alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**GLOSSARY**

***BASIC BIOSECURITY CONDITIONS***

means a minimum set of conditions, as described in Article 1.4.6., required to ensure *biosecurity* for a particular *disease*, in a country, *zone* or *compartment*.**~~that should include:~~

~~a~~) 	~~compulsory notification of the disease or suspicion of the disease to the Competent Authority; and~~

~~b)~~~~an early detection system; and~~

~~c)~~~~requirements to prevent the introduction of the pathogenic agent into a free country, zone or compartment, or the spread within or from infected zones and protection zones, in accordance with the relevant disease-specific chapter.~~

***EARLY DETECTION SYSTEM***

means an efficient system, as described in Article 1.4.7., for ensuring the rapid recognition of signs that are suspicious of a *listed disease*, or an*emerging disease*~~situation~~, or unexplained mortality, in *aquatic animals* in an*aquaculture establishment* or in the wild, and the rapid communication of the event to the *Competent Authority*, with the aim of activating diagnostic investigation by the *Aquatic Animal Health Services* with minimal delay. ~~Such a system will include the following characteristics:~~

~~a)~~~~broad awareness, e.g. among the personnel employed at *aquaculture establishments* or involved in processing, of the characteristic signs of the *listed diseases* and *emerging diseases*;~~

~~b)~~*~~veterinarians~~*~~or *aquatic animal health professionals* trained in recognising and reporting suspicions of *disease* occurrence;~~

~~c)~~~~ability of the *Aquatic Animal Health Services* to undertake rapid and effective *disease* investigation based on a national chain of command;~~

~~d)~~~~access by the *Aquatic Animal Health Services* to laboratories with the facilities for diagnosing and differentiating *listed diseases* and *emerging diseases*;~~

~~e)~~~~the legal obligation of private *veterinarians*or *aquatic animal health professionals* to report suspicions of *disease*occurrence to the *Competent Authority*.~~

***PASSIVE SURVEILLANCE***

means the generation of observer-initiated *aquatic animal* health data by an *early detection system.*

**________________________**
Amendment to Amended and Restated Agreement for Wholesale Financing



 EXHIBIT 10:23 
  
 Confidential portions of this document indicated by ***** have been omitted and filed separately with the Commission

  
 AMENDMENT TO AMENDED AND RESTATED AGREEMENT FOR WHOLESALE

 FINANCING 
 (Amendment No. 4)

  
 This Amendment to Amended and Restated Agreement for Wholesale Financing
(“Amendment”) is made by and between Deutsche Financial Services Corporation (“DFS”) and Featherlite, Inc. “(Dealer”). 
  
 WHEREAS, DFS and Dealer entered into that certain Amended and Restated Agreement for Wholesale Financing dated October 6,
1997, as amended by that certain Amendment to Amended and Restated Agreement for Wholesale Financing (Amendment No. 1) dated April 1, 1998, as amended by that certain Amendment to Amended and Restated Agreement for Wholesale Financing (Amendment No.
2), dated May 8, 1998, and as amended by that certain Amendment to Amended and Restated Agreement for Wholesale Financing (Amendment No. 3) dated March 25, 2000 (together, the (“Agreement”); and 
  
 WHEREAS, DFS and Dealer desire to amend the Agreement as provided herein.

  
 NOW, THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the premises, and
for other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, DFS and Dealer agree as follows: 
  
 1. Amendment of Current Ratio. Paragraph 13.1 (c) of the Agreement is deleted and amended to read in its entirety as follows: 
  
 “(c) a ratio of Current Tangible Assets to current liabilities of not
less than the amount shown below during the period corresponding thereto: 
  

			
	 Period

	  	Ratio


	 At all times through
	  	1.25:1
	 June 29, 2001
	  	 
		
	 At all times from June
	  	1.50:1”
	 June 30, 2001 and thereafter
	  	 

  
 2. No other
Modifications. Except as expressly modified or amended herein, all other terms and provisions of the Agreement shall remain unmodified and in full force and effect and the Agreement, as hereby amended, is ratified and confirmed by DFS and
Dealer. 
  
 3. Capitalized Terms. Except as otherwise
defined herein, all capitalized terms will have the same meanings set forth in the Agreement. 
  
 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, DFS and Dealer have executed this Amendment as of the 25th day
of September, 2000. 
  
