alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 10.107

Key Corporate Capital, Inc.
			
			Amended Schedule of
			
			Loan Agreements which are substantially in the form attached as Exhibit 10.116
			to the Registrant's Form 10-K for the period ending 12/31/99
			
				and
			
				Amended and Restated Secured Promissory Notes and Amended and Restated
			Guaranties which are substantially in the form attached as Exhibits 10.105 and
			10.106 to the Registrant's Form 10-K for the period ending 12/31/01



|Mortgagor                             | Facility Name                           | Location                                                | Note Amount
|------------------------------------- | --------------------------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------- | -----------
|Ithaca Bundy Road, LLC                | Alterra Clare Bridge Cottage of Ithaca  | 101 Bundy Road
							
							Ithaca, NY  14850-9252    | $3,325,800 
|Ithaca Trumansburg Road, LLC          | Alterra Sterling House of Ithaca        | 103 Bundy Road
						
							Ithaca, NY  14850-9252     | $2,862,607 
|Niagara Nash Road, LLC                | Alterra Sterling House of Niagara       | 6751 Nash Road
						
							North Tonawanda, NY  14120 | $3,420,000 
|Niagara SC Wheatfield, LLC            | Alterra Clare Bridge Cottage of Niagara | 6741 Nash Road
						
							North Tonawanda, NY  14120 | $3,140,578 
|Clinton Brookside Drive, LLC          | Alterra Clare Bridge Cottage of Clinton | 115 Brookside Drive
							
							Clinton, NY  13323   | $3,072,992 
|Rockland Veterans Memorial Drive, LLC | Clare Bridge of Rockland County         | 582 Veterans Memorial Dr
						

							Orangetown, NY  | $6,335,739
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

MILTON J. TAYLOR,

Petitioner-Appellant,

v. No. 00-6059

STEVEN DEWALT, Warden,

Respondent-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria.

Leonie M. Brinkema, District Judge.

(CA-99-615-AM)

Submitted: May 23, 2000

Decided: June 19, 2000

Before LUTTIG, WILLIAMS, and KING,

Circuit Judges.

_________________________________________________________________

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

Milton J. Taylor, Appellant Pro Se. Rachel Celia Ballow, OFFICE OF

THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, for

Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See

Local Rule 36(c).
OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Milton Joseph Taylor, a former federal inmate, seeks to appeal the

district court's order dismissing his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.

§ 2241 (1994). Taylor completed his sentence and was released from

custody on October 26, 1999, the same day the district court's order

was entered on the docket. A copy of the court's order was mailed to

Taylor at his new address on November 3, 1999. Taylor's notice of

appeal was received in the district court on December 28, 1999, one

day late. We note that because Taylor was not incarcerated when he

noted his appeal, he does not benefit from Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S.

266 (1988).

Parties are accorded sixty days if the United States is a party after

entry of the district court's final judgment or order to note an appeal,

see Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1), unless the district court extends the

appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5) or reopens the appeal

period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6). This appeal period is "mandatory and jurisdictional." Browder v. Director, Dep't of Corrections,

434 U.S. 257, 264 (1978) (quoting United States v. Robinson, 361

U.S. 220, 229 (1960)). Because Taylor failed to file a timely notice

of appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period,

we deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis and dismiss the appeal.

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and

argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

 2
[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 26 (Wednesday, February 7, 2024)]
[Notices]
[Page 8440]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-02458]


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

INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION

[Investigation Nos. 701-TA-489 and 731-TA-1201 (Second Review)]


Drawn Stainless Steel Sinks From China

Determinations

    On the basis of the record \1\ developed in the subject five-year 
reviews, the United States International Trade Commission 
(``Commission'') determines, pursuant to the Tariff Act of 1930 (``the 
Act''), that revocation of the countervailing duty order on drawn 
stainless steel sinks from China and the antidumping duty order on 
drawn stainless steel sinks from China would 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 these reviews on July 3, 2023 (88 FR 
42688) and determined on October 6, 2023 that it would conduct 
expedited reviews (88 FR 80762, November 20, 2023).
    The Commission made these determinations pursuant to section 751(c) 
of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1675(c)). It completed and filed its 
determinations in these reviews on February 1, 2024. The views of the 
Commission are contained in USITC Publication 5489 (February 2024), 
entitled Drawn Stainless Steel Sinks from China: Investigation Nos. 
701-TA-489 and 731-TA-1201 (Second Review).

