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

****
This script file displays the date and timeYour browser does not support script. Please use the navigation text menu at the bottom of the page.
   **The U.S. National Arboretum is pleased to present 'Brandywine',a red maple with long lasting, eye-catching fall color.** Autumn colorationbegins in mid-fall and lasts up to 14 days or more, gradually turning fromred to a brilliant red-purple. A male selection, 'Brandywine' can be usedin the landscape without fear of generating undesirable weedy seedlings.'Brandywine' is oval in shape and exhibits significant toleranceto leafhopper, one of the major pests of landscape red maples.      **'Brandywine'**Red Maple **Botanical Name:***Acer rubrum* L. 'Brandywine' (NA 59907; PI 583792)**Family:**Aceraceae**Hardiness:**U.S.D.A. Zones 4 - 8**Development:**'Brandywine' resulted from a 1982 cross of *Acer rubrum* 'OctoberGlory' and *A. rubrum* 'Autumn Flame' by A.M. Townsend as part ofa research project examining the inheritance of fall color and leafhopperresistance, and an effort to improve existing cultivars of red maple. ReleasedDecember, 1994.**Significance:**'Brandywine' has a brilliant red-purple autumn color. It produces onlymale flowers; thus, no fruit or nuisance seedlings. It has a significantlevel of tolerance to potato leafhopper, better than or comparable to manycommercially available red maple cultivars. **Description:****Height and Width:** 25 feet tallwith a 12 foot crown spread in 12 years. **Habit:** Medium-sized deciduous treewith an oval crown. **Foliage:** Medium green leaves average4.5 inches long and 4.4 inches wide. Bright, enduring fall color beginsred and gradually turns brilliant purple red over a long period, often14 days or more. Fall color peaks between 'Autumn Flame' and 'October Glory'in Maryland (Zone 7). **Bark:** Light grey and smooth whenyoung, turning dark grey with age. **Flowers:** Male, in early spring **Fruit:** No fruit produced.**Culture:**Adaptable to a wide range of soil conditions. Prefers slightly acid,moist soils. Performed well in diverse locations from Alabama and Georgiato Michigan and Oregon.**Propagation:**Roots easily from softwood cuttings under mist, 1000-3000 ppm IBA,in 4 weeks. Has been successfully propagated in tissue culture.**Landscape Use:**Excellent for lawn, street, highway or park plantings, and as a shadetree for residential sites.**Distribution:**Distributed to wholesale commercial propagation nurseries beginningin 1995. 
 
**U.S. National Arboretum Plant Introduction** Floral and Nursery Plants Research Unit U.S. National Arboretum, U.S. Department of Agriculture,Agricultural Research Service, 3501 New York Ave., N.E., Washington, DC20002
Back to the Arboretum Home PageArboretum Information || Events & Education || Gardens & Horticulture || Research ActivitiesSupport the Arboretum ||New Plant Introductions || USDA Plant Hardiness Zone Map || CommentsSearch Our Site
*Last Updated   April 8, 2004 4:56 PM*URL = ../Newintro/brandyw1.htmlnarjPlease address any comments or questions regarding any portion of this web page by e-mail to the FNPRU site administrator
Prepared by MERRILL CORPORATION www.edgaradvantage.com




QuickLinks
 -- Click here to rapidly navigate through this document

EXHIBIT 10.72  


  
 

    AGREEMENT EXTENSION    
  


    This Agreement Extension is made effective as of December 1, 2000, by and between Adobe Systems Benelux B.V. ("Adobe") and Sykes Europe Limited
("Sykes"). 


    Whereas,
Adobe and Sykes are parties to an Agreement made effective as of December 4, 1999 and executed on behalf of Adobe by Hal Covert and on behalf of Sykes by
Scott J. Bendert (the "Agreement"); and 


    Whereas,
the Agreement, by its terms, expired at 12:00 midnight GMT on December 1, 2000; and 



    Whereas,
Adobe and Sykes wish to extend the term of the Agreement and make certain amendments to the Agreement; 


    Therefore,
the parties agree as follows: 



	1.
	The
Contract Term (as defined in Clause 1.1 of the Agreement) shall be extended to 12:00 midnight GMT on December 1, 2001.



	2.
	The
rights and obligations of the parties for the period between December 1, 2000 and the date of execution hereof shall be governed by the terms and conditions of the
Agreement as if the Agreement had not expired.



	3.
	Clause 14.7
("Survival of Terms") of the Agreement shall be removed in its entirety and replaced as follows: 





Termination
or expiry of this Agreement shall not affect the rights and obligations of the parties in terms of Clauses 1, 2.8, 5.2, 5.3, 5.4, 5.5 (for a period of two years after termination or
expiration), 5.6,
5.9, 7, 9, 10.1(g), 11, 13, 14.6, 14.7, 14.8, 14.10, 15.2, 16, 18, 19, 20, 21 and 22 of this Agreement which shall continue notwithstanding termination or expiry. 



