alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>


                                                                    EXHIBIT 10.7

                                    SCHEDULE

                   Information on two substantially identical
                   Guarantees of Franchise License Agreements
                             dated February 26, 2003

       (Documents are substantially identical, except as set forth below,
                    to the document included as Exhibit 10.3)


Property                  Guarantor                   Licensee
--------                  ---------                   --------

Homewood Suites(R)        AHF Baton Rouge Limited     AHF Services Limited
Baton Rouge, Louisiana    Partnership                 Partnership

Homewood Suites(R)        Apple Hospitality Five,     Apple Hospitality
Albuquerque, New Mexico   Inc.                        Five Management, Inc.
EXHIBIT 21.1
                          SUBSIDIARIES
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
         NAME                         STATE OF INCORPORATION
<S>                                         <C>
Ameritel Communications, Inc.               Delaware

Blue Chip Marketing, Inc.                   Delaware

Interactive Display Technologies, Inc.      Delaware

International Cellular Communications Ltd.  Delaware

Tele-Com Services, Inc.                     Delaware

U.S. Communications, Inc.                   Delaware

U.S. Communications of Puerto Rico, Inc.    Puerto Rico

U.S. Paging Services, Inc.                  Delaware

U.S. Personal Communications, Inc.          Delaware

Wireless Communication Centers, Inc.        Delaware
</TABLE>
```
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 218 (Wednesday, November 12, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 60748-60749]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-29764]

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

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

Fiscal Service

Surety Companies Acceptable on Federal Bonds Termination of 
Authority

AGENCY: Financial Management Service, Fiscal Service, Department of the 
Treasury.

ACTION: Surety Companies Acceptable on Federal Bonds Termination of 
Authority: Cumberland Surety Insurance Company, Inc.

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

SUMMARY: Dept. Circ. 570, 1997--Rev., Supp. No. 2.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Surety Bond Branch (202) 874-6779.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that the 
Certification of

[[Page 60749]]

Authority issued by the Treasury to Cumberland Surety Insurance 
Company, Inc., Lexington, Kentucky, under the United States Code, Title 
31, Sections 9304-9308, to qualify as an acceptable surety on Federal 
bonds is terminated effective immediately
    The Company was last listed as an acceptable surety on Federal 
bonds at 62 FR 35557, July 1, 1997.
    With respect to any bonds currently in force with Cumberland Surety 
Insurance Company, Inc., bond-approving officers should secure new 
bonds with acceptable sureties in those instances where a significant 
amount of liability remains outstanding. In addition, bonds that are 
continuous in nature should not be renewed.
    The Treasury Department Circular 570 may be viewed and downloaded 
through the Internet (http://www.fms.treas.gov/c570.html) or through 
our computerized public bulletin board system (FMS Inside Line) at 
(202) 874-6887. A hard copy may be purchased from the Government 
Printing Office (GPO), Subscription Service, Washington, DC, telephone 
(202) 512-1800. When ordering the Circular from GPO, use the following 
stock number: 048-000-00499-7.
    Questions concerning this notice may be directed to the U.S. 
Department of the Treasury, Financial Management Service, Funds 
Management Division, Surety Bond Branch, 3700 East-West Highway, Room 
6A14, Hyattsville, MD 20782.

    Dated: October 31, 1997.
Diane E. Clark,
Assistant Commissioner, Financial Information, Financial Management 
Service.
[FR Doc. 97-29764 Filed 11-10-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4810-35-M
```
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                             792
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   31,557
<ALLOWANCES>                                     3,174
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                35,461
<PP&E>                                           9,585
<DEPRECIATION>                                   6,130
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  69,973
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           31,543
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                      2,846
<COMMON>                                         1,795
<OTHER-SE>                                      20,769
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    69,973
<SALES>                                         15,364
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                15,364
<CGS>                                           14,282
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   14,427
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   725
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 120
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    937
<INCOME-TAX>                                       342
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                481
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       437
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.13
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.13
        

</TABLE>
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 CompuDyne Corporation (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2003
accompanying this certification and filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Geoffrey F. Feidelberg, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, to
the best of my knowledge, pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. § 1350, that:



|Date: November 19, 2003 |  | By: | /s/GEOFFREY F. FEIDELBERGGeoffrey F. Feidelberg
Chief Financial Officer
|----------------------- |  | --- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------