 DEUTSCHE FINANCIAL SERVICES CORPORATION 
  

			
	By:	 	 \s\ Leonard F. Buchan


	 	 	Vice President
	
	FEATHERLITE MFG., INC
		
	By	 	 \s\ C Clement


	 	 	Conrad D. Clement
	 	 	President
EXHIBIT 32.1

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

In connection with the Annual Report of Grand Havana Enterprises, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-KSB for the period ended September 28, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned, Stanley Shuster, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 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, as amended; and
| | --- |  | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

| | (2) |  | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company at the dates and for the periods presented in this Report.
| | --- |  | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

| |  | /s/ Stanley ShusterName: Stanley ShusterTitle: Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer
| |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Local Rule 47.5 provides: "The publication of opinions

that have no precedential value and merely decide particular

cases on the basis of well-settled principles of law imposes

needless expense on the public and burdens on the legal

profession." Pursuant to that Rule, the Court has determined

that this opinion should not be published. 

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

__________________

No. 94-41289

Conference Calendar

__________________

GERALD AHEARN ET AL.,

 Plaintiffs,

versus

FIBREBOARD CORPORATION, ET AL.,

 Defendants-Appellees,

versus

WALI MUHAMMED,

 Movant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Texas

USDC No. 6:93 CV 526

- - - - - - - - - -

June 28, 1995

Before JONES, WIENER, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Wali Muhammed was not entitled to intervene in this suit as

of right nor did the district court clearly abuse its discretion

by denying Muhammed's motion for permissive intervention because

Muhammed made no showing that his interests were not adequately

protected. Kneeland v. National Collegiate Athletic Ass'n, 806
No. 94-41289

-2-

F.2d 1285, 1289, (5th Cir.) cert. denied, 484 U.S. 817 (1987)

(citation omitted). As the denial of Muhammed's motion for

permissive intervention was within the discretion of the district

court, this court lacks jurisdiction over Muhammed's appeal. 

Woolen v. Surtran Taxicabs, Inc., 684 F.2d 324, 331 (5th Cir.

1982). Therefore, Muhammed's motion to proceed in forma pauperis

is DENIED and the appeal is DISMISSED.
QuickLinks
 -- Click here to rapidly navigate through this document

 
 

Exhibit 10.37    
    


 
  ROYALTY AGREEMENT    
    


        MICROVENA Corporation agrees to pay Dr. Kurt Amplatz a royalty of  2.0 percent of the
net selling price of the product outlined below for a 15 year period commencing with
the first commercial sale of the device. 


        PRODUCT:  AMPLATZ THROMBECTOMY DEVICE ("Clot-Buster")


[Including
modifications of such device for other mechanical dissolution procedures.] 


        Payment
of the royalty will be made in your name or the name of any other person, organization, and/or beneficiaries, as you so desire. Payment will be made between January 1 and
February 15 of the succeeding year in which the items were sold. MICROVENA will furnish you with an annual report indicating the number of units sold and their net sales price. 



        In
return, you agree to give MICROVENA the exclusive right to use your name in the descriptive title of the product. This agreement however, does not prevent you from allowing the use of
your name on other non-competitive products exclusive of this device. You also agree to act as an advisor to MICROVENA concerning needed changes and/or modifications of this product.
MICROVENA will also become the exclusive manufacturer of these products. 


        If
the product should be modified and the modification does not completely change the character of the product, these modifications would be included in future royalty payments. Should
the character and use of the product be completely changed by any modification, MICROVENA may wish to enter into a new royalty agreement for the new product. Likewise, MICROVENA will have an exclusive
right to the manufacturing and sales of such improved or modified devices, and first rights of refusal for any related devices as designed by the forementioned inventor. 


        Should
irreconcilable differences cause a cessation of our relationship with respect to this agreement, MICROVENA would no longer expect you to act as an advisor with regardsto the
design or modification of this product. In the acceptance of the agreement above: 



	/s/ Rudy A. Mazzocchi
 MICROVENA Corporation	 	/s/  K. AMPLATZ      
 K. Amplatz, M.D.
	

