alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 10.4

Translated From Japanese

                           Monetary Loan Certification

Mizuho Bank KK                                                          2007/7/4

I (hereinafter referred to as A) agree to undertake borrowing based on Borrowing
Conditions from Mizuho Bank KK, according to the rules and approving each
article in Bank Dealings Contract.

Borrower:

Address: Nishi Shinjuku Showa Bldg 11F, 1-13-12 Nishi Shinjuku, Shinjuku-ku,
         Tokyo 160-0023 Tel: 03-5909-1561   Fax: 03-5909-1562

Name:    IA Partners KK
         Hideki Anan

Borrower approves that standard interest will be used prime rate and spread
below will be used. Also borrower approves to enter into a special contract
regarding double interest apply.

Also in case the payment method is chosen to amortize principal and interest
evenly, when the interest rate is changed, the amount of a payment will be
changed.

Standard Interest: Short Prime rate
Spread: 0.125 % annually

                                      - 1 -
SERVE D MA Y12 , 201 1 • • ' y 

### ^MEN TO F ,.,' 1 U i 1 \ i \ i I k' i 1 2 P 2

- 2M

U.S . DEPARTMEN T O FTRANSPORTATIO N

OFFIC EO FHEARING S WASHINGTON , D C INTH EMATTE RO F E D STAU B & SON S PETROLEUM , INC . FA A DOCKE T No . [T O B EASSIGNED ]

(Civi l Penalt y Action ) DM S No . FAA-2011-006 7 ORDE R GRANTIN G MOTIO N FO R EXTENSIO N O F TIM E Responden t E d Stau b & Son s Petroleum , Inc . (hereinafte r"Respondent" ) ha s requeste d tha t th e discover ydeadlin e se t b yth e Procedura l Orde ro fJun e 1 , 201 1 b e extende d t o a dat e afte rSeptembe r1 , 201 1 an d tha t th e dat e fo rhearin g b e appropriatel yextended . I n support , i t state s tha t counse l wa s recentl yretaine d an d tha t mor e tim e i s neede d t o propoun d an d complet e discovery . Fo rgoo d caus e shown , Respondent' s Motio n i s hereb yGRANTED
. Th e deadlin e fo rcompletio n o f discover yi s hereb yextende d t o Septembe r16 , 2011 , Th e hearin g wil l b e schedule d b ysubsequen t orde rfo ra dat e som e tim e afte rthat . S O ORDERED
.

Richar dC . Goodwi n Administrativ e La w Judg e Attachmen t

- Servic e Lis tFDM S No . FAA-2011-006 7 (Civi l Penalt y Action ) SERIitpELIS T ORIGINA L& ON ECOP Y Federal Aviatio nAdministratio n 80 0 Independenc e Avenue , S.W . Washington , D C 2059 1 Attention : Hearin g Docke t Clerk , AOC-43 0 Wilbu r Wrigh t Building—Suit e 2W1000 ' ONi ? CPP Y RnstyRinohaxt , Respondent' s Counse l Rinehart La w Office s Attorney s an dCounselor s at La w 210 5 S . Basco mAvenue , Suit e 34 0 Campbell , C A 9500 8 TEL : 408-871-269 6 FAX : 408-871-275 7 Geral dA . Ellis , Complainant' s Counse l , Attorney , Offic e o f

th e Regiona l Counse l Souther nRegion , ASO- 7 Federal Aviatio nAdministratio n P.O . Bo x 2063 6 Atlanta , GA 3032 0 r TEL : 404-305-520 0 FAX : 404-305-522 3 Th e Honorabl e Richar dC . Goodmn , Acbuihisff^jv e Lqw Judg e Offic e o f Hearings , M-2 0 tJ.S . Departmen t

o f Transportatio n 120 0 Ne w Jerse y Avenue , S.E . Eas t Buildin g Groun dFloor , Roo mE12-32 0 Washington , D C 2059 0 TEL : 202-366-213 9 Attorney-Adviso r 202-366-512 1 Lega l Assistan t FAX : 202-366-753 6

' Servic e wa s b y U.S . Mail . Fo

r address : Federa

l Aviatio nAdministration, 60

0 Suit e 2W1000 , Washington, D

C 20591 , Attrition : o

r b y expedite dcourier , us e th e followin g Avenue, S . W. , Wilbu

r Wrigji t Building

IJocke t Clerk , AGCft30 .
#### Jethro PITTS, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 70-952.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

June 1, 1971.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
NRS 34.726(1); NRS 34.810(1)(b); NRS 34.810(3). Moreover, because the

State specifically pleaded laches, appellant was required to overcome the rebuttable presumption of prejudice. NRS 34.800(2).

