alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVA NIA** 

IN RE: AMENDMENT OF RULE S 4.2 AND 4.4 OF TH E CODE OF JUDIC IAL CONDUCT : : : : : : : NO. 427 JUDICIAL ADMINISTRATION DOCKET

**ORDER**
**PER CURIA M**  **AN D**  **NOW**, this 18th day of September, 201 4 , **IT IS**  **ORDERED** pursuant to Article V, Section 10 of the Constitution of Pennsylvania that Rules 4.2 and 4.4 of the Code of Judicial Conduct of 2014 are amended in the attached form. To the extent that notice of proposed rulemaking would otherwise be required by Pa.R.J.A. No. 103, the immediate promulgation of the amendments is found to be in the interests of justice and efficient administration. This **ORDER** shall be processed in accordance with Pa.R.J.A. No. 103(b), and shall be effective immediately

.
Additions are s hown in bold and are underlined. Deletions are shown in bold and are bracketed.
**Exhibit 35.2**

**Servicer Compliance Statement of Deere Credit Services, Inc.**

​

I, Steven N. Owenson, Senior Vice President and Finance Director of Deere Credit Services, Inc., state:

​

A review of Deere Credit Services, Inc.’s activities for the period from September 19, 2023 (the date of issuance of the John Deere Owner Trust 2023-C transaction subject to the requirements of Regulation AB) through October 29, 2023 (the “Reporting Period”) and of Deere Credit Services, Inc.’s performance under the Sale and Servicing Agreement dated as of September 19, 2023 among John Deere Capital Corporation, John Deere Receivables LLC and John Deere Owner Trust 2023-C has been made under my supervision, and to the best of my knowledge based on such review, Deere Credit Services, Inc. has fulfilled all its obligations under all relevant agreements in all material respects throughout the Reporting Period. 

​

​

| ​               | ​                     | ​                                    |
|-----------------------|-----------------------------|--------------------------------------------|
| Date: January 9, 2024 | Deere Credit Services, Inc. |
| ​               | ​                     | ​                                    |
| ​               | By:                         | */s/ Steven N. Owenson*                    |
| ​               | ​                     | Steven N. Owenson                          |
| ​               | ​                     | Senior Vice President and Finance Director |
| ​               | ​                     | ​                                    |
| ​               | ​                     | ​                                    |

​

----
Exhibit 10.5


 


LOAN
CONVERSION AGREEMENT


 


This Loan Conversion Agreement
(this “Agreement”) is entered into as of January 28, 2022 (the “Effective Date”), by and between
ParaZero Technologies Ltd., an Israeli company (the “Company”); and Delta Drone International Ltd., an Australian company
(“Parent”).


 


WHEREAS the Company has
an outstanding debt to Parent in a total amount of AUD 10,401,411 (the “Conversion Amount”); and


 


WHEREAS
Parent desires and agrees to convert the Conversion Amount into new share capital of the Company;


 


NOW,
THEREFORE, in consideration of the terms and conditions set forth herein, the Parties hereto
agree as follows:


 


1.
Interpretation


 


The headings of the sections and subsections of this Agreement
are for convenience of reference only and are not to be considered in construing this Agreement.


 


2.
The Investment


 


		2.1	On the Effective Date the Company shall issue to the Parent
1,504,152 Ordinary Shares of the Company, of NIS 0.01 par value (the “Shares”), in consideration for an investment
in the Company in an amount equal to the Conversion Amount (the “Investment Amount”).



 


		2.2	The Shares issued to Parent hereunder shall be a fully-paid
and non-assessable shares, free and clear of any liens, encumbrances, pledges, charges, levies, or such other rights to the benefit of
third parties.



 


		2.3	Payment of the Investment Amount by Parent to the Company
shall be done by way of conversion and capitalization of the entire Conversion Amount.



 


		2.4	Upon the issuance of the Shares to the Parent pursuant to
the terms hereof, the entire Conversion Amount shall be deemed as fully discharged and repaid by the Company to the Parent.



 


3.
Miscellaneous


 


		3.1	This Agreement shall be governed by and construed according
to the laws of the State of Israel.



 


		3.2	Any dispute arising under or in relation to this Agreement
shall be resolved in the competent court of Tel-Aviv Jaffa, Israel, to exclude the jurisdiction of any other court.



