:  Acquired immunodeficiency syndrome
             Minorities
             Lobbying activities
             Grant monitoring
             Infectious diseases
             Information dissemination operations
             Non-profit organizations
             Reporting requirements
             Health care services
             Community health services
IDENTIFIER:  AIDS
             
************************************************************************

We regret that the full text of this item is presently unavailable.

See the GAO FAQ - Section 2.0 for printed copy ordering information.
The FAQ is automatically retrieved with all WAIS search results or 
can be obtained by sending e-mail to: [email protected]
```
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

CARL McCEE FOUNTAIN,

Petitioner, No. CIV S-04-2350 GEB DAD P

vs.

JAMES YATES, Warden, et al., 

Respondents. ORDER

 /

By order filed March 31, 2005, the court notified respondents that the state court

transcripts have not been lodged with the court despite counsel’s indication that the clerk’s

transcript in two volumes and the reporter’s transcript in two volumes “are being lodged with this

Court contemporaneous with the filing of Respondent’s answer.” (Resp’ts’ Answer at 4,

Resp’ts’ Amended Answer at 4.) The court directed respondents to lodge the state court

transcripts within sixty days. More than sixty days have passed, and the docket does not reflect

that the transcripts have been lodged. Respondents will be ordered to lodge the transcripts and

show cause for their failure to respond to the court’s order.

The court has received from petitioner a document addressed to the clerk of the

court, with an attached exhibit. Petitioner’s document was not accompanied by a proof of

service. If petitioner wishes to expand the record to include an additional exhibit, he must file

Case 2:04-cv-02350-GEB-DAD Document 24 Filed 06/28/05 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

and serve a motion in which he establishes the identity and authenticity of the document and

demonstrates that the document should be included in the record in this case. See Rule 7, Fed. R.

Governing § 2254 Cases.

Petitioner has also filed a document titled “Ex-Parte Motion to Produce

Documents,” requesting that the court order a hearing because of respondents’ failure to lodge

the state court transcripts. Attached to the motion are copies of out-of-circuit decisions

concerning the procedure to be followed when respondents fail to file an answer to a habeas

petition. The attached proof of service does not reflect service of the motion on respondents’

counsel. The court will not entertain an ex parte motion. Moreover, the respondents in this case

have not failed to file an answer to the habeas corpus petition and petitioner’s authorities are

therefore inapposite.

Petitioner is cautioned that all subsequent filings must include proof of service on

respondents’ counsel.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Within ten court days from the date of this order, respondents shall (a) show

good cause for their failure to respond to the court’s order filed March 31, 2005, and (b) lodge

the state court transcripts, consisting of the reporter’s transcript in two volumes and the clerk’s

transcript in two volumes;

2. Petitioner’s June 1, 2005 letter and exhibit will be disregarded; and

3. Petitioner’s June 2, 2005 filing, titled a motion to produce documents but

requesting that the court order a hearing, is denied.

DATED: June 27, 2005.

DAD:13

foun2350.osc

Case 2:04-cv-02350-GEB-DAD Document 24 Filed 06/28/05 Page 2 of 2