Appellant first argues that Rose v. State, 127 Nev. , 255 P.3d 291 (2011), which discussed the second-degree-felony-murder doctrine, provides good cause for his claim that the trial court improperly instructed the jury regarding second-degree felony murder. Appellant also argues that Rose has retroactive effect and that the district court erred by failing to conclude that appellant should receive a new trial based upon retroactive application of Rose. Appellant's claim is without merit. Appellant's reliance upon Rose is misplaced as the State did not rely upon the second-degree-felony-murder rule. Rather, the State presented evidence of appellant's mental state, arguing that he acted with the intent to kill. This court determined on appellant's direct appeal that there was substantial evidence that appellant intended to kill the victim. Barton v. State, Docket No. 27076 (Order Dismissing Appeal, December 20, 1996). As there was substantial evidence that appellant intended to kill the victim, a later case discussing the second-degree-felony-murder rule, such

as Rose, has no bearing upon appellant's case. Accordingly, appellant fails to demonstrate that Rose provides goodS cause and actual prejudice to overcome the procedural bars. 2

2 Appellant also argues that error regarding the second-degreefelony-murder instruction is structural error and therefore, he is entitled to a new trial without a consideration of prejudice related to this claim. Appellant's claim is without merit. As discussed in Rose, this court reviews claims regarding erroneous instructions for second-degree felony continued on next page . . .

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 2

(0) 1947A cfer()Douglas Second, appellant argues that Martinez v. Ryan, 566 U.S. 132 S. Ct. 1309, 1315, 1319-20 (2012), provides good cause to overcome the procedural bars. However, appellant merely cites to Martinez and does not discuss how that case would provide good cause or how his case was affected by the holding of Martinez. Accordingly, appellant fails to provide any cogent argument as to how Martinez applies to his case. "It is appellant's responsibility to present relevant authority and cogent argument; issues not so presented need not be addressed by this court." Maresca v. State, 103 Nev. 669, 673, 748 P.2d 3, 6 (1987). Thus, we need not address this claim.

In addition, appellant fails to overcome the presumption of prejudice to the State. Therefore, the district court did not err in denying the petition as procedurally barred and barred by ladies. Accordingly, we

ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED.

J. Hardesty

J.

Cherry

. . continued
murder under a harmless error standard. 127 Nev. at 295, 298. 255 P.3d at

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 3

(0) 1947A 

### e

### cc: Hon. Elissa F. Cadish, District Judge Nguyen & Lay Attorney General/Carson City Clark County District Attorney Eighth District Court Clerk

SUPREME COURT

OF NEVADA 

### 4

(0) 19474 ce
Amendments to Lease Agreement



FIRST AMENDMENT TO LEASE AGREEMENT

This First Amendment to Lease Agreement is made and entered into this 20th day of September, 2000, by and between Eden Roc Partnership, a California general partnership ("Landlord") and Applied Signal Technology, Inc., ("Tenant").

WHEREAS, on October 30, 1998, a Lease Agreement (the "Lease") was entered into between Landlord and Tenant, relating to certain real property situated at 1128 West 2400 South, Salt Lake County, State of Utah, consisting of approximately 23,300 square feet of office/warehouse space as further described in the Lease.

WHEREAS, both Landlord and Tenant desire to amend the Lease Agreement.

NOW, THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the payment of ten dollars and no cents ($10.00) and other good and valuable consideration to Landlord, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, the parties mutually agree as follows:

1. By this First Amendment to Lease Agreement, the Lease premises will be expanded to include an additional 4,976 square feet located at 1128 West 2400 South, Salt Lake City, Utah described on Exhibit "A" to this First Amendment. The term for said additional space shall be co-terminus with the term of the Lease.

