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


 


Re: Salary, Vacation, Bonus & Interest


 


$131,266


Date: December 31, 2015


 


FOR VALUE RECEIVED, the undersigned, Skinvisible,
Inc., of 6320 South Sandhill Road, Suite 10, Las Vegas, NV 89120 promises to pay to the order of Doreen McMorran (“Lender”),
whose address is 356 Vincents Hollow Circle, Henderson, NV. 89052,
or such other place as the Lender may designate in writing to the undersigned, the principal sum of One Hundred Thirty One
Thousand Two Hundred and Sixty-Six Dollars ($131,266.00), together with interest thereon from date hereof until paid, at
the rate of ten percent (10%) per annum as follows: The entire principal and interest amount shall be repaid on or before December
31, 2020.


 


All or any part of the aforesaid principal
sum may be prepaid at any time and from time to time without penalty. This note replaces all previous notes between Skinvisible
and employee in regards to salary, vacation, bonus and interest due.


 


Upon written request by Lender, the principal
of this loan may be converted to common shares of Skinvisible, Inc. at the price of Two Cents ($0.02) per share at any time
up until December 31, 2020. In addition, the Company will issue a warrant agreement in the name of your designate, which will give
the holder the right to purchase further shares at Two Cents ($0.02) per share if exercised within 3 years following the
conversion date. The warrant agreement will give the holder the right to purchase one share for every two shares acquired by the
holder in this transaction for an aggregate total of Three Million Two Hundred Eighty-One Thousand and Six Hundred and Fifty (3,281,650)
additional shares at the above price.


 


This note is made and executed under, and is in all respects governed
by, the laws of the State of Nevada.


 





 


Skinvisible, Inc.
<PAGE>


                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.2

                          INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT

The Board of Directors
Witness Systems, Inc.

We consent to incorporation by reference in the registration statements (No.
333-33250 and No. 333-67416) on Form S-8 of Witness Systems, Inc. of our report
dated January 25, 2002, relating to the consolidated balance sheets of Witness
Systems, Inc. and subsidiaries as of December 31, 2001 and 2000, and the related
consolidated statements of operations, stockholders' equity, and cash flows for
each of the years in the three-year period ended December 31, 2001, and all
related schedules, which report appears in or is incorporated by reference in
the Witness Systems, Inc. Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year 2001.



                                                              /s/ KPMG LLP



Atlanta, Georgia
March 29, 2002
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 44 (Wednesday, March 7, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 10291]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-4076]



[[Page 10291]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Office of the Secretary


Aviation Proceedings, Agreements Filed the Week Ending February 
23, 2007

    The following Agreements were filed with the Department of 
Transportation under the Sections 412 and 414 of the Federal Aviation 
Act, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1383 and 1384) and procedures governing 
proceeding to enforce these provisions. Answers may be filed within 21 
days after the filing of the application.
    Docket Number: OST-2007-27366.
    Date Filed: February 20, 2007.
    Parties: Members of the International Air Transport Association.
    Subject: TC12 Mexico-Europe, Resolutions and Specified Fares Tables 
(Memo 0086); Intended effective date: April 1, 2007.

    Docket Number: OST-2007-27367.
    Date Filed: February 20, 2007.
    Parties: Members of the International Air Transport Association.
    Subject: TC12 South Atlantic-Europe, Resolutions and Specified 
Fares Tables (Memo 0148); Intended effective date: April 1, 2007.

    Docket Number: OST-2007-27368.
    Date Filed: February 20, 2007.
    Parties: Members of the International Air Transport Association.
    Subject: TC12 Mid Atlantic-Europe, Resolutions and Specified Fares 
Tables (Memo 0114); Intended effective date: April 1, 2007.

    Docket Number: OST-2007-27375.
    Date Filed: February 20, 2007.
    Parties: Members of the International Air Transport Association.
    Subject: PAC1/2/3 (Mail A134), Reinstatement Provision in 
Resolution 800f; Intended effective date: March 1, 2007.

    Docket Number: OST-2007-27377.
    Date Filed: February 20, 2007.
    Parties: Members of the International Air Transport Association.
    Subject: PAC1/2/3 (Mail A135), Disputes and Withdrawal of Disputes 
in Resolution, 818 AttA & 832; Intended effective date: March 1, 2007.

