alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Letterhead of Ancor Communications, Inc.]

Date:       November 23, 1999

To:         Nick Hannon

Front       Cal Nelson

Subject:    Amendment to the Technology License Agreement

Ref:        Section 4.3 Additional Development

The design and development services requested of Ancor Communications by INRANGE
Technologies has expanded from the requirements defined in the Technology
Agreement dated September 29, 1998. The new development requirements are
delineated in revision 1.07 of the Functional Requirements Document dated
November 18, 1999. This FRD document is attached.

As a result, the development fees identified in section 4.2 of the Technology
Agreement has increased from the original $* to $*. The development cost
estimate increase is derived from discussions between Cal Nelson, Cliff
Oberholtzer, Jean Santoro, and Jayne Fitzgerald in December 1998; documents
reviewed in Minneapolis between Cal Nelson, Thomas Raeuchle, Harry Paul, and
Cliff Oberholtzer on March 25, 1999; as well as discussions with Nick Hannon in
September 1999.

The breakdown is:

Additional Ancor Development

o     Hot Swap (items 2 and 7) =   *   months
o     CD/9000 Ethernet (item 10) =   *  months
o     FC/9000 Spares Path hardware (item 8) =   *  months
o     Contingent additional INRANGE funding =  *  months
o     Total under Section 4.3 =  *  Staff Months

Reduced Ancor Development (Credit)

o     Credit for Bill Hughes work at Ancor =  *  months, (work between
      February and August of 1999)
o     Credit for not doing FC/9000 Class One Multistage development =  *  months
o     Total credit =  *  months

Net Funding Requirement from INRANGE to Ancor =  *  Months at $* per
staff month = $*

This change to the development fees was reviewed and agreed to by you during our
discussions in September 1999.
<PAGE>   2

We recommend this addition to the fees be paid in three installments as with the
original cost of development. A payment of $* is now due and payable before
year-end. The remaining $* is payable; $* upon on completion of the Beta level
design, and $* upon final release. These milestones have been previously defined
in the Technology Agreement.

On behalf of INRANGE Technologies and Ancor Communications we agree to all of
the above as well as agree that Revision 1.07 of the Functional Requirements
Document dated November 18, 1999 shall be the basis for all discussion and going
forward.

Ancor Communications                       INRANGE Technologies


/s/ Cal Nelson                             /s/ Greg Grodhaus
-------------------------                  --------------------------
Cal Nelson                                 GREG GRODHAUS
                                           Pres/CEO
                                           11/29/99
#### EDWARDS v. STATE.

No. 24364.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

May 4, 1949.

None on appeal for appellant.

Ernest S. Goens, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

DAVIDSON, Judge.

Appellant waived a trial by jury, and entered his plea of guilty to the crime of cattle theft.

The trial court’s order and adjudication upon the plea, as contained in the judgment of conviction, reads as follows: “It is therefore considered, ordered and adjudged by the Court that the Defendant, Joe Edwards, is guilty of the offense of Theft of Cattle, as confessed by the Defendant in the Defendant’s plea of guilty herein made to the Court, and that the said Defendant be punished by confinement in the Penitentiary of the State of Texas for a term of not less than Two no.r. more than Three years, and that the State of Texas do have and recover of the said Defendant all costs in this prosecution expended, for which execution may issue.” . , ■

The defect in such'judgment lies in the fact that no specific punishment is reflected therein. The orde'r fixing appellant’s punishment at not less than two nor more than three years’ confinement in the penitentiary fixes neither term as the punishment assessed. ' It is,- therefore, neither definite nor certain. The judgment of the trial court, upon a plea of guilty before the court in a felony case, must fix a penalty that is definite and certain. Ex parte Traxler, 147 Tex.Cr.R. 661, 184 S.W.2d 286.

The judgment in this case is void.

We have no alternative but to reverse the judgment and remand the case for a new trial. It is so ordered.

Opinion approved by the Court.
|                                                    
|----------------------------------------------------
|                                                    
|View History: Annual Download Data (XLS File)      
|View History: Annual                                
|View History: Annual                                
|View History:                                       
|                                                    
|U.S. HGL                                            
|                                                    
|                                                    
|U.S. HGL's Consumed at Refineries (Thousand Barrels)
|                                                    

|Decade                                                                                                                            | Year-0 | Year-1 | Year-2 | Year-3 | Year-4 | Year-5 | Year-6 | Year-7 | Year-8 | Year-9
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------
|1980's                                                                                                                            |        |        |        |        |        |        | 8,966  | 8,021  | 9,466  | 11,962
|1990's                                                                                                                            | 8,725  | 8,105  | 10,720 | 8,514  | 9,811  | 8,246  | 6,704  | 4,761  | 4,936  | 5,012 
|2000's                                                                                                                            | 5,500  | 6,291  | 4,494  | 6,120  | 4,312  | 5,061  | 4,061  | 3,748  | 4,219  | 4,004 
|2010's                                                                                                                            | 3,162  | 2,101  | 1,521  | 1,313  | 2,305  | 3,009  | 2,498  | 2,672  | 2,346  | 2,178 
|2020's                                                                                                                            | 2,036  | 1,427  | 1,741  | 2,034  |        |        |        |        |        |       
|- = No Data Reported;  -- = Not Applicable;  NA = Not Available;  W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data.
|                                                                                                                                 
|Release Date: 6/14/2024                                                                                                          
|Next Release Date: June 2025
<PAGE>