2. The minimum rental for the additional space term shall be payable monthly, in advance, without offset or demand on the first day of each calendar month throughout the Lease term as follows:

	
11/01/00
	 	
$36,540/year
	 	
$3,045/month

	
01/01/01
	 	
$37,260/year
	 	
$3,105/month

	
01/01/02
	 	
$37,976/year
	 	
$3,164/month

	
01/01/03
	 	
$38,812/year
	 	
$3,234/month







 

3. Tenant hereby accepts the additional space in its present condition, state of improvement and repair ("as is"). The Tenant will make any necessary Tenant Improvements at its own cost and expense.

All other terms, covenants and provisions of the Lease Agreement, including all attachments, shall remain unchanged and shall continue in full force and effect except as specifically amended herein.

 

EXECUTED this day and year first above written.

LANDLORD:Eden Roc Partnership 

A California general partnership

By: 

Stanley C. Elman

Managing General Partner
Electronically Filed

Intermediate Court of Appeals

CAAP-16-0000417

19-JUN-2017

08:36 AM
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 196 (Thursday, October 9, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 52711]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-26773]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
[Docket No. RP98-1-000]


Transwestern Pipeline Company; Notice of Proposed Changes in FERC 
Gas Tariff

October 3, 1997.
    Take notice that on October 1, 1997, Transwestern Pipeline Company 
(Transwestern), tendered for filing to become part of Transwestern's 
FERC Gas Tariff, Second Revised Volume No. 1, Second Revised Sheet No. 
5B.03, to become effective on November 1, 1997.
    Section 25, Transition Cost Recovery Surcharge, of Transwestern's 
FERC Gas Tariff provides for the recovery of eligible transition costs 
under Order Nos. 528 et al., as defined in Section 25 (TCR II Costs). 
TCR II Costs are recoverable from Current Firm Shippers through a 
reservation surcharge (TCR II Reservation Surcharge) and are allocated 
annually based on the allocation factor underlying the TCR II recovery 
mechanism (TCR II Allocation Factor). Pursuant to Section 25 (D), for 
purposes of calculating the TCR II Reservation Surcharge, Transwestern 
is required to recalculate the TCR II Allocation Factor for each 
Current Firm Shipper to be effective on each subsequent November 1 
during the TCR II amortization period.
    Transwestern states that the purpose of this filing is to revise 
the new TCR II No. 1 and No. 2 Reservation Surcharges based on the 
updated TCR II Allocation Factors effective November 1, 1997.
    Any person desiring to be heard or to protest said filing should 
file a motion to intervene or protest with the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, N.E., Washington, D.C., 20426, 
in accordance with Sections 385.214 and 385.211 of the Commission's 
Rules and Regulations. All such petitions or protests must be filed in 
accordance with Section 154.210 of the Commission's Regulations. 
Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the 
appropriate action to be taken in this proceeding, but will not serve 
to make Protestant a party to the proceeding. Any person wishing to 
become a party must file a motion to intervene. Copies of this filing 
are on file with the Commission and are available for inspection.
Lois D. Cashell,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 97-26773 Filed 10-8-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
No. 00-765.

#### Vinson et al. *v.*Colom et al.

C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.
#### UNITED STATES of America ex rel. Alonzo BONNER, Petitioner-Appellant, v. WARDEN, STATEVILLE CORRECTIONAL CENTER, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 76-2179.

United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit.

Argued April 14, 1977.

Decided May 2, 1977.

Certiorari Denied May 31, 1977.

See 97 S.Ct. 2662.

Kenneth N. Flaxman, Chicago, III, for petitioner-appellant.

William J. Scott, Atty. Gen., Timothy B. Newitt, Asst. Atty. Gen., Chicago, III, for respondent-appellee.

Before SWYGERT and BAUER, Circuit Judges, and JAMESON, Senior District Judge.*

*

 The Honorable William J. Jameson, United States Senior District Judge for the District of Montana, is sitting by designation.

PER CURIAM:

We affirm the order of the district court dismissing Bonner’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus without prejudice to petitioner’s right to bring a new proceeding in federal court after he has exhausted his state court remedies, for the reasons set forth in the memorandum decision of the Honorable Prentice H. Marshall and his order denying motion for reconsideration, 422 F.Supp. 11 (N.D.Ill.1976).