Renee V. Wright,
Program Manager, Docket Operations, Federal Register Liaison.
[FR Doc. E7-4076 Filed 3-6-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-9X-P
[4910-13-F

14 CFR Part 39

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

1\(:,\

IDocket No. FAA-2010-*****; Directorate Identifier 201 O-NM-152-AD]

RIN 212Q-AA64

Ainvorthiness Directives; Ernpresa Brasileira de Aeronautica S.A. (EMBRAER) """"'_•...-

el '.1..Ii - i\[G

It has been found occurrence of screw units manufactured with

metallographic non-conf0nnity that may increase their susceptibiLity to

brittle fracture. The screw failure may result in loss of the related balance

washer causing a possible ram air turbine (RAT) imbalance event, which

may result in RAT structural failure, which associated with an electrical

emergency situation, could result in loss of power to airplane flight liT \

controls hydraulic back-up system.

information (MCAI) originated by an aviation authority of another country to ident

~"

and correct an unsafe condition on an aviation product. The. MCAT describes the un J f /D """"",..•~,,""'-

listed above. This proposed AD results from mandatory continuing airworthiness

condition as:

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

ERJ 170 and ERJ 190 Airplanes

""""" ,..,""- M-7

~'~"'f.

C·G-<.--

SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for the pro( "m

Ii

* * * * * * * n

Loss of power to the hydraulic back-up system for airplane flight controls could red

the ability of the flightcrew to maintain the safe flight and landing of the airplane. 1

'1!I'l5·71;9·211
j491D-IJ-PI

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation AdmioistTatiOD

14 CFR Port 39

(Docket No. FAA-201U-***'**;'Directorate Identifier 201O-NM-I 52-AD)

KIN 212D-AA64

_::..-,"-.; I::;.I

••

, I;

AirwortbineS5 Directives; Empresa Brasileira de AeronautiC<! S.A. (EMBRAER) Mo

ERJ 170 and ERJ 190 Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed. rulemaking (NPRM).

-...•.•••..-

et- U, -f\L(.~

-

--

SUMMARY: We propose [0 adopt a new aiTWorthiness directive (AD) for the product •.•"

lisled above. This proposed AD results from mandatory continuing airworthiness

information (MeAl) originated by an aviation authority of another couOlry to identify

and correct an unsafe condition on an aviation product. The MeAl describes the unsa£

condition as:

--_ •...-

--

•••

"1T>oOU<OI-'''''''

It has been found occurrence of screw units manufaclUred with

metallographic non-.eonfonnilY that may increase their susceptibility to

brittle frd.Cture. The screw failure may result in loss of the related balance

washer causing a possible ram air twbine (RAT) imbalance event. which

may resuh in RAT structural failure, which associated with an electrical

emergency situation, could result in loss of power to airplane flight

controls hydraulic back~up system.

• • • • • • •

•••

-

--~

-,- The proposed AD would require actions that are intended to address the unsafe conditi n

•••

described in the MeAl.

DATES: We must receivc comments on this proposed AD by [INSERT DATE 45

FAA Form 1360014.1 (6-89) OFFICIAL FILE copy

-4 u_s. GOIIeFlNo.Em PIllNTI"IGOFfice"t9$· 111I-2"
(Reap. Dec. 10761)

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

Entry Nos. 885725; 812219.

(Decided June 3, 1964)

*Sharretts, Paley & Carter*for the plaintiff.

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

LawreNCE, Judge:

The above-enumerated appeals for a reap-praisement present the question of the proper dutiable value of certain wire strand, imported from Japan.

The parties hereto have stipulated and agreed as follows:

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

> *577That the merchandise covered by the appeals to reappraisement enumerated above consist of wire strand exported from Japan during the period beginning September 1,1958 and ending December *31,1958;*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 enumerated above, 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 $268 per metric ton for wire strand of % inch diameter (United States funds).

Upon, tbe agreed facts of record, I find and hold that export value, as that value is defined in section 402 (b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended by the Customs Simplification Act of 1956 (19 U.S.C. § 1401a (b)), is the proper basis of value for the wire strand in issue and that said value is $268 per metric ton for wire strand of %-inch diameter (United States funds).

Judgment will issue accordingly.
32.1 SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER  CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER


PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In connection with the Quarterly Report of Commonwealth Income & Growth Fund V, (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Kimberly A. Springsteen-Abbott, Chief Executive Officer of the Company,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge:




(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.




/s/Kimberly A. Springsteen-AbbottKimberly A. Springsteen-AbbottChief Executive OfficerAugust 13, 2009
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 480 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 480

To require the establishment of a working group to evaluate the threat 
 to food safety and animal health posed by beef imported from Brazil, 
                        and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           February 16, 2023

  Mr. Tester (for himself, Mr. Rounds, and Mr. Lujan) introduced the 
 following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on 
                  Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To require the establishment of a working group to evaluate the threat 
 to food safety and animal health posed by beef imported from Brazil, 
                        and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. WORKING GROUP ON BEEF IMPORTED FROM BRAZIL.