    By order of the Commission.

    Issued: February 2, 2024.
Lisa Barton,
Secretary to the Commission.
[FR Doc. 2024-02458 Filed 2-6-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7020-02-P
# United States Court **of Appeals**  **f or the Fifth Circuit** 

No. 21

- 51197 Summary Calendar

**United States of America,** Plaintiff

— Appellee **,**

versus

**Bernardino Adrian Venzor**

**- Ortega,**  Defendant

— Appellant

**.**

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 4:21

- CR

- 685

- 1

Before **Jones** , **Elrod** , and **Higginso n**  **,** Circuit Judges

**. Per Curiam**  **:** *
Bernardino Adrian Venzor

- Ortega appeals his sentence of 24 months of imprisonment and three years of supervised release for his guilty plea conviction of illegal reentry after removal from the United States , in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a).

* Pursuant to **5th Cir cuit**  **R ule**  47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under t he limited circumstances set forth in **5th Cir cuit**  **R ule**  47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED June 17, 2022 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 21-51197 Document: 00516361287 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/17/2022No. 21

- 51197

2 For the first time on appeal, he challenges the district court’s application of the enhanced penalty in 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) as unconstitutional because it permits a defendant to be sentenced above the statutory maximum of § 1326(a) based on the fact of a prior conviction that was not alleged in the indictment or found by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt. Although Venzor

Ortega’s 24

- month prison sentence is within the otherwise applicable statutory maximum in § 1326(a), the application of § 1326(b) allowed the district court to sentence him to three years of supervised release, above the

one
- year ma ximum for a § 1326(a) offense

. See 18 U.S.C. §§ 3559(a), 3583(b). However, he correctly concedes that the argument is foreclosed by Almendarez

- Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224 (1998)

. See, e.g. , United States v. Pervis , 937 F.3d 546, 553

- 54 (5th Cir. 2019). Venzor

- Ortega raises the issue to preserve it for further review and has filed an unopposed motion for summary disposition. Because summary disposition is appropriate, see Groendyke Transp., Inc. v. Davis , 406 F.2d 1158, 1162 (5th Cir. 1969), Venzor

Ortega ’s motion is **GRANTED** , and the district court’s judgment is **AFFIRMED**

. Case: 21-51197 Document: 00516361287 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/17/2022
#### Isabel ALCALA, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.

No. 28352.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

June 30, 1956.

Sutton, Steib & Barr, by Norman W. Barr, San Angelo, for appellant.

Leon B. Douglas, State’s Atty., Austin, for the State.

DAVIDSON, Judge.

This is a conviction for possessing marijuana, a narcotic, with punishment assessed at five years in the penitentiary.

About eleven o’clock at night, appellant, in an automobile parked on a street near a beer tavern in the city of San Angelo, was arrested by policemen. One of the officers testified that he made the arrest because of facts which indicated to him and the other officer with him that appellant was, at that time, about to engage in an act of sexual intercourse with a woman on the front seat of the car.

Nineteen marijuana cigarettes were found on appellant’s person after the arrest.

Appellant registered no objection, because of any lack of authority in the officer to make the arrest, to the introduction in evidence of some eight of the cigarettes found on his person. He insists, however, that the facts are insufficient to support the conviction and that his arrest was unlawful. In other words, it is appellant’s position that he can raise the question of lawfulness of arrest merely by insisting that the facts are insufficient.

With that contention we do not agree. If the arrest was unlawful, appellant should have objected to the introduction of the evidence at the time.

Appellant insists that the state did not properly identify as being the same taken from his person the marijuana analyzed by the chemist.

We need not rule upon that contention, for the arresting officer testified that he had had experience in detecting marijuana and that the substance in the cigarettes was, in his opinion, marijuana.

*646As the same testimony had been introduced through another source without objection, appellant’s later objection thereto is untenable.