 


		3.3	Each of the Parties shall take such actions, including the
execution of further instruments, as may be necessary to give full effect to the provisions hereof and to the intent of the Parties hereto.



 


		3.4	No delay or omission to exercise any right, power, or remedy
accruing to any Party upon any breach or default under this Agreement, shall be deemed a waiver of any other breach or default therefore
or thereafter occurring.



 




     


     


    

 


[SIGNATURE PAGE TO LOAN CONVERSION
AGREEMENT]


 


IN WITNESS WHEREOF the Parties have signed this Agreement
as of the date first hereinabove set forth.


 





	/s/ Eden Attias	 
	ParaZero Technologies Ltd.	 
	 	 
	By:	Eden Attias	 
	Title:	Director	 



 


	EXECUTED by Delta Drone	)
	International Ltd (CAN 618 678 701) in	)
	Accordance with section 127(1) of the	)
	Corporations Act 2001	)



  


	/s/ Eden Attias	 	/s/ Christopher Clark
	Signature of Director	 	Signature of Director
	
     

    Eden Attias
	 	
     

    Christopher Clark

	Name of Director	 	Name of Director
Fruit & Specialty Crops 1400 Independence Avenue, SW.

Vegetable Inspection Room 1536-S, STOP 0240

Program Division Washington, DC 20250-0240

June 26, 2015 

 

AMENDMENT NO. 2

COMMODITY SPECIFICATION

CANNED VEGETABLES DATED SEPTEMBER 2014

The purpose of this amendment is to: 1) describe in Section I. D. the requirements for Kosher 

and Halal certified products; 2) insert Kosher and Halal (KH) material and UPC for 24/300 can 

tomato sauce in Section V. Exhibits; and 3) insert Kosher and Halal symbols in Section V.

Exhibits. Details are as follows:

D. Halal and Kosher Products

Occasionally, USDA solicits offers to sell KOSHER and/or KOSHER HALAL products. 

Such products are identified on the solicitation with the letters “K” “or K H” incorporated 

into WBSCM material descriptions. Vendors must comply with the applicable dietary 

laws in the production of these commodity products. Vendors must not bid on these 

purchase units unless they can be properly certified.

For products offered in 6/#10 cans – vendors receiving purchase order items identified 

as “KOSHER” must contact the Board of Jewish Education of Greater New York 

(BJENY) at telephone 646-472-5365 prior to manufacturing the commodity product to 

arrange for certification of compliance with the applicable dietary (kosher) laws.

For products in 24/#300 cans – Kosher products must bear one of the Kosher 

certification symbols illustrated in Exhibit 9-1. Kosher Halal products must bear one of 

the Kosher certification symbols illustrated in Exhibits 9-1 and one of the Halal 

certification symbols in Exhibit 9-2. 

Exhibit 5

Universal Product Codes

 WBSCM 

24/300 cans Material Primary Container Secondary Container

KH Tomato Sauce Can 24/300 110610 7 15001 10610 0 1 0 7 15001 10610 7
Exhibit 9-1

SYMBOLS FOR KOSHER PRODUCTS

http://oukosher.org/ http://trianglek.org/ http://www.ok.org/ 

http://www.skskosher.com/ http://www.kof-k.org/ http://www.cor.ca/ 

http://www.star-k.org/default.htm http://scrollk.org/ http://www.kosher.org/ 

Exhibit 9-2

SYMBOLS FOR HALAL PRODUCTS

www.ifanca.org www.halalfoundation.org/ www.ushalalcertification.com

www.ushalalcertification.com www.ushalalcertification.com

All other terms and conditions remain unchanged.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Luvert TELLIS, Jr., Defendant-Appellant.

No. 75-2467.

United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.

Argued June 14, 1976.

Decided July 27, 1976.

Rehearing and Rehearing En Banc Denied Aug. 23, 1976.

Martin Gary Deutch, Southfield, Mich. (Court-appointed CJA), for defendant-appellant.

Ralph B. Guy, Jr., U. S. Atty., Richard L. Delonis, Detroit, Mich., for plaintiff-appellee.

Before WEICK, EDWARDS and LIVELY, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Appellant in this case was convicted after a jury trial on three counts of a four-count indictment charging him with violation of the Controlled Substances Act, 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) (1970), and 21 U.S.C. § 844(a) (1970).