	4.
	A
new Clause 22 shall be added as follows:



	22.
	LIMITATION OF LIABILITY








EXCEPT
WITH RESPECT TO A CLAIM FOR INDEMNIFICATION HEREUNDER RELATING TO A THIRD PARTY CLAIM, IN NO EVENT WILL SYKES OR ADOBE BE LIABLE WITH RESPECT TO THE SUBJECT MATTER OF THIS AGREEMENT OR UNDER
CONTRACT, NEGLIGENCE, STRICT LIABILITY OR ANY OTHER LEGAL OR EQUITABLE THEORY FOR ANY INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, PUNITIVE, SPECIAL OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES, EVEN IF THE OTHER PARTY HAS BEEN ADVISED OF THE
POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES. 



	5.
	All
other terms of the Agreement shall not be affected by this Agreement Extension. 











    The
parties have caused this Agreement Extension to be executed by their duly authorized representatives. 



	FOR ADOBE SYSTEMS INCORPORATED	 	FOR SYKES EUROPE LIMITED
	

/s/ BRUCE R. CHIZEN   
 Signature	
 	

/s/ W. MICHAEL KIPPHUT   
 Signature
	

Bruce R. Chizen
 Printed Name	
 	

W. Michael Kipphut
 Printed Name
	

President & CEO
 Title	
 	

Vice President & CFO
 Title
	

March 6, 2001
 Date	
 	

February 28, 2001
 Date











QuickLinks


AGREEMENT EXTENSION
#### William H. Robinson, *Respondent, v.*The National Bank of Newberne, *Appellant.*

— Judgment affirmed. Opinion by Smith, P. *J.;*Hardin, J., not sitting.
#### JOHN B. KERR, as Receiver of THE HUDSON RIVER BRICKMAKERS’ ASSOCIATION, v. CHARLES KREUDER.

*Execution*— *application for leave to issue it, after the death of the judgment*debtor— *Oode of Gioil Procedure, secs.*1380, 1381.

Where, after the expiration of one year from the time of the death of a judgment debtor-, leave to issue an execution upon the judgment is applied for, the permission of the Surrogate’s Court need 'not precede the application to the Supreme Court.

Jio notice need be given of the proposed presentation of the petition to the Surrogate’s Court for leave to issue the execution. Upon the presentation of the petition, however, the surrogate must issue citations to all persons interested, unless they appear voluntarily, iu which case they will be bound by the decree, though no citations be issued.

Appeal from an order made at a Special Term, denying a motion made by the assignees of the judgment recovered in this action for leave to issue an execution thereon.

*William McOauley, Jr.,*for John *~W.*Gillies and Brewster J. Allison, appellants.

*Seth B. Cole,*for the respondent.

BaRNAkd, P. J.:

On the 9th day of February, 1878, the plaintiff as receiver of the Hudson River Brick Making Association, recovered a judgment in' this court for $1,729.58, against one Charles Kreuder. Kreuder died on the fifteenth of the same month. The judgment is wholly unpaid, and there is no personal property out of which the payment *453of tbe judgment can be made. The plaintiff assigned the judgment to John *W.*Gillies and B. J. Allison, who are the present owners of the judgment which is wholly unpaid. These assignees ask leave to issue an execution upon the judgment. The case is provided for by section 1380 of the Code. After one year an execution may be issued upon the judgment “ with like effect as if the judgment-debtor was still living; ” leave is required to be obtained from the Surrogate’s Court, and from the court out of which the execution is to be issued. Leave has been obtained from the Surrogate’s Court. No notice of the presentation of the petition for leave was required in that court. The parties, however, who were interested appeared upon the presentation of the petition and made their objection. Otherwise, they must have been cited under section 1381 of the Code. Having appeared without citation they are bound by the decree. If the surrogate’s leave has not been obtained, it is no defense to this application. Such leave may be granted at any time. There is no requirement that the leave of the surrogate must precede the application to this court. It seems that the deceased defendant left real estate. The decedent’s widow claims the land to be her own, but that fact cannot be tried upon affidavits. The petitioners have the right to test, her title, and to that end they should have their execution.

The order denying leave should be reversed, with costs and disbursements, and leave granted.

Gilbeet and Dyeman, JJ., concurred.

Order denying leave to issue execution reversed, with costs and disbursements, and leave granted.
Exhibit 31.1
 Certification of Chief Executive Officer Pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
  1.
    
    I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Campus Crest Communities, Inc.;
 2.
    
    Based on my knowledge, this 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 report;
 3.
    
    Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in
this 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
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)) [language omitted in accordance with SEC Release No. 34-54942] 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 subsidiaries, is
made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in
which this report is being prepared;(b)
    
    [Language omitted in accordance with SEC Release No. 34-54942];(c)
    
    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(d)
    
    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
(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(s) 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.
  /s/    Ted W. RollinsTed W. RollinsCo-Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
Case No. 13,243.

#### The SPLENDID v. The GLOBE.

[The case reported under above title in 35 Hunt, Mer. Mag. 447, is the same as Case No. 5,485.]
|                                       |
|---------------------------------------|
|                                       |  |  |  |  |
| Name                                  |   |   | Domicile |   |
| BDCA Funding I, LLC                   |   |   | Delaware |   |
| 54th Street Equity Holding, Inc. |   |   | Delaware |   |
| Park Ave RE, Inc.                     |   |   | Delaware |   |
| Kahala Aviation Holdings, LLC         |   |   | Delaware |   |
| Kahala Aviation US, Inc.              |   |   | Delaware |   |
| Kahala LuxCo                          |   |   | Luxembourg |   |
| BDCA-CB Funding, LLC                  |   |   | Delaware |   |
| BDCA Helvetica Funding, Ltd.          |   |   | Cayman Islands |   |
| BDCA 2L Funding I, LLC                |   |   | Delaware |   |
No. 49760.

#### Protests 26005-K, etc., of Chr. Bjelland & Co., Inc., et al. (New York).

Opinion by

Cole, J.

An examination of the official records disclosed nothing to warrant disturbing the decision of the collector which was held presumptively correct. The protests were therefore overruled.
#### Harriet M. West, *Respondent, v.*John H. Kiersted, *Appellant.*

— ■ Motion for reargument to go to Court of Appeals denied.
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED DECEMBER 3, 2014

NO. 03-14-00532-CV

Pat Schumacher, Appellant

v.

The Bank of New York Mellon f/k/a The Bank of New York as Trustee for the Certificate 

Holders of the CWMBS Inc. Alternative Loan Trust 2003-8CB,

Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates Series 2003-19, Appellee

APPEAL FROM COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 2 OF TRAVIS COUNTY

BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE JONES, JUSTICES ROSE AND GOODWIN

DISMISSED ON APPELLANT’S MOTION -- OPINION BY JUSTICE ROSE

This is an appeal from the judgment signed by the trial court on March 19, 2014. Appellant has

filed a motion to dismiss the appeal, and having considered the motion, the Court agrees that the 

motion should be granted. Therefore, the Court grants the motion and dismisses the appeal. The 

appellant shall pay all costs relating to this appeal, both in this Court and the court below.
**CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER**

**AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER**

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

 

In connection with this Quarterly Report of Travel Hunt Holdings, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-QSB for the period ending October 31, 2005, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Nancy Reynolds, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certifies to the best of his knowledge, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Sec. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

1.      Such Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the period ending October 31, 2005, 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 such Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the period ending October 31, 2005, fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Travel Hunt Holdings, Inc.

 
| Dated: December 13, 2005 |
|--------------------------|

 

**TRAVEL HUNT HOLDINGS, INC.**

 
| By: | */s/ Nancy Reynolds* |
|-----|----------------------|

Nancy Reynolds

Chief Executive Officer and

Chief Financial Office
#### MARGARET H. DIXON, RESPONDENT, v. CLAYTON L. ANDREWS, APPELLANT,

Submitted July 8, 1918

Decided October 11, 1918.

On appeal from the Supreme Court, whose opinion is reported in 91 *N. J. L.*373.

For the respondent, *Samuel K. Robbins.*

For the appellant, *Kaighn & Wolverton.*

*513Per CURIAM.

The judgment under review herein should be affirmed, for the reasons expressed in the opinion delivered by Mr. Justice Garrison in the Supreme Court.

*For affirmance*— The Chancellor, Chief Justice, Swayze, Trenchard, Minturn, Kalisch, White, Heppenheimer, Williams, Taylor, Gardner, JJ. 11.

*For reversal*— None.
#### LESLIE BOWERS, PLAINTIFF-PETITIONER, v. CAMDEN FIRE INSURANCE ASSOCIATION, DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT.

See same case below: 93 *N. J. Super.*302.

*Mr. Milton L. Silver*for the petitioner.

*Messrs. Orlando & Cummins*and *Mr. George E. Eohweiler*for the respondent.

March 14, 1967.

Granted.
No. 49279.

#### Protests 406-K, etc., of Ritter Carlton Co. (New York).

Opiniofi by

Lawrence, J.