No reversible error appearing, the judgment is affirmed.
Exhibit 32.1

                            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 Annual Report of Kronos Advanced Technologies, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the three months ended September 30, 2004 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
each of the undersigned, in the capacities and on the dates indicated below,
hereby certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to his knowledge:

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 operation of the Company.

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other
document authentications, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature
that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written
statement required by Section 906, has been provided to Kronos Advanced
Technologies, Inc. and will be retained by Kronos Advanced Technologies, Inc.
and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.





/s/ Daniel R. Dwight
    -----------------------------
    Daniel R. Dwight
    President and Chief
    Executive Officer


/s/ Daniel R. Dwight
    ------------------------------
    Daniel R. Dwight
    Acting Chief Financial Officer
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, D. Gary Fife, President of Big Bear Gold Corporation, certify that:

1.	I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Big Bear Gold Corporation;

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 small business issuer as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4.	The small business issuer's other certifying officer(s) 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 small business issuer 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 small business issuer, 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 small business issuer'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 small business issuer's internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the small business issuer's most recent fiscal quarter (the small business issuer's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the small business issuer's internal control over financial reporting; and

5.	The small business issuer's other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the small business issuer's auditors and the audit committee of the small business issuer's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

(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 small business issuer'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 small business issuer's internal control over financial reporting.

Date: January 14, 2005

/s/ D. Gary Fife				D. Gary Fife
President (Principal Executive Officer)
DJI Phantom 2 Vision + Official Specs 

also available at http://www.dji.com/product/phantom-2-vision-plus/spec

This is a quad-rotor rotorcraft

Aircraft Supported Battery

DJI 5200mAh LiPo Battery

Weight (Battery & Propellers Included)

1242g

Hover Accuracy (Ready To Fly)

Vertical: 0.8m; Horizontal: 2.5m

Max Yaw Angular Velocity

200°/s

Max Tiltable Angle

35°

Max Ascent / Descent Speed

Ascent: 6m/s; Descent: 2m/s

Max Flight Speed

15m/s (Not Recommended)

Diagonal Motor-Motor Distance

350mm

Gimbal Working Current

Static : 750mA; Dynamic : 900mA

Propeller Size

229mm
Diagonal Motor-Motor Distance

350mm

Gimbal Working Current

Static : 750mA; Dynamic : 900mA

Control Accuracy

±0.03°

Controllable Range

Pitch : -90°-0°

Maximum Angular Speed

Pitch : 90°/s

Camera Operating Environment Temperature

0°C-40°C

Sensor Size

1/2.3"

Effective Pixels

14 Megapixels

Resolution

4384×3288

Hd Recording

1080p30 & 720p

Recording Fov

110° / 85°
Maximum Angular Speed

Pitch : 90°/s

Camera Operating Environment Temperature

0°C-40°C

Sensor Size

1/2.3"

Effective Pixels

14 Megapixels

Resolution

4384×3288

Hd Recording

1080p30 & 720p

Recording Fov

110° / 85°

Remote 

Control

Operating Frequency

5.728 GHz-5.85 GHz

Communication Distance (Open Area)

CE Compliance: 400m; FCC Compliance: 800m

Receiver Sensitivity (1%Per)

-93dBm

Transmitter Power

CE Compliance: 25mW; FCC Compliance: 100mW
Recording Fov

110° / 85°

Remote 

Control

Operating Frequency

5.728 GHz-5.85 GHz

Communication Distance (Open Area)

CE Compliance: 400m; FCC Compliance: 800m

Receiver Sensitivity (1%Per)

-93dBm

Transmitter Power

CE Compliance: 25mW; FCC Compliance: 100mW

Working Voltage

120 mA@3.7V

Built-In Lipo Battery Working Current/Capacity

3.7V, 2000mAh

Range 

Extender

Operating Frequency

2412-2462MHz

Communication Distance (Open Area)

500-700m

Transmitter Power

20dBm

Power Consumption

2W
Built-In Lipo Battery Working Current/Capacity

3.7V, 2000mAh

Range 

Extender

Operating Frequency

2412-2462MHz

Communication Distance (Open Area)