Defendant on appeal challenges the constitutionality of the search warrant, the manner of its execution, and the sufficiency of the proofs. We have examined the affidavit upon which the search warrant was issued with great care and believe that it conforms to the Fourth Amendment rules laid down in *Aguilar v. Texas,*378 U.S. 108, 84 S.Ct. 1509, 12 L.Ed.2d 723 (1964), and *Spinelli v. United States,*393 U.S. 410, 89 S.Ct. 584, 21 L.Ed.2d 637 (1969). *See also United States v. Harris,*403 U.S. 573, 91 *1255S.Ct. 2075, 29 L.Ed.2d 723 (1971). We do not believe that where the informant stated he had been in the premises to be searched within the past three days and had seen a white powder which defendant told him was heroin, the information was too stale to support issuance of the warrant. *See United States*v. *Harris, supra.*

Nor do the facts pertaining to the execution of the warrant in our view require our finding a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 3109 (1970), since the officers announced their purpose and authority and waited an appreciable time before forcing entrance into the premises.

Finally, the evidence is undisputed that the house where the heroin and marijuana was found was appellant’s residence. The heroin was found in a refrigerator in the basement, which was owned by defendant, while the marijuana was found in a dresser in defendant’s bedroom. In various places in the house, including the kitchen, there were other items associated with the narcotics trade: quinine, manitol, and a filed-down spoon. Under these circumstances the jury could have concluded that defendant had constructive possession of the narcotics charged in Counts 1 and 2 and 4. The judgment of the District Court is affirmed.
#### Davis, Appellant, *v.*Smith et al.

*Practice, Supreme Court*— Appeals—Paper *boohs*— Statements *of questions involved*— Assignments *of error.*

1. Statements of questions involved which are not made the subject of an assignment of error cannot be considered by the Supreme Court.

*Workmen’s compensation law*— Workmen’s *Compensation Board —Findings of fact*— Appeals.

2. The lower court properly dismissed an appeal from the decision of the Workmen’s Compensation Board which involved only questions of fact, as the courts are not permitted to inquire into findings of fact by the Workmen’s Compensation Board based upon conflicting evidence.

Argued Oct. 3, 1918.

October 23, 1918:

Appeal, No. 66, Oct. T., 1918, by plaintiff, from order of O. P. Armstrong Co., Dec. T., 1917, No. 118, dismissing appeal from order of Workmen’s Compensation Board, in case of Nellie Lenora Davis v. W. H. and S. A. Smith.

Before Brown, C. J., Stewart, Moschzisker, Frazer, Walling, Simpson and Fox, JJ.

Affirmed.

Appeal from order of Workmen’s Compensation Board. Before King, P. J.

The opinion of the Supreme Court states the facts.

The court dismissed the appeal. Plaintiff appealed.

*Error assigned*was the order of the court.

*A. L. Ivory,*with him *O. E. Harrington,*for appellant.

*H. A. Heilman,*for appellee.

Per Curiam,

Neither the first nor the second question appearing in appellant’s statement of the questions involved in this *433appeal is made the subject of any assignment of error, and they cannot therefore be considered'. The second and third assignments merely complain of the disallowance of appellant’s claim by the referee and the Workmen’s Compensation Board, and the first, of the court’s dismissal of her exceptions to the action of the board. The order of the court below is affirmed at appellant’s costs on the following from its opinion dismissing her exceptions : “We are of the opinion that, in this particular instance, the said board did not exceed its powers. The exception as to that should not be sustained. The other exceptions would lead us into the domain of the facts involved in the case and would require us to find differently. from the board before we could reverse its award. Were we allowed to investigate independently with respect thereto, we might arrive at a different conclusion from that reached by the board, but into this domain, when there is conflicting evidence, we are not allowed to enter. It has been judicially determined that the findings of fact by the Workmen’s Compensation Board, upon appeal from a referee, are final and cannot be disturbed by the courts: Poluskiewicz v. Philadelphia & Reading Coal & Iron Co., 257 Pa. 305."
NO. 07-03-0028-CV

	IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

	FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

	AT AMARILLO

	PANEL B

	AUGUST 26, 2004

	______________________________

	WINNIE PIPELINE COMPANY, N/K/A ACACIA NATURAL GAS CORPORATION,

	AND MITCHELL GAS SERVICES, L.P., SUCCESSOR IN INTEREST

	TO MITCHELL MARKETING COMPANY, F/K/A SOUTHEASTERN

	MARKETING COMPANY, N/K/A DEVON GAS SERVICES, L.P.,

									Appellants

	v.