AFFIRMED.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

DEBBIE HUGHEY,

Petitioner

v.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEAL BOARD (ACE AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY, ANDORRA WOODS HEALTHCARE CENTER, ESIS NORTHEAST WC CLAIMS, UNINSURED

EMPLOYER'S GUARANTY FUND),

Respondents :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 573 EAL 2017

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from

the Order of the Commonwealth Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 27th day of June, 2018

, the Emergency Relief Request,

Application for Leave to File Post

- Submission Communication, and Petition for Allowance

of Appeal are DENIED

.
SCWC-15-0000696 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI # I

STATE OF HAWAI # I, Respondent/Plaintiff-Appellee,

vs. REBECCA STAPP, Petitioner/Defendant-Appellant.

CERTIORARI TO THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS (CAAP-15-0000696; CASE NO. 2DCW-13-0001655) ORDER REJECTING APPLICATION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI ( B y : R e c k t e n w a l d , C . J . , N a k a y a m a , M c K e n n a , P o l l a c k , a n d W i l s o n , J J . )

Petitioner/Defendant-Appellant’s application for writ of certiorari, filed on January 23, 2017, is hereby rejected.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai # i, February 28, 2017. /s/ Mark E. Recktenwald /s/ Paula A. Nakayama /s/ Sabrina S. McKenna /s/ Richard W. Pollack /s/ Michael D. Wilson Electronically Filed Supreme Court SCWC-15-0000696 28-FEB-2017 07:50 AM
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>


                                          EMERGING DELTA CORPORATION
                                          --------------------------

                                               BALANCE SHEET
                                               -------------

                                              MARCH 31, 2002
                                               ---------------

                                                   ASSETS
                                                   ------

<S>                                                                                       <C>
CURRENT ASSETS:
   Cash and cash equivalents                                                              $296,946

                                                                                          --------

       Total assets                                                                       $296,946
                                                                                          ========

                      LIABILITIES AND STOCKHOLDERS' EQUITY
                      ------------------------------------

CURRENT LIABILITIES:
   Accounts payable                                                                       $  1,500
                                                                                          --------

STOCKHOLDERS' EQUITY:
   Preferred stock, $1.00 par value; 2,000,000 shares authorized; no shares
     Subscribed, issued or outstanding                                                    $   -
   Common stock, $1.00 par value; 20,000,000 shares authorized; 43,600
     Issued and outstanding                                                                 43,600
   Additional paid-in capital                                                              252,214
   Retained earnings (deficit)                                                                (368)
                                                                                          --------

       Total stockholders' equity                                                          295,446
                                                                                          --------

       Total liabilities and stockholders' equity                                         $296,946
                                                                                          ========


                  The accompanying notes are an integral part of this financial statement.
</TABLE>


                                                F-3
|   | · | the      Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of      the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;and |
|--------|--------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | · | information      contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the      Company’s consolidated financial condition and results of      operations. |
|--------|--------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|                       | /s/      Zhenggang Wang                           |
|----------------------------|---------------------------------------------------|
|                       | Zhenggang      Wang                               |
|                       | Chief      Executive Officer and Chairman         |
| Date:      August 16, 2010 | (Principal      Executive Officer)                |
|                       |                                              |
|                       | /s/      Jian Zhang                               |
|                       | Jian      Zhang                                   |
|                       | Chief      Financial Officer                      |
| Date:      August 16, 2010 | (Principal      Accounting and Financial Officer) |

----
II 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 3095 

To amend the Consumer Financial Protection Act of 2010 to clarify the 

funding of the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

OCTOBER 19, 2023 

Mr. HAGERTY (for himself and Mrs. BRITT) introduced the following bill; 

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs 

A BILL 

To amend the Consumer Financial Protection Act of 2010 

to clarify the funding of the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Federal Reserve Loss 

5 Transparency Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. BUREAU FUNDING. 

7 Section 1017(a) of the Consumer Financial Protec8 tion Act of 2010 (12 U.S.C. 5497(a)) is amended— 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 3095 IS

1 (1) by redesignating paragraphs (3) through 

2 (5) as paragraphs (4) through (6), respectively; and 

3 (2) by inserting after paragraph (2) the fol4 lowing: 

5 ‘‘(3) PROHIBITION ON TRANSFER WHEN THE

6 FEDERAL RESERVE BANKS INCUR A LOSS.—Notwith7 standing paragraph (1), no transfer may be made to 

8 the Bureau if the Federal reserve banks, in the ag9 gregate, incurred an operating loss in the most re10 cently completed calendar quarter until the loss is 

11 offset with subsequent earnings.’’. 

