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


$1,200.00                                                      May 28, 2004
                                                          Newport Beach, CA


     On Demand FOR VALUE RECEIVED the undersigned promises to pay in
lawful money of the United States of America to the order of Cygni
Capital, LLC, nominee or assignee, the sum of ONE THOUSAND TWO HUNDRED
DOLLARS ($1,200.00), with interest from May 28, 2004 until paid at
the rate of ten percent (10%) per annum.

     Should interest not be paid, it shall thereafter bear interest as
the principal, but such unpaid interest so compounded shall not exceed
an amount equal to simple interest on the principal at the maximum
rate permitted by law.  The undersigned hereby waives presentment of
payment, protest, notice of protest, notice of nonpayment, and
diligence in bringing suit, and further agrees, in case suit is
instituted, to collect this Promissory Note or any portion thereof, to
pay such additional sum for attorneys' fees as the Court may adjudge
reasonable in such suit.


                                   MEZZANINE INVESTMENT CORPORATION

                                   By:  /s/ Eric Chess Bronk
                                        Eric Chess Bronk, President
No. 51023.

#### Protest 50477-K of Providence Import Co., Inc. (New York).

*259Opinion by

Kincheloe, J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise is the same in all material respects as that passed upon in *Stephen Rug Mills*v. *United Stales*(32 C. C. P. A. 110, C. A. D. 293), and by the court’s decision on remand in Abstract 50056. In accordance therewith the protest was sustained as claimed.
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 97-50859

Summary Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

GEORGE ASEBEDO MAINEZ,

Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. SA-93-CR-230-3

- - - - - - - - - -

September 30, 1998

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, JONES, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

George Asebedo Mainez, Texas prisoner #636958, appeals from

the denial of his motion for reconsideration of his motion to

correct judgment and sentence. Mainez has not shown that the

district court abused its discretion. See Edward H. Bohlin Co.,

Inc. v. Banning Co., Inc., 6 F.3d 350, 353 (5th Cir. 1993). 

AFFIRMED.
Before the Second Division,

June 10, 1959

No. 63147.

#### Covert Manufacturing Company *v.*United States,

protest 58/7191 (New York).

Opinion by

Lawrence, J.

An examination of the protest disclosing that it was untimely filed under section 514, Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. § 1514), the motion to dismiss was granted.
EXHIBIT 10.1
                       EXTENSION OF PROMISSORY NOTE


$4,617.00                                             Santa Ana, California
                                                         September 29, 2001

     THE UNDERSIGNED promises to pay to the order of Mezzanine Capital Ltd.
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 four thousand
six hundred seventeen dollars ($4,617.00), with interest thereon at the rate
of 10% per annum from the date of the original promissory note, September 29,
1999.  Principal and interest shall be due and payable one year from the date
hereof.  This note shall replace the promissory note for these funds
originally due on September 29, 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







Certification





I, Joseph J. Alves, Chairman of the Board, Chief Executive Officer, Acting Chief Financial Officer and President, of BankEngine Technologies, Inc., certify that:



1.

I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-KSB of BankEngine Technologies, Inc.;



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.

I am 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 my supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to me by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this annual report is being prepared;



b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report my 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;



c) Disclosed in this annual report any change in the registrant's internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's fourth fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant's internal control over financial reporting; and



5.

I have disclosed, based on my 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:  December 16, 2003

By:

/s/ Joseph J. Alves

Joseph J. Alves

Chairman of the Board, Chief Executive Officer, Acting Chief Financial Officer and President
Case No. 6,768.

#### HOWE v. McDERMOTT.

[4 Cranch, C. C. 711.] 1

Circuit Court, District of Columbia.

March Term, 1836.

Practice — New Trials — Costs—Judgment.

' When a new trial is granted on payment of costs, although the general rule is that if the costs are not paid by the second day of the term next after granting the new trial, the judgment shall be entered upon the verdict; yet, under particular circumstances the court will, at that term, set aside the judgment and permit the cause to be tried.

Trover [by Howe, executor of Frail, against John McDermott], for a slave. There was a verdict for the plaintiff at the last term. The court at that term, upon affidavits granted a new trial upon the condition of payment of costs. Upon the first calling of the trial-docket of this term, the defendant, who lived in Maryland, had not paid the costs, and the court postponed the cause to the second calling of the docket, when (namely, 20th May. 1836,) the costs not having been paid, THE COURT, on motion of the plaintiff’s counsel ordered the judgment to be entered upon the verdict, although Messrs. Key & Dunlop said they expected their client every moment. Afterwards, namely, on-the 18th of June, 1836, the defendant appeared with his witnesses to try the cause, and offered to pay the costs, but the plaintiff issued his ^execution and arrested him.

Messrs. Key & Dunlop moved the court to •set aside the judgment, and quash the execution; which THE COURT (MORSELL, Circuit Judge, contra,) did, upon the condition that the defendant should pay all the costs up to this day, including the costs upon the execution, and an immediate trial or continuance at the plaintiff’s option.

