alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Table 9.  Estimates of the Total Housing Inventory for the
                United States:  2000 and 1999

(Estimates are in thousands and may not add to total, due to rounding)


                                          Standard
                                          error on Standard     2000
Type                        2000     1999     2000 error on  Percent
                        estimate estimate estimate differencof total

All housing units....... 119,628  119,044      173      245      100

  Occupied.............. 105,720  104,928      181      256       88
    Owner occupied......  71,250   70,097      181      255       60
    Renter occupied.....  34,470   34,831      146      206       29

  Vacant................  13,908   14,116       99      140       12
    Year-round vacant...  10,439   10,848       87      124        9
      For rent..........   3,024    3,119       48       68        3
      For sale only.....   1,148    1,184       30       42        1
      Rented or sold,
      awaiting occupancy     856      956       25       37        1
      Held off market...   5,411    5,589       63       90        5
        For occasional use 1,892    1,948       38       54        2
        Temporarily occupied
        by persons with
        usual residence    1,037      965       28       39        1
        For other reason   2,482    2,676       43       62        2

    Seasonal vacant.....   3,469    3,268       51       71        3
```

[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 110 (Wednesday, June 8, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 33400]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-14085]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Office of the Secretary

Aviation Proceedings, Agreements Filed the Week Ending May 7, 
2011

    The following Agreements were filed with the Department of 
Transportation under Sections 412 and 414 of the Federal Aviation Act, 
as amended (49 U.S.C. 1382 and 1384) and procedures governing 
proceedings to enforce these provisions. Answers may be filed within 21 
days after the filing of the application.

    Docket Number: DOT-OST-2011-0090.
    Date Filed: May 5, 2011.
    Parties: Members of the International Air Transport Association.
    Subject: TC31 South West Pacific--TC1 (except Canada, USA). 
Composite Resolution 017c e-Tariffs, 4-22 April 2011 (Memo 1618). 
Intended Effective Date: 1 July 2011.

    Docket Number: DOT-OST-2011-0091.
    Date Filed: May 5, 2011.
    Parties: Members of the International Air Transport Association.
    Subject: TC31 South West Pacific--TC1 (except Canada, USA), 
Resolution 012p--Glossary of Termse-Tariffs, 4-22 April 2011 (Memo 
0229). Intended Effective Date: 1 July 2011.

    Docket Number: DOT-OST-2011-0094.
    Date Filed: May 5, 2011.
    Parties: Members of the International Air Transport Association.
    Subject: Mail Vote 677--Resolution 010m, TC3 between South East 
Asia and Japan, Korea Special Passenger Amending Resolution between 
China (excluding Hong Kong SAR and Macao SAR) and Japan (Memo 1429). 
Intended Effective Date: 15 June 2011.

    Docket Number: DOT-OST-2011-0095.
    Date Filed: May 5, 2011.
    Parties: Members of the International Air Transport Association.
    Subject: Mail Vote 676, TC1 Caribbean, Longhaul, Within South 
America. Composite Resolutions e-Tariffs, 4-22 April 2011 (Memo 
1620). Intended Effective Date: 1 July 2011.

    Docket Number: DOT-OST-2011-0096.
    Date Filed: May 5, 2011.
    Parties: Members of the International Air Transport 
Association.Subject: Mail Vote 634, TC31 South Pacific South West 
Pacific--TC1, (except Canada, USA) Composite Resolution 011be-
Tariffs 8-23. March 2010 (Memo 1613).
    Intended Effective Date: for travel on/after 1 July 2011.

Renee V. Wright,
Program Manager, Docket Operations, Federal Register Liaison.
[FR Doc. 2011-14085 Filed 6-7-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-9X-P
```
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 Dynamic Health Products, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-QSB for the quarterly period ended December
31, 2004, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Cani I. Shuman, 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 results of operations of the Company.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                       
|-----------------------
|/s/ Cani I. Shuman     
|Cani I. Shuman         
|Chief Financial Officer
|                       
|February 14, 2005
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

WALTER BURKS,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

No. 4D16-4327

[January 11, 2018]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm 

Beach County; John S. Kastrenakes, Judge; L.T. Case No. 

502014CF005260A.

Anthony P. Ryan, Regional Counsel, and Paul O'Neil, Assistant Regional 

Counsel, Office of Criminal Conflict and Civil Regional Counsel, West Palm 

Beach, for appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Heidi L. 

Bettendorf, Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

GROSS, FORST and KUNTZ, JJ., concur. 