DATE:	
 	

10/14/93
	
 	

DATE:	
 	

10-21-93














QuickLinks



Exhibit 10.37


ROYALTY AGREEMENT
##### 



Exhibit 31.1 CERTIFICATION BY CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 I, Joseph C. Levesque, Chairman of the Board, President and Chief Executive Officer of Aetrium
Incorporated, certify that: 1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Aetrium Incorporated; 2. Based on my knowledge, this report does 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, the financial statements, and other financial information included in
this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations
and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report; 4. The registrants other certifying officers and I are responsible for establishing and
maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and
15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have: (a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and
procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating
to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others
within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared; (b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and procedures and
presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and
procedures as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and (c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over financial
reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter (the registrants
fourth fiscal quarter in the case of this annual report) that has materially affected, or is
reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal control over financial
reporting; and 5. The registrants other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most recent
evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the audit
committee of registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function): (a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal
control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the
registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and (b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a
significant role in the registrants internal control over financial reporting. Date: March 30, 2005
    
    
    
    /s/ Joseph C. LevesqueBy:
    
    Joseph C. LevesqueTitle:
    
    Chairman of the Board, President and
Chief Executive Officer
Summary of Option Agreement dated June 22, 2004 and July 2, 2004 with Abelardo Garza Hernandez




SUMMARY
OF AN OPTION AGREEMENT DATED JUNE 22, 2004 BETWEEN REYNALDO ARELLANO VENAVIDEZ
(AARELLANO@)
IN TEPIC NAYARIT AND ON JULY 2, 2004 BY MINERA GAVILAN S.A. DE C.V.
(AGAVILAN@),
A WHOLLY-OWNED SUBSIDIARY OF THE COMPANY FOR THE AS DE ORO PROPERTY
(ATHE
PROPERTY@)
NAYARIT STATE, MEXICO.




Arellano
confirmed he is a Mexican citizen and Gavilán confirmed it is a Mexican
corporation in good standing.




Gavilán
y Arellano agree to the following terms and conditions.




Arellano
agrees to sell 100% of his rights to the property under the following terms and
conditions:





	
      1)
	
      I)
      US$10,000 plus IVA at the moment of signing this agreement for the first
      12 months.




ii)
US$10,000 plus IVA, 12 months after the signing of this agreement.

iii)
US$10,000 plus IVA, 24 months after the signing of this agreement.

iv)
US$20,000 plus IVA, 36 months after the signing of this agreement 




In
case of termination of this agreement, Gavilán must provide all work information
(reports, documents, etc.) to Arellano within 60 days after the day of ending
this agreement.
1 

# In the United States Court of Federal Claims

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 14-475V Filed: March 11, 2015 (Not to be published)

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
MARLON SPORER *
* Petitioner, * Attorneys’ Fees & Cost; Stipulation
v. *
*
SECRETARY OF HEALTH * AND HUMAN SERVICES, *
* Respondent. *
*
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Gerard K. Ryan

, Kelner & Kelner, New York, NY for petitioner. Julia W. McInerny, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC for respondent.

DECISION ON ATTORN EY FEES AND COSTS 1

Gowen , Special Master:

In this case under the National V accine Injury Compensation Program, 2 I issued a decision adopting the parties’ Proffer and aw arding damages on February 23, 2015. On March 10, 2015, the parties file d a Stipulation of Fact conc erning attorneys’ fees and costs [Fee Stip.]. Fee Stip., filed Mar. 10, 2015. Additi onally, pursuant to General Order #9, petitioners’ counsel asserted that petitione r did not personally incur litigation costs in this matter. Id. at para. 4.

1 Because this unpublished decision contains a reasoned explan ation for the action in this case, I intend to post this
decision on the United States Court of Federal Claims' we bsite, in accordance with the E-Government Act of 2002, Pub. L. No. 107-347, § 205, 116 Stat. 2899, 2913 (codified as amended at 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2006)). In
accordance with Vaccine Rule 18(b), petitioner has 14 days to identify and move to delete medical or other information, the disclosure of which would constitute an unwarranted invasion of privacy. If, upon review, I agree
that the identified material fits w ithin this definition, I will delete such material from public access.

2 The applicable statutory provisions defining the program are found at 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-10 et seq . (2006).2 The parties’ stipulation indicates that re spondent does not object to the amended amount of $16,416.12 that petiti oner is requesting for attorneys’ fees and costs.

I find that this petition was brought in good faith and that there existed a reasonable basis for the claim. Therefore, an award for fees and costs is appropriate, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 300aa-15(b) and (e )(1). Further, the pr oposed amount seems reasonable and appropriate. Accordingly, I hereby award:

 a lump sum of $16,416.12 in the fo rm of a check payable jointly to petitioner and petitioner’s attorney , Gerard Ryan, for petitioner’s attorneys’ fees and costs.