MORSELL, Circuit Judge,

said that be considered the rule to be that if the costs were not paid by the second day of the term next after the granting of the new trial the judgment should be absolute, and he thought the rule should be rigidly enforced. The parties then agreed to try the cause on the 28th of June, on which day, the costs not having been paid, the judgment was entered up absolutely.
Exhibit
      31.2




CERTIFICATION
      OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER




I,
      John
      Chen, certify that:




1.  I
      have
      reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q/A of General Steel Holdings, Inc.;




2.  Based
      on
      my knowledge, this quarterly 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 quarterly report;




3.  Based
      on
      my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included
      in this quarterly 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 quarterly report;




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




(a)  Designed
      such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that material information
      relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made
      known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period
      in
      which this quarterly report is being prepared;




(b)  Evaluated
      the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and
      presented in this quarterly 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;




(c)  Disclosed
      in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financial
      reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter 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, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of
      registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function):





(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 controls.




Date:
                February 12, 2007/s/
                John ChenBy:
                John ChenTitle:
                Director and Chief Financial
                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

WILLIAM ROCHA,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-2274 FCD GGH P

vs.

CALIFORNIA DEPT. 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 request for the appointment of

counsel will therefore be denied.

/////

/////

Case 2:04-cv-02274-FCD-GGH Document 23 Filed 08/31/05 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

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s August 1, 2005 request

for the appointment of counsel is denied.

DATED: 8/30/05

/s/ Gregory G. Hollows

GREGORY G. HOLLOWS

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

GGH:bb

roch2274.31

Case 2:04-cv-02274-FCD-GGH Document 23 Filed 08/31/05 Page 2 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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RICHARD HODGES,

Petitioner, No. CIV S-04-2087 MCE KJM P

vs.

DAVID RUNNELS, Warden, 

Respondent. ORDER

 /

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding with counsel, has filed an application for a

writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner has paid the filing fee.

Because petitioner may be entitled to the requested relief if the claimed violation

of constitutional rights is proved, respondent will be directed to file a response to petitioner’s

application. 

In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Respondent is directed to file an answer within sixty days from the date of this

order. See Rule 4, Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. Respondent shall include with the

answer any and all transcripts or other documents relevant to the determination of the issues

presented in the application. Rule 5, Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases;

/////

Case 2:04-cv-02087-MCE -KJM Document 2 Filed 05/16/05 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

2. Petitioner’s traverse, if any, is due on or before thirty days from the date

respondents’ answer is filed; and

3. The Clerk of the Court shall serve a copy of this order together with a copy of

petitioner’s application for writ of habeas corpus on Jo Graves, Senior Assistant Attorney

General.

DATED: May 13, 2005.

______________________________________

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

1/kf

hodg2087.100f 

Case 2:04-cv-02087-MCE -KJM Document 2 Filed 05/16/05 Page 2 of 2
No. 62602.

#### Fieldston Trading Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

protest 328415-K (New York).

Opinion by

Mollison, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the items marked “A” consist of chairs similar in all material respects to those the subject of *Davies Turner & Co.*v. *United States*(45 C. C. P. A. 39, C. A. D. 669), the claim at 19 percent under the provision in paragraph 412, as modified, *supra,*for “Furniture, * * * Chairs,” was sustained. The items marked “B,” stipulated to consist of furniture the same as that in C. A. D. 669, *supra,*were held dutiable at 11)4 percent under the provision in said paragraph 412, as modified, *supra,*for other furniture.
# C_2007099EN.01001601.xml

| 3.5.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 99/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.5.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 99/16

---

Closure of mass complaint case 2002/5367

(2007/C 99/16)

On 21 March 2007, the Commission decided to close mass complaint case 2002/5367 concerning the planned extension of Frankfurt Airport in Germany, since there was no indication of a breach of Community law. For further information, see OJ C 222 of 15 September 2006, p. 9 and:

http://ec.europa.eu/community_law/complaints/multiple_complaints/doc/2002-5367_prop-to-close-the-case_de.pdf

---
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

MARCUS JOHNSON,

Petitioner :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 258 EAL 2022

Petition for Allowance of Appeal

from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 7th day of March, 2023

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

DENIED

.
# C_2006321EN.01003601.xml

| 29.12.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 321/36 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.12.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 321/36

---

Commission communication pursuant to Article 4(1)(a) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2408/92

Amendment of public service obligations imposed on certain scheduled air services in Spain

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2006/C 321/12)

Pursuant to Article 4(1)(a) of Regulation (EEC) No 2408/92 of 23 July 1992, the Spanish Government has decided to amend the public service obligations imposed on scheduled air services in the Canary Islands published in OJ C 255 of 21 October 2006.