    (a) Establishment of Working Group.--
            (1) In general.--Not later than 120 days after the date of 
        the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Agriculture shall 
        establish a working group--
                    (A) to evaluate the threat posed by beef and beef 
                products imported from Brazil to food safety and animal 
                health in the United States; and
                    (B) to make recommendations to the Secretary with 
                respect to whether the importation of beef and beef 
                products from Brazil into the United States should be 
                permitted.
            (2) Membership.--The Secretary shall ensure that the 
        working group established under paragraph (1) includes--
                    (A) experts on food safety;
                    (B) experts on animal health; and
                    (C) representatives of U.S. Customs and Border 
                Protection and other Federal agencies with 
                responsibilities relating to international trade.
    (b) Temporary Suspension of Imports.--Beef and beef products 
imported from Brazil may not enter the United States during the 
period--
            (1) beginning on the date of the enactment of this Act; and
            (2) ending on the date on which the working group 
        established under subsection (a)(1) submits to the Secretary 
        the recommendations required by subparagraph (B) of that 
        subsection.
                                 <all>
```
#### In the Matter of County of Nassau, Petitioner, v New York State Public Employment Relations Board, Respondent, et al., Intervenor.

[633 NYS2d 1003]

—Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the respondent New York State Public Employment Relations Board dated March 21, 1994, which affirmed a decision of an Administrative Law Judge dated September 12, 1993, finding that the petitioner had violated Civil Service Law § 209-a (1) (a) and (c).

Adjudged that the determination is confirmed and the proceeding is dismissed on the merits, with one bill of costs payable to the respondent and the intervenor, the counterclaim for enforcement is granted, and the petitioner is directed to comply with the determination dated March 21, 1994.

The determination of the New York State Public Employment Relations Board that the petitioner, the County of Nassau, had violated Civil Service Law § 209-a (1) (a) and (c) by improperly eliminating an employee’s position with the Department of Probation because he was using employee organization leave is supported by substantial evidence *(see,*CPLR 7803 [4]; *Matter of Uniondale Union Free School Dist. v Newman,*167 AD2d 475). O’Brien, J. P., Copertino, Pizzuto and Joy, JJ., concur.
my UAS with the largest possible letters by placing the word "Experimental" or 

assigned number or name, based on request/ruling of FAA, on UAS fuselage. The 

equivalent level of safety will be provided by having the UAS marked on its fuselage as 

required.

14 CFR 91.7 (a)

As there will be no airworthiness certificate for the aircraft, should this exemption be 

granted, no FAA regulatory standard will exist for determining airworthiness. Given the 

size of the aircraft for maintenance and use of safety check list prior to each flight an 

equivalent level of safety will be provided.

14 CFR 91.9 (b) (2)

Given the size and configuration, the UAS has no ability to carry a flight manual on the 

aircraft. There is no room, capacity, or pilot on board to adequately carry flight manual. 

A equivalent level of safety will be maintained by keeping the flight manual at ground 

control point where the pilot wil) have immediate access to it.

14 CFR 91.103

As FAA approved flight manuals will not be provided for the aircraft an exemption will 

be needed. Normal procedures including but not limited to; reviewing weather, flight 

battery requirement, landing and takeoff distances, along will all of those found in 

attachment "DJI Pilot Training". An equivalent level of safety will be provided by 

preflight protoco) to properly match the machine.

14 CFR 91.109

UAS and remotely piloted aircraft do not have fully functional dual controls. Flight 

control is achieved through the use of a control box that communicates with the 

aircraft via radio communications. The equivalent level of safety provided because 

neither a pilot nor passenger will be carried in the aircraft, and by the speed and size of 

the aircraft.

14 CFR 91.113 (a) and (b)

I can achieve an equivalent level of safety as achieved by current regulations because 

my UAS does not carry pilot nor passenger. While helpful, a pilots' license will not 

ensure remote control piloting skills.

14 CFR 91.121

The UAS may not have a barometric altimeter, but instead does have a GPS altitude 

read out. I believe an exemption may be needed. An equivalent level of safety is 

achieve by the operator receiving live flight data monitoring and confirming current 

altitude along with altitude of launch site shown on GPS altitude indicator.

14 CFR 91.203 (a) and (b)
Similar to, 14 CFR 91.9 (b) (2), given the size and configuration, the UAS has no ability 

to carry certificate and registration documents on the aircraft. There is no room, 

capacity, or pilot on board to adequately such documents. An equivalent level of safety 

wili be achieved by keeping these documents, to the extent they are applicable to the 

UAS, at the ground control point where pilot has immediate access to them.

14 CFR 91.405 (a), 14 CFR 91.407 (a) (1), 14 CFR 91.409 (a) (2), 14 CFR 91.417 (a) and 