	WILLIAM HARRINGTON, 

									Appellee

	_________________________________

	FROM THE 221ST DISTRICT COURT OF MONTGOMERY COUNTY;

	NO. 02-10-06625-CV; HON. SUZANNE STOVALL, PRESIDING

	_______________________________

	On Motion to Dismiss

	_______________________________

Before JOHNSON, C.J., and QUINN and CAMPBELL, JJ.

	Winnie Pipeline Company, n/k/a Acacia Natural Gas Corporation, and Mitchell Gas Services, L.P., successor in interest to Mitchell Marketing Company, f/k/a Southeastern Marketing Company, n/k/a Devon Gas Services, L.P. (Winnie), by and through its attorney, has filed a motion to dismiss this appeal because it no longer desires to prosecute it.  Without passing on the merits of the case, we grant the motion to dismiss pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 42.1(a)(2) and dismiss the appeal.  Having dismissed the appeal at appellant's request, no motion for rehearing will be entertained, and our mandate will issue forthwith.                              					 				

							Per Curiam
[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 72 (Friday, April 13, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 22343]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-8898]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION

[Investigation No. 731-TA-1089 (Review)]


Certain Orange Juice From Brazil

Determination

    On the basis of the record \1\ developed in the subject five-year 
review, the United States International Trade Commission (Commission) 
determines, pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 
U.S.C. 1675(c)), that revocation of the antidumping duty order on 
certain orange juice from Brazil would not be likely to lead to 
continuation or recurrence of material injury to an industry in the 
United States within a reasonably foreseeable time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The record is defined in sec. 207.2(f) of the Commission's 
Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 207.2(f)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Background

    The Commission instituted this review on February 1, 2011 (76 FR 
5822, February 2, 2011) and determined on May 9, 2011 that it would 
conduct a full review (76 FR 30197, May 24, 2011). Notice of the 
scheduling of the Commission's review and of a public hearing to be 
held in connection therewith was given by posting copies of the notice 
in the Office of the Secretary, U.S. International Trade Commission, 
Washington, DC, and by publishing the notice in the Federal Register on 
July 14, 2011 (76 FR 43344, July 20, 2012). The hearing was held in 
Washington, DC, on January 24, 2012, and all persons who requested the 
opportunity were permitted to appear in person or by counsel.
    The Commission transmitted its determination in this review to the 
Secretary of Commerce on April 9, 2012. The views of the Commission are 
contained in USITC Publication 4311 (April 2012), entitled Certain 
Orange Juice from Brazil: Investigation No. 731-TA-1089 (Review).

     Issued: April 10, 2012.

    By order of the Commission.
James R. Holbein,
Secretary to the Commission.
[FR Doc. 2012-8898 Filed 4-12-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7020-02-P
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

November 30, 2022

No. 04-22-00642-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF O.J.S.D., a Child

From the 408th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2021-PA-01386

Honorable Kevin Henderson, Judge Presiding

ORDER

In accordance with the opinion of this date, this appeal is DISMISSED FOR WANT OF 

JURISDICTION. Because appellant is indigent, no costs of appeal are assessed.

It is so ORDERED on November 30, 2022.

_____________________________

Lori I. Valenzuela, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 30th day of November, 2022.

_____________________________

Michael A. Cruz, Clerk of Court
**EXHIBIT 35.1**

 

**SERVICER COMPLIANCE STATEMENT**

**New Holland Credit Company, LLC**

 

The undersigned, a duly authorized officer of New Holland Credit Company, LLC (“NHCC”), as Servicer pursuant to the Sale andServicing Agreement dated as of April 1, 2023 (as amended from time to time, the “Sale and Servicing Agreement”) by and amongNHCC, CNH Capital Receivables LLC and CNH Equipment Trust 2023-A, does hereby certify that:

 

1.            NHCC is Servicer under the Sale and Servicing Agreement.

 

2.            The undersigned is duly authorized as required pursuant to the Sale and Servicing Agreement to execute and deliver this Certificate tothe Indenture Trustee.