The record disclosed that these multigrip wrenches are similar in all material respects to those involved in *United States*v. *Ritter Carlton Co.*(30 C. C. P. A. 208, C. A. D. 234), which record was incorporated herein. The uncontradicted evidence fully supported the claim. The protests were sustained to this extent.
(V. D. 19)

#### Manhattan Novelty Corp. *v.*United States

Entry Nos. 44519; 61408.

(Decided October 14, 1955)

*Lane, Young & Fox (William H-. Fox*of counsel) for the plaintiff.

*Warren E. Burger,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Wilson, Judge:

This matter is presently before me on a remand from a classification proceeding decided by the first division of this court in *Manhattan Novelty Corp.*v. *United States,*34 Cust Ct. 261, Abstract 68688. The judgment entered therein stated: “* * * that the matter be remanded to a single judge in reappraisement pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U. S. C. § 2636' (d).”

The matter has been submitted for decision upon an agreed statement of facts entered into by and between counsel for the respective parties hereto.

Upon the agreed facts, I find the export value, as that value is defined in section 402 (d) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U. S. C. § 1402 (d)), to be the proper basis for determining the values of the involved merchandise and that such values are as set forth in schedule “A,” hereto attached and made a part hereof. ■

I further find such values to be the dutiable values of said merchandise.

Judgment will be entered accordingly.

> Schedule “A”

>
**EXHIBIT 13.1**

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350**

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906 OF THE U.S. SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

In connection with the annual report of Mirae Corporation (the “Company”) on Form 20-F for the year ending December 31, 2006, as filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof(the “Report”), I, Soon Do Kwon, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to Section 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 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 U.S. Securities Exchange Act of1934; and 

(2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial conditionand results of operations of the Company. 

Date: July 16, 2007 

 

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been providedto Mirae Corporation, and will be retained by Mirae Corporation and furnished to the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request. 

This certification will not be deemed “filed” for purposes of Section 18 of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934, or otherwise subject to the liability of that section. This certification will notbe deemed to be incorporated by reference into any filing under the U.S. Securities Act of 1933 or the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 even if the document with which it is submitted to the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission is soincorporated by reference.
Before the Third Division,

January 9, 1940

No. 42979.

#### Protest 980275-G of Bloomingdale Bros. (New York).

Opinion by

Evans, J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise consists of football cheese wafers, Bronx Bix, tomato sticks, salad sticks, cheddar sandwich, and cheese sticks the same as those passed upon in *Wile*v. *United States*(T. D. 49514) and *Renken & Yates Smith Corp.*v. *United States*(1 Cust. Ct. 309, C. D. 73). The claim at 20 percent under paragraph 1658 was therefore sustained.
No. 54145.

#### Armour & Company *v.*United States,

protest 153984-K (New York).

Opinion by

Cole, J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise in question is the same in all material respects as the substance passed upon in *G. D. Searle & Co.*v. *United States*(21 Cust. Ct. 112, C. D. 1138). The claim for free entry under paragraph 1669 was therefore sustained.
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 8448 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 8448

 To establish a pilot program to establish a pre-approval process for 
 direct farm ownership loans made under subtitle A of the Consolidated 
 Farm and Rural Development Act in order to streamline the application 
          process and provide greater certainty to borrowers.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 17, 2024

 Mr. Bacon (for himself and Mr. Nunn of Iowa) introduced the following 
        bill; which was referred to the Committee on Agriculture

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To establish a pilot program to establish a pre-approval process for 
 direct farm ownership loans made under subtitle A of the Consolidated 
 Farm and Rural Development Act in order to streamline the application 
          process and provide greater certainty to borrowers.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Support for Ownership and Investment 
in Land Act'' or the ``SOIL Act''.

SEC. 2. FARMER LOAN PILOT PROJECTS.

    Subtitle D of the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act is 
amended by inserting after section 333D (7 U.S.C. 1983d) the following:

``SEC. 333E. PRIOR APPROVAL AUTHORIZATION PILOT PROGRAM.

    ``(a) In General.--The Secretary, acting through the Administrator 
of the Farm Service Agency, shall carry out a pilot program to 
establish a pre-approval process for direct farm ownership loans made 
under subtitle A in order to streamline the application process and 
provide greater certainty to borrowers.
    ``(b) Eligibility Requirements.--
            ``(1) In general.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
        this Act, the Secretary may establish eligibility requirements 
        for direct farm ownership loans under subtitle A.
            ``(2) Limitation.--This section shall not be interpreted to 
        repeal any borrowing requirement imposed under subtitle A.
    ``(c) Report.--Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of 
this section, and annually thereafter, the Secretary shall submit to 
the Committee on Agriculture of the House of Representatives and the 
Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry of the Senate a 
report examining the actions undertaken under, and the results of, the 
pilot program.
    ``(d) Termination of Effectiveness.--The authority provided by this 
section shall terminate effective September 30, 2029.''.
                                 <all>
```