alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
TREATIES AND OTHER INTERNATIONAL ACTS SERIES 03-915 

________________________________________________________________________ 

DEFENSE 

Helicopter Aeromechanics 

 Agreement Between 

the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

and GERMANY Amending and 

Extending the Memorandum of 

Understanding of September 2 and 16, 1994 

Signed at Washington and Bonn 

August 13 and September 15, 2003 

 
 NOTE BY THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE 

 Pursuant to Public Law 89—497, approved July 8, 1966 

(80 Stat. 271; 1 U.S.C. 113)—

“. . .the Treaties and Other International Acts Series issued 

under the authority of the Secretary of State shall be competent 

 evidence . . . of the treaties, international agreements other than 

treaties, and proclamations by the President of such treaties and 

international agreements other than treaties, as the case may be, 

therein contained, in all the courts of law and equity and of maritime 

jurisdiction, and in all the tribunals and public offices of the 

United States, and of the several States, without any further proof 

or authentication thereof.” 
 GERMANY 

 

 Defense: Helicopter Aeromechanics 

 Agreement amending and extending the memorandum of 

 understanding of September 2 and 16, 1994. 

 Signed at Washington and Bonn August 13 and 

 September 15, 2003; 

 Entered into force September 15, 2003.
No. 64920.

#### A. N. Deringer, Inc. *v.*United States,

protests 59/15801, etc. (Ogdensburg).

Opinion by

Donlon, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of prepared or preserved pork similar in all material respects to that the subject of *C. J. Tower & Sons*v. *United States*(43 Cust. Ct. 36, C.D. 2100), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
-88 -86 -84 -82 -80 -78 -76 -74 -72

34 36 38 40 42 

### ★

▲ ▲ ▲ ▲



### ★ ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲ 500 1000 1500 100 18 12 06 00 07/29 

### NOAA HYSPLIT MODEL 

## Backward trajectory ending at 2300 UTC 29 Jul 06

EDAS Meteorological DataSource★at 39.41 N 76.30 WMeters AGL
No. 48550.

#### Protest 976832-G of H. Rosenhirsch Co. (New York).

Opinion by

Cline, J.

The record showed that the merchandise was imported from London but that the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics is the country of origin; that the bristles are not capable of being marked but that the cases were marked “Made in Russia” when imported, and the collector required that they be marked “U. S. S. R. Russia” before it was released. The defendant cited Abstract 42579. Following *Williams*v. *United States*(26 C. C. P. A. 210, C. A. D. 19), wherein the merchandise was marked “Packed in Russia,” the merchandise in question was held legally marked when imported. The protest was therefore sustained.
#### In the Matter of Adrian Peart, Respondent, v David Peart, Appellant.

[635 NYS2d 504]

—Appeal from an order of the Family Court, Kings County (Hepner, J.), dated June 22* 1994.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements, for reasons stated by Judge Hepner at the Family Court. Sullivan, J. P., Thompson, Copertino, Krausman and Florio, JJ., concur.
##### 



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 First Potomac Realty Trust (the
Company) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2004, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I,
Douglas J. Donatelli, President and 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: (1)  The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and (2)  The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to
the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.  Date: November 9, 2004
    
    /s/ Douglas J. DonatelliDouglas J. Donatelli
President and Chief Executive Officer
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

O.Z. MARTIN,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-2360 MCE CMK P

vs.

EDWARD ALMEIDA, JR., 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-02360-ALA Document 25 Filed 04/19/06 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 April 13, 2006 motion

for the appointment of counsel is denied.

DATED: April 19, 2006.

______________________________________

CRAIG M. KELLISON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

/mp

mart 04cv2360.31

Case 2:04-cv-02360-ALA Document 25 Filed 04/19/06 Page 2 of 2
No. 46143.

#### Protest 58436-K/12305 of Geo. Wm. Rueff, Inc. (New Orleans).

Opinion by

Keefe, J.