 

3.            This Certificate is delivered pursuant to Section 4.9(a) of the Sale and Servicing Agreement and Item 1123 of Regulation AB.

 

4.            A review of the Servicer’s activities during the 12 month period ending (and including) December 31, 2023 and of its performanceunder the Sale and Servicing Agreement has been made under my supervision.

 

5.            To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Servicer has fulfilled all of its obligations under the Sale and Servicing Agreementin all material respects throughout the 12 month period ending (and including) December 31, 2023.

 

6.            IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has duly executed this Certificate this  27th day of March, 2024.

 

 

 

 

March 27, 2024
Exhibit 31.1


Rule 13a-14(a)/15d-14(a) Certification





I, David Viney, certify that:





1. I have reviewed this report on Form 10-K and all reports on Form 10-D required to be filed in respect of the period covered by this report on Form 10-K of Harley-Davidson Motorcycle Trust 2023-B (the “Exchange Act periodic reports”);





2.  Based on my knowledge, the Exchange Act periodic reports, taken as a whole, do 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, all of the distribution, servicing and other information required to be provided under Form 10-D for the period covered by this report is included in the Exchange Act periodic reports;





4.   I am responsible for reviewing the activities performed by the servicer and based on my knowledge and the compliance reviews conducted in preparing the servicer compliance statement required in this report under Item 1123 of Regulation AB, and except as disclosed in the Exchange Act periodic reports, the servicer has fulfilled its obligations under the servicing agreement in all material respects; and





5.  All of the reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities and their related attestation reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities required to be included in this report in accordance with Item 1122 of Regulation AB and Exchange Act Rules 13a-18 and 15d-18 have been included as an exhibit to this report, except as otherwise disclosed in this report.  Any material instances of noncompliance described in such reports have been disclosed in this report on Form 10-K.





In giving the certifications above, I have reasonably relied on information provided to me by the following unaffiliated party: Citibank, N.A. as indenture trustee of the issuing entity.





/s/ David VineyDavid VineyVice President and Treasurer (senior officer in charge of the servicing function) of Harley-Davidson Credit Corp., Servicer to Harley-Davidson Motorcycle Trust 2023-BMarch 21, 2024
#### Kenneth HIXSON, Appellant, v. The STATE of Oklahoma, Appellee.

No. F-79-22.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma.

July 27, 1979.

Don L. Wyatt, Ada, for appellant.

Jan Eric Cartwright, Atty. Gen., David W. Lee, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

OPINION

CORNISH, Presiding Judge:

The appellant, Kenneth Hixson, was convicted of Obtaining Money by False Pretenses in the District Court of Pontotoc County, Case No. CRF-78-5. The jury set punishment at a fine of Five Thousand Dollars ($5,000.00).

In response to this appeal, the Attorney General of the State of Oklahoma has filed notice of confession of error. In that notice, the Attorney General confessed error based upon the demurrable information and insufficiency of the evidence.

Appellant had contracted with several churches in and about Ada, Oklahoma, to take pictures of their members for potential sale to said members and to provide church directories gratis. The photos were taken and deposits and some payments in full were received, but the packets of photographs were not returned within the time promised. In addition to this delay on the appellant’s part, the churches, either through their administrators or individual members, disapproved of the quality of the product.

The crime of Obtaining Money by False Pretenses under 21 O.S.1971, § 1541.1, et al, requires the making of a false statement by one person to another of a past or existing fact with the intent to defraud. *Kellogg v. State,*Okl.Cr., 551 P.2d 301 (1976). In *Kellogg,*the crime of Obtaining Property by False Pretenses was not committed by a defendant who promised to return the following day to give a cashier’s check in exchange for the seller’s vehicle. Comparably, appellant Hixson did not commit the crime of Obtaining Money by False Pretenses when he promised to deliver the photo packets within a certain time period in exchange for the buyers’ money. The evidence indicates that the appellant was in business at the time of the transactions; that he did maintain an office in Arkansas; and that he did have a developer in Tennes*269see. No evidence of intent to defraud was presented.

As in *Hollie v. State,*Okl.Cr., 386 P.2d 333 (1963), any breach of the obligation incurred must be remedied by a civil suit, and the information by which the appellant was charged is demurrable on its face.

*REVERSED*with instructions to *DISMISS.*

BRETT and BUSSEY, JJ., concur.