---

QuickLinks
Opinion issued March 1 0 , 2016

In The 

## Court of Appeals For The 

## First District of Texas

———————————— NO. 01
- 14
- 00509
- CR

——————————— ROSEVELT LEE GILL , Appella nt

V. THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appell e e
On Appeal from the 351st District Court

Harris County, Texas Trial Court Ca se No. 1382563

MEMORANDUM OPINION Appellant, Rosevelt Lee Gill , pled guilty to the offense of aggravated robbery with a deadly weapon . In accordance with Gill ’s plea bargain with the State, the
trial court sentenced Gill on May 16, 2014 to thirty years in the Institutional Division2

of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice . On June 9, 2014, Gill filed a pro se notice of appeal. In a plea bargain case, a defendant may only appeal those matters that were raised by written motion filed and ruled on before trial or after getting the trial court’s permission to appeal. T EX
. C ODE C RIM
. P ROC
. A NN . art. 44.02 (West 2006); T EX
. R.
A PP
. P. 25.2(a)(2). An appeal must be dismissed if a certification showing that the defendant has the right of appeal has not been made part of the record. T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 25.2(d). Here, the trial court’s certification is included in the record on appeal. See id

. The trial court’s certification states that this is a plea bargain ca se and that the defendant has no right of appeal. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 25.2(a)(2). The record supports the trial court’s certification. See Dears v. State , 154 S.W.3d 610, 615 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). Because appellant has no right of appeal, we must dism iss this appeal. See Chavez v. State , 183 S.W.3d 675, 680 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) (“A court of appeals, while having jurisdiction to ascertain whether an appellant who plea

bargained is permitted to appeal by Rule 25.2(a)(2), must dismiss a prohibited appe al without further action, regardless of the basis for the appeal.”). Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction. We dismiss any pending motions as moot.

PER CURIAM3

Panel consists of Justices Bland, Brown, and Lloyd. Do not publish. T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 47.2(b).
I 

117TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1772 

To amend the Passport Act of 1920 to exempt from the collection of certain 

passport fees an individual who was awarded the Purple Heart, and 

for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 10, 2021 

Mr. RYAN (for himself, Mr. RESCHENTHALER, Mr. KELLY of Mississippi, Mr. 

FITZPATRICK, Ms. STEFANIK, and Mrs. BUSTOS) introduced the following 

bill; which was referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs 

A BILL 

To amend the Passport Act of 1920 to exempt from the 

collection of certain passport fees an individual who was 

awarded the Purple Heart, and for other purposes. 

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 ‘‘Passports for Purple 

5 Hearts Act’’. 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 1772 IH

1 SEC. 2. EXEMPTION FROM CERTAIN PASSPORT FEES OF AN 

2 INDIVIDUAL WHO WAS AWARDED THE PUR3 PLE HEART. 

4 Section 1 of the Act of June 1, 1920 (22 U.S.C. 214; 

5 commonly referred to as the ‘‘Passport Act of 1920’’), is 

6 amended— 

7 (1) in subsection (a), in the third sentence, by 

8 inserting ‘‘from an individual who was awarded the 

9 Purple Heart;’’ before ‘‘or from an individual or in10 dividuals abroad’’; and 

11 (2) by adding at the end the following new sub12 section: 

13 ‘‘(c) In this section, the term ‘passport’ includes a 

14 passport card.’’. 

Æ 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
TREATIES AND OTHER INTERNATIONAL ACTS SERIES 08-1022 

________________________________________________________________________ 

CIVIL AFFAIRS 

Rule of Law Mission 

 Agreement Between the 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

and the EUROPEAN UNION 

Signed at Brussels October 22, 2008 

with 

Annex 
 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.” 
EUROPEAN UNION 

Civil Affairs: Rule of Law Mission 

 Agreement signed at Brussels October 22, 2008; 

 Entered into force October 22, 2008. 

 With annex.
NUMBER 13-18-00571-CV

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

____________________________________________________________

ROSENDO TORRES III, Appellant,

v.

NAVARRO PLACE APARTMENTS, Appellee.

____________________________________________________________

On appeal from the County Court at Law No. 5

of Nueces County, Texas.

____________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Chief Justice Contreras and Justices Longoria and Hinojosa

Memorandum Opinion by Chief Justice Contreras

Appellant Rosendo Torres III appealed a judgment entered in trial court cause 

number 2018-CCV-61523-5 in the County Court at Law No. 5 of Nueces County, Texas. 

On October 15, 2018, the Clerk of this Court notified appellant that the notice of appeal 

failed to comply with Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.5(a),(d),(e) and Rule 

25.1(d),(e). See TEX. R. APP. P. 9.5(a),(d),(e); id. R. 25.1(d),(e). The Clerk directed 
2

appellant to file an amended notice of appeal with the district clerk’s office within thirty 

days from the date of that notice. On November 19, 2018, the Clerk notified appellant 

that these defects had not been corrected and warned appellant that the appeal would be 

dismissed if the defects were not cured within ten days. To date, the defects have not 

been corrected. See id. R. 37.3; id. R. 42.3(b),(c). 

The Court, having considered the documents on file and appellant’s failure to 

correct the defects, is of the opinion that the appeal should be dismissed. See id. R. 

