alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Navigate to Homepage
Search
Main navigation
  

        
              Explore the Capitol Campus
                          Art
                            Buildings & Grounds
                            Capitol Hill Facts
                            Visitor Resources
                            Our Blog
                            What We Do
                          Areas of Expertise
                            Programs & Ceremonies
                            Projects
                            Publications
                            Strategic Objectives
                            About Us
                          Who We Are
                            History of the AOC
                            News & Notices
                            Organizational Structure
                            Partnerships & Recognition
                            Work With UsSearch Breadcrumb
    Homecommentreply496Add new comment
Add new comment
        
                  Craig Holmes (... (not verified)PermalinkAugust 9, 2017 - 6:57amBravo Zulu! Great article and an excellent example of the attention to detail that our guys strive for._x000D_ Thomas Jefferson was instrumental in shaping the Constitution, and spoke at length at several meetings to expound on the intricacies of the philosophies being implemented by the founding fathers. He was considered not only one of the best read, but also one of the top brilliant minds in the founding fathers._x000D_ _x000D_ Thank you for this subject matter. It's inspiring.
ReplyYour name
Email Address
        The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
Comment
About text formats
Plain text
  
  
      
          No HTML tags allowed.
                      Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
                      Web page addresses and email addresses turn into links automatically. Serve. Preserve. Inspire.

              Contact Us
                            Accountability
                            Hill Staff Resources
                            AOC Staff Resources
Utility
  

        
              Privacy Policy
                            Image Terms of Use
                            Inspector General
                            U.S. Botanic Garden
                            U.S. Capitol Visitor CenterFacebook
	Twitter
	Flickr
	YouTube
	Instagram
	Subscribe
Breadcrumb

1. Home

2. Print 

3. Pdf 

4. Node 

5. Entity Print 

Commenting Opportunities:

Biotechnology

Last Modified: 

Print

Tell us what you think!

As biotechnology evolves, our rules need to evolve with it. Your input helps us make

better-informed decisions about actions and processes that may interest you. Check

out this page for opportunities for public comment.
Latest Commenting Opportunities

3/21/24

USDA Seeks Public Input on Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Deregulation

of Maize Developed Using Genetic Engineering

3/20/24

USDA Solicits Input on Petition to Deregulate Corn Developed Using Genetic

Engineering

11/29/23

USDA Deregulates Corn Developed Using Genetic Engineering

11/08/22

USDA Seeks Public Input on Draft Environmental Documents for Deregulation of

American Chestnut Developed Using Genetic Engineering

Related Links

Biotechnology: Federal Register Table 

APHIS: All Federal Register Posts

APHIS News and Updates

Stay in the Know

For the latest news about biotechnology, sign up for email updates.

Subscribe
Exhibit 10.7


 


Third AMENDMENT
TO Promissory note


 


THIS
Third Amendment (THE “THIRD AMENDMENT”) DATED July 27, 2018,
shall amend the Promissory note (THE “NOTE”) dated AS OF FEBRUARY 2,
2015 and amended on july 27, 2015 (the “first amendment”), AND July 20, 2017 (THE “SECOND AMENDMENT”) AMONG
NON-INVASIVE MONITORING SYSTEMS, INC. (THE “MAKER”) AND JANE HSIAO (THE “PAYEE”) AS NOTED BELOW. THE NOTE,
THE FIRST AMENDMENT, THE SECOND AMENDMENT, AND THE THIRD AMENDMENT SHALL BE REFERRED TO AS THE AMENDED NOTE.


 


RECITALS


 


WHEREAS, Maker and
Payee (collectively, the “Parties”) are parties to the Note which became effective on February 2, 2015; and


 


WHEREAS, on July
20, 2017, the Parties amended the Note to extend the Maturity Date from July 31, 2017 until July 31, 2018; and


 


WHEREAS, the Parties
desire to amend the Note to extend the Maturity Date from July 31, 2018 until July 31, 2020.