12 SEC. 3. CALCULATION OF NET EARNINGS USING GAAP. 

13 Section 7 of the Federal Reserve Act is amended— 

14 (1) by redesignating the second subsection (b) 

15 (12 U.S.C. 290) (relating to the use of earnings 

16 transferred to the Secretary) and subsection (c) (12 

17 U.S.C. 531) as subsections (c) and (d), respectively; 

18 and 

19 (2) by adding at the end the following: 

20 ‘‘(e) CALCULATION OF NET EARNINGS AND TOTAL

21 CAPITAL USING GAAP.—For purposes of this section, 

22 earnings and total capital shall be calculated in accordance 

23 with United States generally accepted accounting prin24 ciples.’’. 

Æ 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with BILLS
#### Donna L. SCHWARTZER, Albert Schwartzer and Arthur Pokorny, Appellants, v. ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellee.

No. 68-679.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Sept. 10, 1970.

Fuller, Brumer, Moss & Cohen, Bolles, Goodwin, Ryskamp & Ware, Miami, for appellants.

Spencer & Taylor, Miami, for appellee.

Before PEARSON, C. J., and BARK-DULL and HENDRY, JJ.

ORDER ON MANDATE

PER CURIAM.

Whereas, the judgment of this court was entered on January 14, 1969 (217 So.2d 843) reversing the order of the Circuit Court of Dade County, Florida, in the above styled cause; and

Whereas, on review of this court’s judgment, by certiorari, the Supreme Court of Florida, by its opinion and judgment filed April 15, 1970 (234 So.2d 102) and mandate dated May 4, 1970 quashed this court’s judgment;

Now, therefore, It is ordered that the mandate of this court heretofore issued in this cause on February 11, 1969 is withdrawn, the opinion and judgment of this court filed January 14, 1969 is vacated, the said opinion and judgment of the Supreme Court of Florida is herewith made the opinion and judgment of this court. Costs allowed shall be taxed in the circuit court (Rule 3.16(b) Florida Appellate Rules).
### Summary	of	Interagency	Working	Comments	on	Draft	Language	under

EO12 866	Interagency	Review.		Subject	to	Further	Policy	Review.
OPTI ON A EPA will require the fuel producer to include information in its Risk Mitigation Plan demonstrating that the fuel producer has an adequate mechanism (such as a state

- administered fund, bond, or certificate of deposit) to ensure the availability of financia l resources sufficient to cover reasonable potential remediation costs associated with the spread of giant reed or napier grass bey ond the intended planting areas. Such information must be sufficient for EPA to determine whether a financial mechanism is ne cessary
. EPA would consult with USDA and, if appropriate, other federal agencies on the need for and adequacy

of such a mechanism before approving the RMP. EPA may , where appropriate, require the fuel producer to have such a mechanism.

OPTI ON B E PA will require the fuel producer to include information in its Risk Mitigation Plan sufficient for EPA to determine whether it is necessary to have a financial mechanism (such as a state

- administered fund, bond, or certificate of deposit) sufficient to c over reasonable potential remediation costs associated with the spread of giant reed or napier grass beyond the intended planting areas. EPA would consult with USDA and, if appropriate, other federal agencies on the need for and adequacy

of such a mechanism before approving the RMP. EPA may , where appropriate, require the fuel producer to have such a mechanism.
Exhibit 32.2

                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 Quarterly Report of IA Global, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2003 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Satoru
Hirai, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.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; 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/ Satoru Hirai
                                        Satoru Hirai
                                        Chief Financial Officer
                                        August 19, 2003