The papers disclosing nothing to overcome the action of the collector the protest was overruled.
Exhibit 104


		
			EXHIBIT 10.4
		

		
			 
		

		
			Management Group Pay for Performance Plan Program
		

		
			(Amended and Restated on February 28, 2013, Effective January 1, 2013)
		

		
			 
		

		
			The Management Group Pay for Performance Program (the “PFP Program”) is a short-term incentive compensation program that is intended to link a portion of senior officer compensation to the achievement of financial targets that are established annually by the Personnel Committee of the Board of Directors.   
		

		
			 
		

		
			Payouts under the PFP Program are determined as a percentage of base salary and can vary from 0% to a maximum of 20% of base salary.  There are eight financial targets in six distinct categories, each with a payout range expressed as a percentage of base salary. The target categories are: (1) tax equivalized net interest income, (2) noninterest income, (3) noninterest expense, (4) loan quality, and (5) corporate net income.  The targets identified in clause (5) are measured against national peer group loan quality data published annually by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation for banks with total assets between $500 million and $1.0 billion.  In addition to the financial targets, the PFP Program incorporates a factor which reflects the executive’s annual performance evaluation rating.
		

		
			 
		

		
			The financial targets for the then current year are determined annually by the Personnel Committee at its February meeting and communicated to all Management Group PFP Program participants.  In order to earn a payout in any category, the established target must be met or exceeded.  Payout amounts are determined and paid in April of the following year after the completion of the annual officer performance evaluations and the release of peer group loan quality data by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation.
Before the Third Division,

March 2, 1950

No. 54093.

#### Standard Wine & Liquor Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

protest 108268-K (Baltimore).

Opinion by

Ekwall, J.

For the reasons stated in *Austin, Nichols & Co., Inc.*v. *United States*(22 Cust. Ct. 33, C. D. 1155), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
No. 55967.

protests 136649-K, etc. (Galveston).

#### The Texas Company *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Laweence, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of radar equipment the same in all material respects as that the subject of *United States*v. *United Geophysical Company*(38 C. C. P. A. 137, C. A. D. 451), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
Before the First Division,

April 4, 1945

.No. 50095.

#### Protests 32263-K, etc., of Trefousse Gloves, Inc. (New York).

Opinion by

Oliver, P. J.

It was stipulated that the gloves in question are similar in all material respects to those the subject of *United States*v. *Aris Gloves, Inc.*(31 C. C. P. A. 169, C. A. D. 268), which record was incorporated herein. In accordance therewith certain of the merchandise in question was held dutiable at $5 per dozen pairs, plus $1 per dozen pairs, under paragraph 1532 (a), as modified by the Czechoslovakian Trade Agreement (T. D. 49458). Other items were held dutiable at $5.50 per dozen pairs under paragraph 1532 (a). The protests were sustained to this extent.
#### Sylvan Lawrence Company, Inc., Appellant-Respondent, v Mutual of America Life Insurance Company, Inc., Respondent-Appellant.

[633 NYS2d 786]

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Beatrice Shainswit, J.), entered October 7, 1994, which granted defendant’s motion to the extent it sought summary judgment dismissing the complaint but denied that part seeking costs and attorneys’ fees, unanimously affirmed, with costs to defendant.

There was no agreement pursuant to which defendant would be obligated to pay plaintiff a commission for assisting it in relocating its headquarters. Plaintiff had merely introduced defendant to the subject building in 1989 in an attempt to negotiate a lease, but the deal did not materialize. Plaintiff took no part in the ultimate negotiations or procurement of the sale of the property in 1991-1992. Therefore, the IAS Court properly dismissed the cause of action for breach of contract *(see, Gabrielli v Cornazzani,*135 AD2d 340).

The court also properly dismissed the fraud cause of action as there was neither a contractual nor fiduciary relationship between the parties. Defendant had no duty to inform plaintiff of its subsequent decision to purchase the building *(see, Yerushalmi v Monroe,*185 AD2d 841, 842). Plaintiffs naked allegations of defendant’s "bad faith” lack any evidentiary support and are insufficient to raise a triable issue of fact.