 


NOW THEREFORE, in
consideration of the mutual covenants and promises contained in the Note and this Third Amendment and other good and valuable consideration,
the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the Parties agree as follows:


 


AMENDMENT


 


1. Section
1 of the Note is hereby amended and restated in its entirety as follows:


 


The principal amount of the loan evidenced
hereby, together with any accrued and unpaid interest, and any and all unpaid costs, fees and expenses accrued, shall be due and
payable on July 31, 2020 (the “Maturity Date”).


 


2. Governing Law.
This Third Amendment shall be governed by the laws of the State of Florida without regard to its conflict of laws rules or principles.


 


3. Amendments. Except
as expressly amended hereby, the Note shall remain unmodified and in full force and effect.


 


4. Entire Agreement.
This Third Amendment and the Note constitute the entire agreement of the Parties with respect to the subject matter hereof and
supersede all prior understandings and writings between the Parties relating thereto.


 



    	 



    	 



     


5. Interpretation.
Any capitalized terms used in this Third Amendment but not otherwise defined shall have the meaning provided in the Note.


 


6. Counterparts.
This Third Amendment may be executed manually, electronically in Adobe® PDF file format, or by facsimile by the Parties, in
any number of counterparts, each of which shall be considered one and the same amendment and shall become effective when a counterpart
hereof shall have been signed by each of the Parties and delivered to the other Party.


 


IN WITNESS WHEREOF,
Borrower has duly executed this Third Amendment to the Note and Security Note as of the 27th day of July, 2018.


 


	 	 	 	NON-INVASIVE MONITORING SYSTEMS, INC. 
	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 	
        By:

        
	/s/ James J. Martin
	 	 	 	
        Name:

        
	James J. Martin
	 	 	 	Title:	
        Chief Financial Officer

        

	 	 	 	 	 
	Agreed and Accepted:	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 	 
	By:	
        /s/ Jane Hsiao, Ph.D.

        
	 	 	 
	
        Name:

        
	Jane Hsiao, Ph.D.
106 P.3d 375

SUPREME COURT OF HAWAI'I

February 17, 2005

25557

#### Association of Apartment Owners of Milowai-Maalaea ex rel. Board of Directors v. Sandhills Gang Partners

Affirmed
Breadcrumb

1. Home

2. Print 

3. Pdf 

4. Node 

5. Entity Print 

Commenting Opportunities:

Facilitating Safe Agricultural Trade

Last Modified: 

Print

Tell us what you think!

As trade increases, so does the risk of spreading plant pests and animal diseases.

Our experts analyze these risks and identify measures that will make trade safer and

mitigate threats to U.S. agriculture. Your input in this process helps us make better-
informed decisions about actions that may impact you.

Because safe trade and agricultural health are interconnected, be sure to check out

our plant health and animal health commenting opportunities.

Latest Commenting Opportunities

3/12/24

APHIS Seeks Public Comment on the Draft Rangeland Grasshopper and Mormon

Cricket Suppression Program Environmental Assessment in Idaho

2/19/24

APHIS Invites U.S. Stakeholders to Comment on NAPPO Documents

Related Links

Commenting Opportunities: Animal Health

Commenting Opportunities: Plant Health

APHIS: All Federal Register Posts

APHIS News and Updates

International Standard Setting

Stay in the Know

Sign up for email or text updates for the latest APHIS news and information.

Subscribe
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

499 

CA 15-00807 

PRESENT: SMITH, J.P., CENTRA, DEJOSEPH, CURRAN, AND SCUDDER, JJ. 

 

INDUS PVR LLC, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, 

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

MAA-SHARDA, INC., DEFENDANT-APPELLANT, 

ROSHAN HOSPITALITY, INC., ET AL., DEFENDANTS. 

(APPEAL NO. 3.) 

 

FRANK A. ALOI, ROCHESTER, AND ROBERT J. LUNN, FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. 

WOODS OVIATT GILMAN LLP, ROCHESTER (JOHN C. NUTTER OF COUNSEL), FOR

PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT. 