37.3; id. R. 42.3(b),(c). Accordingly, the appeal is DISMISSED for want of prosecution.

DORI CONTRERAS

Chief Justice

Delivered and filed the 17th

day of January, 2019.
EXHIBIT 32.1 – 906 CEO Certification








ROYAL INVEST INTERNATIONAL CORP.





CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO


18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS ADOPTED PURSUNT TO


SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002








In connection with the Quarterly Report of Royal Invest International Corp. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Jerry Gruenbaum, CEO of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.ss. 1350, as added by 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 results of operations of the Company as of and for the period covered by the Report.








By: /s/ Jerry Gruenbaum


Jerry Gruenbaum, CEO





May 24, 2010





A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 ("Section 906"), or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to Royal Invest International Corp., and will be retained by Royal Invest International Corp. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
# DailyTreasuryLongTermRateData
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

NATHANIEL MAYBERRY,

 Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

 Appellee.

§

§

§

§

§

 § 

No. 08-10-00077-CR

Appeal from the

112th Judicial District Court

of Crockett County, Texas 

(TC# 2439) 

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Pending before the Court is Appellant’s motion to withdraw his notice of appeal pursuant

to TEX.R.APP.P. 42.2(a). Appellant has personally signed his request and has filed it prior to the

appellate court’s decision. See TEX.R.APP.P. 42.2(a). Further, a duplicate copy has been filed

with this Court and has been forwarded to the trial court clerk. See id. As the motion complies

with the requirements of Rule 42.2(a), we GRANT Appellant’s motion and dismiss the appeal.

August 18, 2010

DAVID WELLINGTON CHEW, Chief Justice

Before Chew, C.J., McClure, and Rivera, JJ.

(Do Not Publish)
EX-4.1



 Exhibit 4.1 
  





 







 THE SECURITIES REPRESENTED BY THIS CERTIFICATE AND THE SALE, PLEDGE, HYPOTHECATION, OR TRANSFER OF THE SECURITIES
REPRESENTED HEREBY IS SUBJECT TO, AND IN CERTAIN CASES PROHIBITED BY, THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF A CERTAIN STOCKHOLDERS’ AGREEMENT BY AND AMONG THE STOCKHOLDER, THE CORPORATION AND CERTAIN HOLDERS OF STOCK OF THE CORPORATION, AS MAY BE AMENDED
FROM TIME TO TIME. COPIES OF SUCH AGREEMENT MAY BE OBTAINED UPON WRITTEN REQUEST TO THE SECRETARY OF THE CORPORATION. BY ACCEPTING ANY INTEREST IN SUCH SECURITIES THE PERSON ACCEPTING SUCH INTEREST SHALL BE DEEMED TO AGREE TO AND SHALL BECOME BOUND
BY ALL THE PROVISIONS OF THAT STOCKHOLDERS’ AGREEMENT, INCLUDING CERTAIN RESTRICTIONS ON TRANSFER AND OWNERSHIP SET FORTH THEREIN. 
 THE SECURITIES
REPRESENTED HEREBY HAVE NOT BEEN REGISTERED UNDER THE SECURITIES ACT OF 1933, AND HAVE BEEN ACQUIRED FOR INVESTMENT AND NOT WITH A VIEW TO, OR IN CONNECTION WITH, THE SALE OR DISTRIBUTION THEREOF. NO SUCH TRANSFER MAY BE EFFECTED WITHOUT AN
EFFECTIVE REGISTRATION STATEMENT RELATED THERETO OR AN OPINION OF COUNSEL IN A FORM SATISFACTORY TO THE CORPORATION THAT SUCH REGISTRATION IS NOT REQUIRED UNDER THE SECURITIES ACT OF 1933.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

KAREN SHOCKLEY,

Petitioner

v.

LANH NGUYEN AND THAO VU,

Respondents :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 106 EM 2019

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 5th day of December , 2019, the “Petition for Review for Application

to Stay Transmission of Record” is DENIED.
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    Exhibit 23.1


CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS


We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statements of
RFS Hotel Investors, Inc. on Form S-3 (file no. 3333-03307) and on Form S-8
(file no. 333-19411) of our report dated January 22, 1997, on our audits of the
consolidated financial statements of RFS Hotel Investors, Inc. as of December
31, 1996 and 1995, and for the three years in the period ended December
31, 1996, and our report dated January 22, 1997 on our audit of the financial
statement schedule of RFS Hotel Investors, Inc. as of December 31, 1996, which
reports are included in, or incorporated by reference, in this Annual Report on
Form 10-K.


                                             Coopers & Lybrand L.L.P.



Memphis, Tennessee
March 24, 1997
#### ROLLINS SERVICES, etc., Petitioner, v. METROPOLITAN DADE COUNTY, Its Board of County Commissioners, et al., Respondents.