Denial of defendant’s request for costs and attorneys’ fees pursuant to 22 NYCRR 130-1.1 (c) (1) and (2) was not an improvident exercise of discretion. Concur—Murphy, P. J., Sullivan, Wallach, Ross and Williams, JJ.
Exhibit 10.4

                                 LOAN AGREEMENT

This loan agreement is made and will be effective on 1st of January 2015

BETWEEN:

NIMTECH CORP., str.100, Emirhan, 10/2, bld. A
Sanliurfa, Turkey
(As "CORPORATION")

                                OF THE FIRST PART

AND:

BADRIA ALHUSSIN str.100, Emirhan, 10/2, bld. A
Sanliurfa, Turkey
(As "PRESIDENT")

                           OF THE SECOND PART WHEREAS:

     *    Corporation requires funding in connection with business operations;

     *    "PRESIDENT" has agreed to loan $30,000 (the "Loan") to Corporation, on
          certain terms and conditions contained herein;

Although this agreement may be signed below by more than one person, each of the
undersigned understands that they are each as individuals responsible and
jointly and severally liable for paying back the full amount.

NOW THEREFORE THIS AGREEMENT WITNESSETH that for and in consideration of the sum
FIFTEEN DOLLARS ($15.00), and other goods and valuable consideration, the
receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, the parties hereto
agree as follows:

     a.   "PRESIDENT" hereby agrees to loan $30,000 (the "Loan") to Corporation
          concurrent with the execution of the Agreement;

     b.   Loan funds advanced shell be non-interest bearing, secured and payable
          upon demand;

     c.   Any additional funds that "PRESIDENT" loans to Corporation subsequent
          to this Agreement shell be subject to the same terms as this
          Agreement, unless otherwise agreed in writing.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF the parties hereto have hereunto affixed their respective
hands, both as of the day and year first above written.


As "PRESIDENT" BADRIA ALHUSSIN          AND        As "CORPORATION" NIMTECH CORP
No. 53565.

protest 144620-K (Portland, Me.).

#### L. E. MacNair Chemical Co. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Lawrence, J.

From an examination of the papers the court-found nothing therein tending in any way to overcome the presumption of correctness which attaches to the decision of the collector. The protest was therefore overruled.
**EXHIBIT      32.1**

| (1)   | the                quarterly Report on Form 10-Q/A of Debut Broadcasting Corporation                Inc. for                the quarter ended September 30, 2007 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 on Form 10-Q/A for                the                quarter ended September 30, 2007, fairly presents in all material                respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Debut                Broadcasting Corporation Inc. |
|-----------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | By:    | /s/                Steven Ludwig           |
|--------|--------|--------------------------------------------|
|   | Name:  | Steven                Ludwig               |
|   | Title: | Principal                Executive Officer |
|   | Date:  | November                13, 2008           |
|   |   |                                       |
|   | By:    | /s/                Sariah Hopkins          |
|   | Name:  | Sariah                Hopkins              |
|   | Title: | Principal                Financial Officer |
|   | Date:  | November                13, 2008           |

----
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Christopher Reid, Appellant.

[633 NYS2d 309]

—Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Irene Duffy, J.), rendered February 3, 1994, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, and sentencing him to a term of *21⁄3*to 7 years, unanimously affirmed.

Viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the People, a rational trier of fact could conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that the circumstantial evidence established that defendant possessed a loaded weapon *(see, People v Cabey,*85 NY2d 417, 421). Defendant’s statement that he owned a gun but did not have it on him was properly received as partial or indirect admission of guilt of the crime with which he was charged *(see,*Richardson, Evidence § 209, at 187 [Prince 10th ed]). We perceive no abuse of discretion in sentencing. Concur—Ellerin, J. P., Wallach, Ross, Nardelli and Tom, JJ.
**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 Cano Petroleum, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended December 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, S. Jeffrey Johnson, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

(1)          The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities and 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.