 

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Ontario County

(Matthew A. Rosenbaum, J.), entered December 26, 2014. The order

denied the motion of defendant MAA-Sharda, Inc. for leave to reargue

and renew its opposition to plaintiff’s motion for a judgment of

foreclosure and sale. 

It is hereby ORDERED that said appeal from the order insofar as

it denied leave to reargue is unanimously dismissed and the order is

affirmed without costs. 

Same memorandum as in Indus PVR LLC v MAA-Sharda, Inc. ([appeal

No. 1] ___ AD3d ___ [June 10, 2016]). 

Entered: June 10, 2016 Frances E. Cafarell

Clerk of the Court
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                                        <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                              YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                         183,600
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   42,800
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                      10,807,400
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              15,943,600
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                       7,220,00
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                   8,426,500
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                15,943,600
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             2,800,500
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,111,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               718,200
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             661,800
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                309,500
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   309,500
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.97
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.97
        

</TABLE>
# EXHIBIT 23.1

# INDEPENDENT
AUDITORS CONSENT

We consent to the incorporation by
reference in Registration Statement Nos. 333-44490, 333-65738, and 333-67636 on Forms S-8,
Amendment No. 1 to Registration Statement No. 333-109188 on Form S-3, and Registration
Statement No. 333-84650 on Form S-3 of Magnum Hunter Resources, Inc. of our report dated
March 9, 2004 (which report expresses an unqualified opinion and includes an explanatory
paragraph relating to changes in the methods of accounting for asset retirement
obligations and employee stock-based compensation in 2003 as required by Statement of
Financial Accounting Standards No. 143, Accounting for Asset Retirement
Obligations and Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 148,
Accounting for Stock-Based Compensation  Transition and Disclosure, and
Amendment to FASB Statement No. 123", respectively), appearing in this Annual Report
on Form 10-K of Magnum Hunter Resources, Inc. for the year ended December 31, 2003.

Dallas, TexasMarch 12,
2004
United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

No. 21-5045 September Term, 2023

 FILED ON: AUGUST 12, 2024

DAMIEN GUEDES, ET AL.,

APPELLANTS

FIREARMS POLICY COALITION, INC.,

APPELLEE

v.

BUREAU OF ALCOHOL, TOBACCO, FIREARMS AND EXPLOSIVES, ET AL.,

APPELLEES

On Remand from the Supreme Court of the United States

Before: SRINIVASAN, Chief Judge, WILKINS, Circuit Judge, and EDWARDS, Senior Circuit

Judge

J U D G M E N T

This cause came on to be heard on remand from the Supreme Court of the United States. On

consideration thereof, it is 

ORDERED and ADJUDGED that, in accordance with the Supreme Court’s judgment filed

June 24, 2024, vacating this court’s August 9, 2022 judgment, and remanding with instructions to

consider this case in light of Garland v. Cargill, 602 U.S. 406 (2024), we hereby vacate the District

Court’s grant of summary judgment and remand to the District Court with instructions to enter

judgment in favor of the Plaintiffs.

The Clerk is directed to issue the mandate forthwith.

FOR THE COURT:

Mark J. Langer, Clerk

BY: /s/

Daniel J. Reidy

Deputy Clerk
Product Monitoring Strategies

 Post-marketing surveillance activities will be 

transparent and accountable. 

 External review and advice are essential for 

consistency with accepted standards. 

 Techniques will be grounded on accepted principles of 

causal inference, statistical methodology, and risk 

assessment.
25789

#### Doe Children, In re

Affirmed
Navigate to Homepage
Search
Main navigation
  

        
              Explore the Capitol Campus
                          Art
                            Buildings & Grounds
                            Capitol Hill Facts
                            Visitor Resources
                            Our Blog
                            What We Do
                          Areas of Expertise
                            Programs & Ceremonies
                            Projects
                            Publications
                            Strategic Objectives
                            About Us
                          Who We Are
                            History of the AOC
                            News & Notices
                            Organizational Structure
                            Partnerships & Recognition
                            Work With UsSearch Breadcrumb
    HomeExplore the Capitol CampusThe Art Collection
Colonization of New England
        
                  The Basics
      
Artist
      
Filippo Costaggini

Location
      
Capitol Rotunda

Early settlers cut and saw trees and use the lumber to construct a building, possibly a warehouse for their supplies.