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
Exhibit 10.1 Debt Settlement





EXHIBIT 10.1




Debt Settlement Agreement

between

APT Systems, Inc and Tangiers Global, LLC







This Debt Settlement Agreement (this "Agreement") is made and entered into on November 14, 2016.




Whereas, APT Systems, Inc. ("the Company") has debt by way of notes in the total stated amounts of $46,000 Promissory Note dated April 14, 2016 ("Note 1") and $55,000 Promissory Note dated April 14, 2016 ("Note 2", and together with Note 1, the "Notes") owed to Tangiers Global, LLC ("Tangiers").




Whereas, the Company is delinquent in payment of the Note 1 and has thus accrued interest, late fees and penalties assessed in the total stated amount of $31,625.00.




Whereas, the Company wishes to resolve this debt swiftly and amicably, and both parties have reviewed and completed this form as paperwork necessary for the debt settlement process.




Now, therefore, both parties agree to the following as a settlement of the entire debt:




1.

The Company will pay Tangiers a total of $25,000 in cash (the "Settlement Payment") to satisfy all of its outstanding debt obligations under the Notes. Payment will be delivered by wire transfer, per Tangiers' instructions. Once the Settlement Payment has cleared into Tangiers' bank account, and upon confirmation, in writing, from Tangiers, the Transfer Agent Reserve for both Notes may be extinguished. Until such time as the Settlement Payment has cleared into Tangiers' account, Tangiers will retain full rights and remedies under the Notes.




2.

Repayment will be made via an escrow/trust account disbursement (attached as "Exhibit A") on November 14, 2016, and will clear into Tangiers' account on or before close of business November 14, 2016 (the "Payment Date").  This escrow/trust account will be established by the Company at Legal & Compliance, LLC (the "Escrow/Trust Account") and the Settlement Payment will be executed immediately upon the Company's receipt of cleared funds in the Escrow Account from an investor, which is scheduled to occur on or about November 11, 2016.




3.

Failure on the part of the Company to make the payment in full by Payment Date will result in a breach of this Agreement and Tangiers shall be allowed to assess additional late fees and penalties as outlined in the Notes. This Agreement may only be amended when agreed to in writing by both parties.




4.

Failure to make payments under this Agreement gives Tangiers' additional cause and justification to proceed with debt collection proceedings and to pursue any legal avenues in the appropriate courts of law.







[Signature Page to Follow]























/s/ Glenda Dowie

11/14/2016

Signed on behalf of APT Systems, Inc

Date

Date Print Name and Title: Glenda Dowie, President/CEO










Acceptance




_____________

11/14/2016

Signed on behalf of Tangiers Global, LLC

Date 




Print Name and Title:                  Managing Member
**THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS**

**Post Office Box 12248**

**Austin, Texas 78711**

**(512) 463-1312**

April 18, 2008

Mr. Philip A. Lionberger

Office of the Attorney General

P.O. Box 12548 (MC 059)

Austin, TX 78711-2548

Mr. Jerry L. Stapleton

Stapleton Curtis & Boswell, L.L.P.

P.O. Box 2644

Harlingen, TX 78551

RE:Case Number:  07-0424

Court of Appeals Number:  13-06-00450-CV

Trial Court Number:  C-493-03-G

Style:THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS-PAN AMERICAN

v.

TONY AGUILAR AND KAY MARIE AGUILAR

Dear Counsel:

Today the Supreme Court of Texas delivered the enclosed per curiam opinion and judgment in the above-referenced cause.  

Sincerely,

Blake A. Hawthorne, Clerk

by Claudia Jenks, Chief Deputy Clerk

Enclosures

**Case No. 07-0424Page 1**
LOGO

I, JEFFREY W. BULLOCK, SECRETARY OF STATE OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE, DO HEREBY CERTIFY THE ATTACHED IS
A TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF MERGER, WHICH MERGES:

AMHN ACQUISITION CORP., A
DELAWARE CORPORATION, WITH AND INTO AMERICAS MINORITY HEALTH NETWORK, INC. UNDER THE NAME OF AMERICAS MINORITY HEALTH NETWORK, INC., A CORPORATION ORGANIZED AND EXISTING UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE, AS
RECEIVED AND FILED IN THIS OFFICE THE TWENTY-SEVENTH DAY OF JULY, A.D. 2009, AT 1:33 OCLOCK P.M.

A FILED
COPY OF THIS CERTIFICATE HAS BEEN FORWARDED TO THE KENT COUNTY RECORDER OF DEEDS.