 

A signed original of this written statementrequired by Section 906 has been provided to Cano Petroleum, Inc. and willbe retained by Cano Petroleum, Inc. and furnished to the Securities andExchange Commission or its staff upon request.

 
| February 16, 2005 | /s/ S. Jeffrey Johnson  |   |
|------------------------|-------------------------|--------|
|                   | S. Jeffrey Johnson      |
|                   | Chief Executive Officer |
**EXHIBIT 6****COMMENTS BY AUDITORS ON CANADA-UNITED STATES OF AMERICA REPORTING DIFFERENCE**In the United States, reporting standards for auditors require the addition of an explanatoryparagraph (following the opinion paragraph) when there are changes in accounting principles thathave a material effect on the comparability of the financial statements of Sun Life Financial Inc.,such as the changes described in Note 2 to the financial statements. Our report to the shareholdersdated February 13, 2006 is expressed in accordance with Canadian reporting standards, which do notrequire a reference to such a change in accounting principles in the auditors’ report when thechange is properly accounted for and adequately disclosed in the financial statements./s/ “Deloitte & Touche LLP”CharteredAccountants
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

Inconnection with the Quarterly Report of East Coast Diversified Corporation (the“Company”) on Form 10-QSB for the period ending July 31, 2004 (the“Report”), as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the datehereof, I, Frank Rovito, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,that:

1. TheReport fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

2. Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

/s/ Frank Rovito

Frank RovitoChief Financial OfficerDated: May 3, 2005

A signed original of this writtenstatement required by Section 906 has been provided to East Coast Diversified Corporationand will be retained by East Coast Diversified Corporation and furnished to the Securitiesand Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
EXHIBIT 10.2
                              PROMISSORY NOTE


$1,381.00                                             Santa Ana, California
                                                          December 12, 2001

     THE UNDERSIGNED promises to pay to the order of Mezzanine Associates,
LLC at 1516 Brookhollow Drive, Suite D, Santa Ana, CA 92705, or at such other
place as the holder hereof may designate in writing, the sum of one thousand
three hundred eighty-one dollars ($1,381.00), with interest thereon at the
rate of 10% per annum from the date of the original promissory note, December
12, 2000.  Principal and interest shall be due and payable upon demand.  This
note shall replace the promissory note for these funds dated December 12,
2000, originally due on December 12, 2001.

     Prepayment of this note may be made at any time without penalty.

     In the event of commencement of suit to enforce payment of this note,
the undersigned agrees to pay such additional sum as attorney's fees as the
court may adjudge reasonable.

                                     Mezzanine Investment Corporation

                                     By: /s/ Eric Chess Bronk
                                         Eric Chess Bronk, President
EXHIBIT 31.B
**CERTIFICATION**
I, Gene T. Waguespack, certify that:
1. I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of El Paso Production Holding Company;
2. Based on my knowledge, this Report does not contain any untrue statement of a materialfact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to theperiod covered by this Report;
3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information includedin this Report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisReport;
4. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining 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 disclosurecontrols and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure thatmaterial information relating to the registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this Report is being prepared;
(b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this Report our conclusions about the effectiveness ofthe disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by thisReport based on such evaluation; and
(c) Disclosed in this Report any change in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial 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 hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting; and
5. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our mostrecent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditorsand the audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing theequivalent functions):
(a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operationof internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely toadversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and reportfinancial information; and
(b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employeeswho have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting.
Date: November 7, 2005          /s/ Gene T. Waguespack    Gene T. Waguespack    Senior Vice President, Chief FinancialOfficer,Treasurer and Controller
Order entered April 30, 2020

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-19-01350-CV

MIRAMAR FAIRMOUNT PARTNERS, LLC AND 

CALABAZA HOLDINGS, LLC, Appellants

V.

2902 MAPLE, LP, ANDERS P. TING, AND COMERICA BANK, Appellees

On Appeal from the 95th District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. DC-16-10049

ORDER

Before the Court is the April 27, 2020 motion of Calabaza Holdings, LLC

for an extension of time to file its combined reply and cross-appellee’s brief. We 

GRANT the motion and extend the time to June 8, 2020.

Also before the Court is the April 27, 2020 motion of Miramar Fairmount 

Partners, LLC for an extension of time to file its combined reply and cross-
appellee’s brief. We GRANT the motion and extend the time to June 15, 2020.

/s/ ROBERT D. BURNS, III

CHIEF JUSTICE
April 19, 1946

No. 51034.

Suit 4503.

#### Advertising *Corp. of America*v. *United States.*

Abstract 49800 affirmed March 4, 1946. C. A. D. 327.