The clerk of the court shall enter judgment in accordance herewith. 3

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/ Thomas L. Gowen
Thomas L. Gowen Special Master

3 Entry of judgment can be expedited by each party’s f iling of a notice renouncing the right to seek review. See Vaccine Rule 11(a).
Opinion issued September 24 , 2015

In The 

## Court of Appeals For The 

## First District of Texas

———————————— NO. 01
- 15
- 00206
- CR

——————————— CODY CRYMES , Appellant

V. THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

On Appeal from the 253rd District Court Chambers County, Texas Trial Court Case No. 17166

MEMORANDUM OPINION Appellant, Cody Crymes, pled guilty to the felony offense of sexual assault of a child. The trial court found appellant guilty and, in accordance with the terms of appellant’s plea bargain agreement with the State, sentenced appellant to ten years deferred adjudication and imposed a fine of $1 , 500.00 . Appellant filed a notice of appeal. We dismiss the appeal.2

In a plea bargain case, a defendant may only appeal those matters that were raised by written moti on 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 r ight 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 case and that the defendan t has no right of appeal. See id. at 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 dismiss this appeal. See Chavez v. S tate , 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 appeal without further action, regard less of the basis for the appeal.”). Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction. We dismiss any pending motions as moot. PER CURIAM Panel consists of Justices Jennings, Higley, and Brown. Do not publish. T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 47.2(b).
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

April 25, 2022

No. 04-21-00530-CR

Rosemary Lynn BRYAN,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 379th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2020CR5923W

Honorable Ron Rangel, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

On March 23, 2022, we abated this case, remanded the case to the trial court, and ordered 

the trial court to conduct a hearing to determine whether appellant desired to prosecute the 

appeal, whether appellant was indigent, and whether counsel abandoned the appeal. The trial 

court held the hearing and determined appellant desired to prosecute the appeal and counsel had 

not abandoned the appeal. Appellant’s court-appointed attorney has now filed a brief and motion 

to withdraw pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), asserting there are no 

meritorious issues to raise on appeal. Counsel certifies he served copies of the brief and motion 

on appellant, informed appellant of her right to review the record and file her own brief, 

informed appellant of her right to seek discretionary review should the court of appeals declare 

the appeal frivolous, and provided appellant with a form for requesting the record and explained 

to appellant the procedure for obtaining the record. See Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 319 

(Tex. Crim. App. 2014); Nichols v. State, 954 S.W.2d 83 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1997, no 

pet.); Bruns v. State, 924 S.W.2d 176, 177 n.1 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1996, no pet.). As of 

the date of this order, appellant has not filed the record request motion provided to her by her 

counsel. 

If appellant desires to file a pro se brief, we order she do so by May 25, 2022. If 

appellant files a timely pro se brief, the State may file a responsive brief no later than thirty days 

after appellant’s pro se brief is filed in this court. We further order the motion to withdraw filed 

by appellant’s counsel held in abeyance pending further order of the court. See Penson v. Ohio, 

488 U.S. 75, 80–82 (1988) (holding that motion to withdraw should not be ruled on before 

appellate court independently reviews record to determine whether counsel’s evaluation that 

FILE COPY
appeal is frivolous is sound); Schulman v. State, 252 S.W.3d 403, 410–11 (Tex. Crim. App. 

2008). 

_________________________________

Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

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

court on this 25th day of April, 2022.

___________________________________

MICHAEL A. CRUZ, Clerk of Court

FILE COPY
FI L ED U.S. COURT OF A P P E A LS E LE V E N T H C IR C U IT J UL 14 , 2006 THOMAS K. KAH

N CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE EL EV EN TH CIRC UI T

N o. 05- 1618 8
D. C. Dock et No. 0 5- 20 07 3- CIV-DLG BKCY No . 04 -0 14 59 -BKC- AJ In Re: LOURDES MARIA RAMON, De btor.

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ __ JOR GE L. GUERRA, GAYLE L . GUERRA, Pl ai nt iff s- App el la nt s,
ve rs us LOURDES MARIA RAM ON, D efendant-A ppellee.

Appeal f rom the United State s District Court for the Southern D istrict of Florida

(J ul y 14 , 200 6)2

Before TJO FL AT and CAR NE S, Circuit Judges, and HO DG ES *, D istrict Judg e. PE R CU RIA M: A ppe lla nts c onc ed e tha t ou r re ce nt d ec isi on i n G ue rr a v. Ra m on, F
. 3d _

___ (1 1th Ci r. Jun e 12, 200 6) , c ont ro ls o ur dis posi tio n of

thi s a ppe al
. W e ag re e. T he j udgm en t of

the dis tr ic t c our t i s a cc or din gly

AFFIR MED.

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ___ *Honora ble Wm. Terre ll Hodge s, United States District J udg e for the Middle District of F lorida, sitti ng by desig nation.