LOGO



---

|                                                                                                                                                   |  | 
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |  | 
|State of Delaware Secretary of State Division of
Corporations Delivered 01:33 PM 07/27/2009 FILED 01:33 PM 07/27/2009 SRV 090728558  4672613 FILE |  | 

STATE OF DELAWARE

CERTIFICATE OF MERGER OF

DOMESTIC CORPORATIONS

Pursuant to Title 8, Section 251(c) of the Delaware General Corporation Law, the undersigned corporation, Americas Minority Health Network, Inc.,
executed the following Certificate of Merger:

FIRST: The name of the surviving corporation is Americas Minority Health Network,
Inc., and the name of the corporation being merged into this surviving corporation is AMHN Acquisition Corp.

SECOND: The Agreement of
Merger has been approved, adopted, certified, executed and acknowledged by each of the constituent corporations.

THIRD: The name of
the surviving corporation is Americas Minority Health Network, Inc., a Delaware corporation.

FOURTH: The Certificate of
Incorporation of the surviving corporation shall be its Certificate of Incorporation.

FIFTH: The merger is to become effective on
July 27, 2009.

SIXTH: The Agreement of Merger is on file at 345 North Maple Drive, Suite 208, Beverly Hills, California 90210,
the place of business of the surviving corporation.

SEVENTH: A copy of the Agreement of Merger will be furnished by the surviving
corporation on request, without cost, to any stockholder of the constituent corporations.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF said
surviving corporation has caused this certificate to be signed by an authorized officer, the 27thday of July 2009.



Americas Minority Health Network, Inc.By:

/s/ Robin TjonAuthorized OfficerName:

Robin TjonPrint or TypeTitle:

Secretary
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
ACCOMPANYING CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF DATAMETRICS
CORPORATION AS OF AND FOR THE NINE MONTH PERIOD ENDING OCTOBER 27, 1996 AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          OCT-27-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               OCT-27-1996
<CASH>                                             386
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    5,735
<ALLOWANCES>                                        68
<INVENTORY>                                      6,945
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                13,082
<PP&E>                                           7,315
<DEPRECIATION>                                   5,445
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  15,940
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            9,895
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           123
<OTHER-SE>                                      32,577
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    15,940
<SALES>                                         19,246
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                19,246
<CGS>                                           21,168
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   21,168
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                15,082
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  80
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (17,084)
<INCOME-TAX>                                       302
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (17,386)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (17,386)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  ($1.39)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  ($1.39)
        

</TABLE>
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision **

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

MATTHEW ROBERT YOUNG,

 Petitioner - Appellant,

 v.

MAX WILLIAMS, Dir. of Corrections; et

al.,

 Respondents - Appellees.

No. 08-35431

D.C. No. 3:06-cv-01511-ST

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Oregon

Michael W. Mosman, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted August 10, 2010** 

Before: O’SCANNLAIN, HAWKINS, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.

Matthew Robert Young, an Oregon state prisoner, appeals pro se from the

district court’s orders denying Young’s motions under Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 60(b) for relief from the judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983

FILED

AUG 30 2010

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 08-35431

action. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for abuse of

discretion, Cal. Dep’t of Soc. Servs. v. Leavitt, 523 F.3d 1025, 1031 (9th Cir.

2008), and we affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Young’s Rule 60(b)

motions. Contrary to Young’s contention, the district court had jurisdiction over

this matter under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, which provides that “district courts shall have

original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or

treaties of the United States.” A district judge may designate a magistrate judge to

hear and determine certain non-dispositive pretrial matters, and to conduct hearings

and submit to the district court findings of fact and recommendations on other

matters. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Although a magistrate judge may, upon the

consent of all parties, exercise jurisdiction over all proceedings in a civil matter,

see id. at § 636(c), here, the parties had not consented. Therefore, jurisdiction over

the case remained with the district judge, and the magistrate judge did not have the

authority to decide the dispositive motions filed by Young or to enter an order

dismissing the case. See id. § 636(b), (c).

Young’s remaining contentions are not persuasive.

AFFIRMED.
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

except under the lim ited circumstances set forth in 5 T H C IR

. R.

47.5.4. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FIFTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 96-31233

____________

JAMES D TUFTS, II; ET AL.

Plaintiffs

JAMES D. TUFTS, II; J DAVID TUFTS, III

Plaintiffs-Appellants

versus

COUNCIL OF LLOYD’S; THE COMMITTEE OF LLOYD’S;

Intervenors-Appellees

THE WHITNEY NATIONAL BANK; NATIONAL

WESTMINISTER BANK PLC

Defendants-Appellees

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Louisiana

(92-CV-2645-C)

November 10, 1997

Before EMILIO M. GARZA, STEWART, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

J. David Tufts, III and the Est ate of James D. Tufts, II

(collectively “Tufts”) appeal from the district court’s dismissal

of their suit against the Whitney National Bank of New Orleans(“Whitney”) and National Westminster Bank PLC (“NatWest”) and their

counter-claims against intervenors Council of Lloyd’s and Committee

of Lloyd’s (collectively “Lloyd’s”).