The maximum single fare for each of the routes will be as follows:

| (a) | Gran Canaria — Tenerife North: 53 euros |
| --- | --- |

(a)

Gran Canaria — Tenerife North: 53 euros

| (b) | Gran Canaria — Tenerife South: 53 euros |
| --- | --- |

(b)

Gran Canaria — Tenerife South: 53 euros

| (c) | Gran Canaria — Fuerteventura: 61 euros |
| --- | --- |

(c)

Gran Canaria — Fuerteventura: 61 euros

| (d) | Gran Canaria — El Hierro: 89 euros |
| --- | --- |

(d)

Gran Canaria — El Hierro: 89 euros

| (e) | Gran Canaria — Lanzarote: 68 euros |
| --- | --- |

(e)

Gran Canaria — Lanzarote: 68 euros

| (f) | Gran Canaria — La Palma: 83 euros |
| --- | --- |

(f)

Gran Canaria — La Palma: 83 euros

| (g) | Tenerife North — Fuerteventura: 84 euros |
| --- | --- |

(g)

Tenerife North — Fuerteventura: 84 euros

| (h) | Tenerife North — El Hierro: 61 euros |
| --- | --- |

(h)

Tenerife North — El Hierro: 61 euros

| (i) | Tenerife North — Lanzarote: 89 euros |
| --- | --- |

(i)

Tenerife North — Lanzarote: 89 euros

| (j) | Tenerife North — La Palma: 56 euros |
| --- | --- |

(j)

Tenerife North — La Palma: 56 euros

| (k) | La Palma — Lanzarote: 89 euros |
| --- | --- |

(k)

La Palma — Lanzarote: 89 euros

| (l) | Gran Canaria — La Gomera: 83 euros |
| --- | --- |

(l)

Gran Canaria — La Gomera: 83 euros

| (m) | Tenerife North — La Gomera: 61 euros |
| --- | --- |

(m)

Tenerife North — La Gomera: 61 euros

The other requirements of the public service obligation published in OJ C 255 of 21 October 2006 remain unchanged.

---
No. 38871.

#### Protests 677528-G, etc., of L. H. Parke Co. (Philadelphia).

Opinion by

Evans, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel and on the authority of Abstract 37263 the laurel leaves in question were held free of duty under paragraph 1722 as claimed.
# C_2007181EN.01000101.xml

| 3.8.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 181/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.8.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 181/1

---

Authorisation for State aid pursuant to Articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty

Cases where the Commission raises no objections

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2007/C 181/01)

| Date of adoption of the decision | 2.7.2007 |
| --- | --- |
| Reference number of the aid | N 207/07 |
| Member State | Italy |
| Region | Friuli Venezia Giulia |
| Title (and/or name of the beneficiary) | Interventi per l'innovazione nei settori del commercio, del turismo, dei servizi e delle strutture industriali |
| Legal basis | Delibere n. 548-549/2007 «Interventi per l'innovazione nei settori del commercio, del turismo, dei servizi e delle strutture industriali» |
| Type of measure | Aid scheme |
| Objective | Research and development |
| Form of aid | Direct grant |
| Budget | Annual budget: EUR 75 million; Overall budget: EUR 575 million |
| Intensity | 80 % |
| Duration | 1.7.2007-31.12.2013 |
| Economic sectors | All sectors |
| Name and address of the granting authority | Direzione centrale attività produttive |
| via Trento, 2 |
| I-34132 Trieste |

Date of adoption of the decision

2.7.2007

Reference number of the aid

N 207/07

Member State

Italy

Region

Friuli Venezia Giulia

Title (and/or name of the beneficiary)

Interventi per l'innovazione nei settori del commercio, del turismo, dei servizi e delle strutture industriali

Legal basis

Delibere n. 548-549/2007 «Interventi per l'innovazione nei settori del commercio, del turismo, dei servizi e delle strutture industriali»

Type of measure

Aid scheme

Objective

Research and development

Form of aid

Direct grant

Budget

Annual budget: EUR 75 million; Overall budget: EUR 575 million

Intensity

80 %

Duration

1.7.2007-31.12.2013

Economic sectors

All sectors

Name and address of the granting authority

Direzione centrale attività produttive

via Trento, 2

I-34132 Trieste

Other information

—

The authentic text(s) of the decision, from which all confidential information has been removed, can be found at:

http://ec.europa.eu/community_law/state_aids/

---
EXHIBIT 32.1
                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


In connection with the Form 10-KSB of MEDIANET GROUP TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
(formerly Clamshell Enterprises, Inc.) (the "Company") on Form 10-KSB for the
period ending December 31, 2003, as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Martin Berns, Chief Executive
Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of
my knowledge and belief:

         (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/ Martin Berns
Martin Berns
Chief Executive Officer


March 29, 2004
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.2



    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 Annual Report of ANC Rental Corporation (the "Company")
on Form 10-K for the year ending December 31, 2002, as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Douglas C. Laux,
Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.C. ss.1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 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 (except for the inclusion of
         audited financial statements (as opposed to unaudited) as of and for
         each of the two years ended December 31, 2001 as required by Regulation
         S-X); and

    2)   The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
         material respects, the financial condition and results of operation of
         the Company.

                                               /s/ DOUGLAS C. LAUX
                                               ---------------------------------
                                               Douglas C. Laux
                                               Chief Financial Officer
                                               May 21, 2003