About the Frieze of American History

The frieze in the Rotunda of the United States Capitol contains a painted panorama depicting significant events in American history. Thomas U. Walter's 1859 cross-section drawing of the new dome (constructed 1855-1863) shows a recessed belt atop the Rotunda walls with relief sculpture.

Eventually it was painted in true fresco, a difficult and exacting technique in which the pigments are applied directly onto wet plaster. As the plaster cures the colors become part of the wall. Consequently, each section of plaster must be painted the day it is laid. The frieze is painted in grisaille, a monochrome of whites and browns that resembles sculpture. It measures 8 feet 4 inches in height and approximately 300 feet in circumference. It starts 58 feet above the floor. Serve. Preserve. Inspire.

              Contact Us
                            Accountability
                            Hill Staff Resources
                            AOC Staff Resources
Utility
  

        
              Privacy Policy
                            Image Terms of Use
                            Inspector General
                            U.S. Botanic Garden
                            U.S. Capitol Visitor CenterFacebook
	Twitter
	Flickr
	YouTube
	Instagram
	Subscribe
#### State v. Villamor

16954

5/30/96

Affirmed
18848

#### State v. Watanuki

Affirmed
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REGION IX 75 Hawthorne Street San Francisco, CA 94105-3901

The Honorable Harry E. Mitchell U.S. House of Representatives 14

### 10 Longworth House Office Building Washington, DC 205 15 OFFICE OF THE REGIONAL ADMINISTRATOR

Re: EPA Docket No. EPA-R09-OAR-2009-0598 (74 Fed. Reg. 44,313; Aug. 28,2009)
Dear Congressman Mitchell: Thank you for your letter concerning U.S. EPA's Advanced Notice ofProposed Rulemaking on Assessment ofAnticipated Visibility Improvements at Surrounding Class 

### I Areas and Cost Effectiveness of Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART) for Four Comers Power Plant (FCPP) and Navajo Generating Station (NGS), published on August 28,2009, at 74 Fed. Reg. 443 13. We shareyour concerns over improving air quality, maintaining affordable access to electricity and water, and minimizing negative impacts ontribal communities. We place a high priority on ensuring that all stakeholder concerns are given careful consideration aspart ofour rulemaking process. EPA is responsible for meeting the requirements of the Regional Haze Rule 

### and reducing visibility-impairing pollutants from the power plants within the Navajo Nation that are affecting multiple national parks and wilderness areas, including the Grand Canyon in Arizona. In making our futureBART determination, we must consider five factors: the costs of compliance (i.e. cost effectiveness), energy and non-air quality impacts ofcompliance, existing pollution control equipment,the remaining useful life of the source, and the degree ofvisibility improvement. The ANPR seeks public input on the two most potentially variable factors -cost effectiveness and visibility improvements. It presents a comparison ofthe technical analyses for the cost effectiveness and visibility improvement submittedby Arizona Public Service (APS) and the SaltRiver Project (SRP)for their respective power plants on the Navajo Nation, and EPA's own analysis. While EPA agreed with much of the information provided by the utilities, there were some areas of disagreement. In the ANPR, EPA presents its own technical analysis, explains the areas of disagreement, and requests comment on all the technical analyses provided for the two factors.