500-700m

Transmitter Power

20dBm

Power Consumption

2W

DJI 

VISION 

App

System Requirement Of Mobile Device

iOS version 6.1 or above/ Android system version 4.0 or 

above

Mobile Device Support

• iOS recommended: iPhone 4s, iPhone 5, iPhone 5s, 

iPhone 6, iPhone 6 Plus, iPod touch 5 (available but 

not recommended: iPad 3, iPad 4, iPad mini)

• Android recommended: Samsung Galaxy S3, S4, 

Note 2, Note 3 or phones of similar configuration
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 367 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

104th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 367

    To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to increase and make 
  permanent the deduction for health insurance costs of self-employed 
                              individuals.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

             February 7 (legislative day, January 30), 1995

  Mr. Dorgan introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
                  referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
    To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to increase and make 
  permanent the deduction for health insurance costs of self-employed 
                              individuals.

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

SECTION 1. PERMANENT EXTENSION AND INCREASE OF DEDUCTION FOR HEALTH 
              INSURANCE COSTS OF SELF-EMPLOYED INDIVIDUALS.

    (a) Deduction Made Permanent.--Section 162(l) of the Internal 
Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to special rules for health insurance 
costs of self-employed individuals) is amended by striking paragraph 
(6).
    (b) Increase in Deduction.--Section 162(l) of such Code, as amended 
by subsection (a), is amended--
            (1) by striking ``25 percent'' in paragraph (1) and 
        inserting ``the applicable percentage'', and
            (2) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
            ``(6) Applicable percentage.--For purposes of paragraph 
        (1), the applicable percentage shall be determined as follows:

For taxable years beginning in:     The applicable percentage is:
    1994 and 1995..................
                                        25
    1996 and 1997..................
                                        50
    1998 and thereafter............
                                        100.''
    (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section shall 
apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 1993.
                                 <all>
```
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 18-10343

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

ELVA NOEMI SALGADO,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 1:17-CR-71-1

Before DAVIS, JONES, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The attorney appointed to represent Elva Noemi Salgado has moved for 

leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 

386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores, 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011).

Salgado has filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the 

relevant portions of the record reflected therein, as well as Salgado’s response. 

We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous 

 

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not 

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH 

CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

November 1, 2018

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 18-10343 Document: 00514707674 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/01/2018
No. 18-10343

2

issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw 

is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the 

APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.

 Case: 18-10343 Document: 00514707674 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/01/2018
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Bridget M. McCormack

, Chief Justice

David F. Viviano,

Chief Justice Pro Tem

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Richard H. Bernstein

Elizabeth T. Clement

Megan K. Cavanagh,

Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

April 5, 2019

a0329 

# Order

Clerk April 5 , 2019

154808

SOUTHEAST MICHIGAN SURGICAL

HOSPITAL, LLC, d/b/a SOUTHEAST

MICHIGAN SURGICAL HOSPITAL

and JAMIE LETKEMANN,

Plaintiffs

- Appellants,

v SC: 154808

COA: 323425

Wayne CC: 11

- 015300

- NF

ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY,

Defendant

- Appellee.

____________________________________/

By order of May 17, 2017, the application for leave to appeal the August 9, 2016

judgment of the Court of Appeals was held in abeyance pending the decision in Bazzi v

Sentinel Ins Co (Docket No. 154442 ). On order of the Court, t he case having been

decided on July 18, 2018, 502 Mich 390 (2018), the application is again considered.

Pursuant to MCR 7.305(H)(1), in lieu of granting leave to appeal, we REMAND this case

to the Court of Appeals to address : (1) whether the published opi nion in this case is

consistent with the published opinion in Baker v Marshall , 32 3 Mich App 590 (2018), lv

den 503 Mich 861 ( 2018 ), and, if not, (2) the impact of MCR 7.215(J)(1) on the two

opinions and, if necessary, (3) for reconsideration in light of Ba zzi

. In all other respects,

leave to appeal is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the remaining questions

presented should be reviewed by this Court.

We do not retain jurisdiction.