In its order of March 31, 1995, the district court correctly

noted that as long as the forum selection clause agreed to by Tufts

and Lloyd’s remains valid, Tufts’ argument that Lloyd’s has waived

the clause by intervening in the instant case has no merit. See

M/S BREMEN v. Zapata Off-Shore Co. , 407 U.S. 1, 17-20, 92 S.Ct.

1907, 1917-1918, 32 L.Ed.2d 513 (1972) (holding that an otherwise

valid forum selection clause is not waived when one party finds it

necessary to intervene defens ively in an action brought in

contravention of that clause). In addition, the district court

correctly found that res judicata bars the parties from relitigating the issue of the validity of the forum selection clause

after that issue was finally decided by Roby v. Corporation of

Lloyd’s

, 824 F.Supp. 336 (S.D.N.Y. 1992), aff’d

, 996 F.2d 1353 (2d

Cir.), cert. denied

, 5 10 U.S. 945 (1993). See also Tufts v.

Corporation of Lloyd’s

, No. 95-CIV-3480(JFK), 1996 WL 533639, at *7

(S.D.N.Y. Sept. 19, 1996) (denying motion under F ED

. R. C IV

. P ROC

.

60(b) for relief from the judgment in Roby

, supra ). Accordingly,

we affirm the district court’s dismissal of Tufts’ counter-claims

against Lloyd’s for substantially the same reasons set out by the

district court in its order of March 31, 1995.

As for Tufts’ original complaint against Whitney and NatWest,

that suit requested only that the court issue an injunction barringeither bank from honoring Lloyd’s threatened requests to draw down

on the letters of credit which Tufts claimed were fraudulently

obtained. In light of the fact that both banks already have

honored Lloyd’s request and drawn down the accounts, these claims

against Whitney and NatWest are now moot. See Rocky v. King , 900

F.2d 864, 866 (5th Cir. 1990) (“The mootness doctrine requires that

the controversy posed by the plaintiff’s complaint be ‘live’ not

only at the time the plaintiff files the complaint but also

throughout the litigation process.”).

AFFIRMED.
# C_2012210EN.01000101.xml

| 17.7.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 210/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.7.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 210/1

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.6514 — OK Ekonomisk Förening/Kuwait Petroleum Europe/Kuwait Petroleum (Danmark))

(Text with EEA relevance)

2012/C 210/01

On 9 July 2012, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/index.htm) under document number 32012M6514. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/index.htm) under document number 32012M6514. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law.

---
II 

Calendar No. 10 

113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 201 

To prohibit the sale, lease, transfer, retransfer, or delivery of F–16 aircraft, 

M1 tanks, or certain other defense articles or services to the Government 

of Egypt. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JANUARY 31, 2013 

Mr. PAUL introduced the following bill; which was read the first time 

FEBRUARY 4, 2013 

Read the second time and placed on the calendar 

A BILL 

To prohibit the sale, lease, transfer, retransfer, or delivery 

of F–16 aircraft, M1 tanks, or certain other defense 

articles or services to the Government of Egypt. 

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

3 SECTION 1. PROHIBITION ON CERTAIN MILITARY SALES TO 

4 EGYPT. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding any other provi6 sion of law, the United States Government shall not li7 cense, approve, facilitate, or otherwise allow the sale, 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 201 PCS

1 lease, transfer, retransfer, or delivery of F–16 aircraft, M1 

2 tanks, or other defense articles or services listed in Cat3 egory VI, VII, or VIII of the United States Munitions List 

4 to the Government of Egypt. 

5 (b) UNITED STATES MUNITIONS LIST DEFINED.— 

6 In this section, the term ‘‘United States Munitions List’’ 

7 means the list referred to in section 38(a)(1) of the Arms 

8 Export Control Act (22 U.S.C. 2778(a)(1)), as in effect 

9 on January 1, 2013. 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with BILLS

sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
Calendar No. 10 

113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 201 

A BILL 

To prohibit the sale, lease, transfer, retransfer, or 

ment of Egypt. other defense articles or services to the Governdelivery of F–16 aircraft, M1 tanks, or certain 

FEBRUARY 4, 2013 

Read the second time and placed on the calendar 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with BILLS