Printed on Recycled PaperAfter we receive and review all the comments on the ANPR, EPA Region 9 will prepare a proposed rulemaking that will address all five factors and present and explain our BART determination. We will have a lengthy public comment period and hold public hearings given the interest in and importance of the proposal. Oncewe have completed the proposal process, we will respond to all comments received when making a final BART determination. Again, thank you for sharing your comments and concerns. They will be taken into consideration aswe move forward to make a BART determination. If 

### I can be of further assistance, please call me at (415) 947-8702 or have your staff call my Congressional Liaison, Brent Maier, at (415) 947-4256.
Sincerely, .r

Acting ~&ional Administrator
June 13, 2003

22078

#### Luke v. Association of Apartment Owners of Ridgecrest

Affirmed
H. Res. 448 

In the House of Representatives, U. S., 

September 30, 2015. 

Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall 

be in order to consider in the House the concurrent resolution 

(H. Con. Res. 79) directing the Clerk of the House of Representatives to make corrections in the enrollment of H.R. 

719. All points of order against consideration of the concurrent resolution are waived. The concurrent resolution shall be 

considered as read. All points of order against provisions in 

the concurrent resolution are waived. The previous question 

shall be considered as ordered on the concurrent resolution to 

adoption without intervening motion or demand for division 

of the question except 20 minutes of debate equally divided 

and controlled by the Majority Leader and the Minority 

Leader or their respective designees. 

SEC. 2. Upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in 

order to take from the Speaker’s table the bill (H.R. 719) to 

require the Transportation Security Administration to conform to existing Federal law and regulations regarding criminal investigator positions, and for other purposes, with the 
2 

•HRES 448 EH 

Senate amendment to the House amendment to the Senate 

amendment thereto, and to consider in the House, without 

intervention of any point of order, a motion offered by the 

chair of the Committee on Appropriations or his designee 

that the House concur in the Senate amendment to the 

House amendment to the Senate amendment. The Senate 

amendment and the motion shall be considered as read. The 

motion shall be debatable for one hour equally divided and 

controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the 

Committee on Appropriations. The previous question shall be 

considered as ordered on the motion to adoption without intervening motion. 

Attest: 

Clerk.
Breadcrumb

1. Home

2. Print 

3. Pdf 

4. Node 

5. Entity Print 

Isolation of Organisms from Soil

Last Modified: 

Print

PPQ considers the isolation of organisms from soil to be a legitimate analytical

activity for which the importation of soil may be authorized if the soil is handled and

treated as prescribed in an APHIS permit. A soil permit provides very specific

controls over the soil itself, but does not authorize the removal or maintenance of

organisms from the soil.

Permittees are cautioned that soil may contain plant, animal, or human disease

agents which are likely to be prohibited, restricted, or otherwise regulated under

other authorities. The permittee is responsible for ensuring that all activities related

to the removal and/or maintenance of organisms from soil are authorized by the

proper authorities. For isolating and culturing plant pests from imported soil,

complete an Application to Move Live Plant Pests and Noxious Weeds (PPQ Form

526).
November 20, 1997

20544

#### Alisna v. Aig Hawaii Ins. Co.

Reversed, Vacated and Remanded
#### State v. Sumera.

18414

12/26/96

Remanded
Exhibit



Exhibit 10.4






                     Altria Client Services




May 17, 2018






BY HAND


Mr. Martin J. Barrington
6601 West Broad Street
Richmond, Virginia 23230






Re:  Termination of Aircraft Time Sharing Agreement






Dear Mr. Barrington:


In connection with your retirement, we confirm that the Time Sharing Agreement, dated November 19, 2015 (the “Agreement”), between you and Altria Client Services LLC will terminate effective at 12:01 a.m. on May 18, 2018.  Invoices for any charges incurred through the date of termination will be forwarded in the ordinary course of business to the extent they exceed the Flight Allowance (as defined in the Agreement) and will be payable on the terms set forth in the Time Sharing Agreement.


Best regards,


Altria Client Services LLC




By:        /s/ SCOTT D. SCOFIELD
Name:    Scott D. Scofield
Title:    Vice President, Compensation,
Benefits & HR Services






AGREED TO AS OF THE DATE INDICATED:






/s/ MARTIN J. BARRINGTON
Martin J. Barrington
Date: May 17, 2018