(b)

Given these section only apply to aircraft with an airworthiness certificate, theses 

sections do not apply to this applicant. As a safety precaution, operator will perform 

preflight inspections and ensure UAS is in working condition before initiating each 

flight.
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

DIRECTV INC.,

Plaintiff, 2:04-cv-2407-GEB-GGH

vs.

GLEN BOWEN,

Defendant. ORDER

__________________________________/

On October 28, 2005, the magistrate judge filed

findings and recommendations herein which were served on the

parties and which contained notice that any objections to the

findings and recommendations were to be filed within ten days. 

No objections were filed.

 Accordingly, the court presumes any findings of fact

are correct. See Orland v. United States, 602 F.2d 207, 208 (9th

Cir. 1999). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are

reviewed de novo. See Britt v. Simi Valley Unified School Dist.,

708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 1983).

Case 2:04-cv-02407-GEB-GGH Document 25 Filed 12/08/05 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

The court has reviewed the applicable legal standards

and, good cause appearing, concludes that it is appropriate to

adopt the Proposed Findings and Recommendations in full.

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that:

1. The Proposed Findings and Recommendations filed

October 28, 2005, are ADOPTED; and

2. Plaintiff’s motion for entry of default judgment is

GRANTED. Judgment is rendered in the amount of $10,000 in

damages and $1,922.50 in attorneys’ fees against defendant Bowen.

Dated: December 7, 2005

/s/ Garland E. Burrell, Jr.

GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR.

United States District Judge

Case 2:04-cv-02407-GEB-GGH Document 25 Filed 12/08/05 Page 2 of 2
#### Emily Thatcher, Appellant, v Waldbaums, Inc., Respondent.

[634 NYS2d 401]

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Doyle, J.), dated September 12, 1994, which granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether the defendant created, or had actual or constructive notice of, the condition which caused the plaintiff’s fall. Accordingly, summary judgment was properly granted to the defendant *(see, Gordon v American Museum of Natural History,*67 NY2d 836; *Bashaw v Rite-Aid ofN. Y.,*207 AD2d 632; *Kane v Human Servs. Ctr.,*186 AD2d 539; *Benware v Big V Supermarkets,*177 AD2d 846). Mangano, P. J., Miller, Santucci and Hart, JJ., concur.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Sean Thomas, Appellant.

[633 NYS2d 351]

—Appeal by the defen*389dant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Clabby, J.), rendered November 1, 1993, convicting him of criminal possession of stolen property in the fourth degree, unauthorized use of a vehicle in the third degree, and possession of burglar’s tools, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Contrary to the defendant’s contention that his waiver of his statutory right to be present at sidebar conferences was invalid, we find that he waived this right knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently *(see,*CPL 260.20; *People v Antommarchi,*80 NY2d 247, 250). The record indicates that, prior to signing a waiver of his right to be present at sidebar conferences, the defendant was present on the first occasion when the court and counsel spoke with a prospective juror regarding her ability to be impartial. Thereafter, with the defendant still present at the sidebar, the trial court and counsel engaged in a colloquy regarding the best manner in which to handle future private discussions with prospective jurors until the defendant had an opportunity to sign a waiver. Subsequently, defense counsel represented to the court that the waiver was explained to the defendant and signed by him. Although it would have been better practice for the trial court to provide the defendant with a brief understanding of his right to be present at sidebar conferences when jurors are questioned about their ability to weigh evidence objectively, " ' "there is no requirement that the Judge conduct a *pro forma*inquisition in each case on the off-chance that a defendant who is adequately represented by counsel * * * may nevertheless not know what he is doing” ’ ” *(People v Spotford,*85 NY2d 593, 598).

The trial court’s *Sandoval*ruling was not an improvident exercise of discretion. The arguments of both counsel were appropriately considered by the court *(see, People v Rahman,*46 NY2d 882, 883-884). It is well established that the defendant’s specialization in one area of criminal activity will not automatically shield him from cross-examination as to prior convictions *(see, People v Pavao,*59 NY2d 282, 292; *People v Sorge,*301 NY 198, 200; *People v Torres,*110 AD2d 794, 795). After hearing arguments regarding the probative value of the defendant’s 16 prior convictions and their potential prejudicial effect, the court ruled that the defendant could be cross-examined on only his last eight convictions, noting their similarity to the crimes for which he was being tried. Furthermore, the court indicated its intention to give an instruction to the jurors that they were not to use the evidence to conclude that he committed the crime, but only to determine his credibility.

*390There is no merit to the defendant’s contention that the trial court erred in allowing a police officer to testify that he was arrested in the presence of a 13-year-old boy. Mangano, P. J., Bracken, Sullivan and Rosenblatt, JJ., concur.