No. 44378.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Feb. 7, 1974.

Certiorari denied. 281 So.2d 520.

ROBERTS, Acting C. J., and ERVIN, ADKINS and BOYD, JJ., concur.

McCAIN, J., dissents.
Page 27.0

Automotive Industries Pension Plan

Checklist Item #27

Does the application include deterministic projections of the sensitivity of the plan’s solvency 

ratio throughout the extended period by taking into account the more conservative assumptions 

of investment experience and future contribution base units than assumed elsewhere in the 

application?

See section 6.04.

The application filed on behalf of the Automotive Industries Pension Plan includes an Actuarial 

Certification of Plan Solvency under ERISA Section 305(e)(9)(c)(i) and IRC Section 432(e)(9)(C)(i). 

This certification is attached as Document No. 7.1 to Checklist Item #7. A supplemental report titled 

Application under ERISA Section 305(e)(9) and IRC Section 432(e)(9) – Additional Information is 

provided as Document No. 26.1.

Exhibit III projects the Pension Plan’s solvency using a 1.0% lower annual rate of return.

Exhibit IV projects the Pension Plan’s solvency using a 2.0% lower annual rate of return.

Exhibit V projects the Pension Plan’s solvency using the more conservative annual industry level 

assumption based upon the -5.39% experienced annually by the plan over the prior 10 years, and

Exhibit VI projects the Pension Plan’s solvency using an annual industry level assumption of -6.39%, 

which is a 1.0% decrease over the assumption from Exhibit V.

These exhibits are based on upon our interpretation of the requirements under Revenue Procedure 

2016-27, Section 6.04.
#### James R. HEARD, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. R-491.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Sept. 25, 1973.

Rehearing Denied Oct. 19, 1973.

Ed Duffec, Jr., and Stewart E. Parsons, Parsons & Parsons, Tallahassee, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., and Richard W. Prospect, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

The briefs and the record on appeal having been read and given full consideration, and the appellant having failed to demonstrate reversible error, the judgment of the lower court is affirmed.

RAWLS, C. J„ and WIGGINTON and CARROLL, DONALD K„ JJ„ concur.
#### DOLESE CONCRETE COMPANY v. Nicholas TESSITORE, Jr.

No. 62339.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

June 9, 1978.

In re: Nicholas Tessitore, Jr. applying for certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit. Parish of East Baton Rouge. 357 So.2d 869.

Writ denied.
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

J.S., the father,

Appellant,

v.

FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES and the

GUARDIAN AD LITEM PROGRAM,

Appellees.

No. 4D18-3493

[May 23, 2019]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, 

Broward County; Stacey Schulman, Judge; L.T. Case No. 2013-1320 CJDP.

Sean Conway of Sean Conway Law Firm, P.A., Fort Lauderdale, for 

appellant.

Laura Lee and Thomasina Moore, Tallahassee, for appellee Guardian 

ad Litem Program.

Ashley B. Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Carolyn Schwarz, 

Assistant Attorney General, Fort Lauderdale, for appellee Florida 

Department of Children and Families.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

DAMOORGIAN, LEVINE and KLINGENSMITH, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
Southwest Ohio Regional Council of Carpenters Pension Plan
Checklist Item 434

Does the application include the required enrolled actuary information? See Section 7.04.

Required EnrolJed Actuary:

Jason Birkle, EA, MAAA, ASA
Cuni, Rust & Strenk

4555 Lake Forest Drive, Suite 620
Cincinnati, Ohio 45242

Phone: (513) 985-6184

Fax: (513) 985-6185
Jason. birkle@crsact.com

Enrollment No,

Document #34 -L-
SWORCCPP-000177
* This panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1. FILED United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### December 9, 2008 Elisabeth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v. NOE ANDRADE-LOPEZ, Defendant-Appellant. No. 08-4136 (D.C. No. 2:06-cr-00852-TS-1) (D. Utah)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
Before HARTZ , TYMKOVICHand GORSUCH , Circuit Judges.
This matter is before the court on the government’s motion to enforce the appeal waiver contained in defendant Noe Andrade-Lopez’s plea agreement. The motion was filed pursuant to United States v. Hahn , 359 F.3d 1315 (10th Cir. 2004) (en banc) (per curiam). Defendant, through counsel, filed a response to the motion to enforce conceding that there are no meritorious grounds upon which he-2- can urge denial of the government’s motion to enforce the appeal waiver. Based on our review of the record, we are satisfied that the appeal is within the scope of the appeal waiver, that the waiver was knowing and voluntary, and that enforcing the waiver would not result in any miscarriage of justice. Accordingly, the government’s motion is GRANTED, and the appeal is DISMISSED.
ENTERED FOR THE COURT PER CURIAM