                                                                  August 7, 2000

Citizens Bank of Massachusetts
28 State Street
Boston, Massachusetts 02108

    RE:  FOURTH AMENDED AND RESTATED LOAN AGREEMENT DATED AS OF AUGUST 7, 2000
         BETWEEN CITIZENS BANK OF MASSACHUSETTS ("BANK") AND THE J. JILL GROUP,
         INC. ("BORROWER") (THE "LOAN AGREEMENT")

Ladies and Gentlemen:

         Reference is made to the captioned Loan Agreement of even date. We
hereby confirm that any representation, warranty or covenant in said Loan
Agreement made to you by the Borrower regarding the undersigned including,
without limitation, any representation about the undersigned or any covenant
that Borrower will cause the undersigned to perform or to refrain from
performing any act shall be deemed to be a direct representation, warranty or
covenant to you from the undersigned, and you may rely upon same as if such
representation, warranty or covenant had been made directly to you from the
undersigned.

         Executed as an instrument under seal, to be construed under the laws of
The Commonwealth of Massachusetts as of the date set forth above.


                                  Very truly yours,

                                  THE BIRCH POND GROUP, INC.




                                  By: /s/ Dennis J. Adomaitis
                                     -------------------------
                                  Name: Dennis J. Adomaitis
                                       -----------------------
                                  Title: President
                                        ----------------------
**EXHIBIT 35.1**

** **

**World Omni Financial Corp.**

**Servicer Compliance Statement**

**Pursuant to Item 1123**

**of Regulation AB**

** **

I, William J. Shope,do hereby certify that I am the Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of World Omni Financial Corp., a Florida corporation,and further certify on behalf of World Omni Financial Corp. in its capacity as servicer (the “Servicer”) under theSale and Servicing Agreement, dated as of March 4, 2015 (the “Agreement”), among World Omni Auto Receivables Trust2015-A, as Issuing Entity, World Omni Auto Receivables LLC, as Depositor, and the Servicer, as follows:

 

(i)       Areview of the activities of the Servicer during the period covered by the issuing entity’s Annual Report on form 10-K forthe fiscal year ended December 31, 2017 (the “Reporting Period”), and of its performance under the Agreement, has beenmade under my supervision.

 

(ii)       Tothe best of my knowledge, based on the review described above, the Servicer has fulfilled all of its obligations under the Agreementin all material respects throughout the Reporting Period.

 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereuntoset my hand as of March 9, 2018.
©	Copyright	201 6

, Drone	Universities,	All	Rights	Reserved.	Revision	1 6 January	11,	2016 U.S.	Department	of	Transportation,	Docket	Operations

West	Building	Ground	Floor,	Room	w12B140

1200	New	Jersey	Avenue,	S.E.

Washington,	DC	20590

Petition	for	Exemption	Under	14	CFR § 11.81.	to	Allow	Commercial

Use	of	Unmanned	Aircraft	Systems

Petitioner:

Michael	Robbins

Vertworx,	LLC

4450	El	Centro	Road	#416

Sacramento,	CA	95834

(310)	866

- 0318

info@vertworx.com Prepared	By:

Sam	Estrin

Drone	Universities ,	LLC

4450	El	Centro	Road	#416

Sacramento,	CA	95834

(858)	216

- 4416 x	102

sam.estrin@ gmail.com

To	Whom	It	May	Concern,

Re:	Section	333	Exemption	No. 134 42 ,	Regulatory Docket No.	FAA

- 2015

- 3102

- Update	to	Exemption	Request	Section	333	of	the	FAA	Reform	Act	and	Part	11	of	the

Federal	Aviation	Regulations	from	14	C.F.R.	45.23(b);14	CFR	Part	21;14	C FR	61.113

(a)	&	(b);	91.7	(a);91.9	(b)	(2);91.103(b);	91.109;91.119;	91.121;

91.151(a);91.203(a)	&	(b);91.405	(a);	91.407(a)	(1);	91.409	(a)	(2);91.417	(a)	&

(b).

This	is	a	request	to	amend Section	333	Exemption	No. 13442 ,	Regulatory Docket No.

FAA

- 2015

- 3102

, which	provides Vertworx,	LLC with	an	exemption	that	allows	for

limited	commercial	use	of	UAVs

.

In	addition	to	the	UAVs	covered	in	the	original	exemption	request,	we	respectfully

request	permission	to	fly	the	following	six	(6)	UAVs:

• DJI	Phantom	2	(All	Models)

• DJI	Phantom	3	(All	Models)

• DJI	Inspire	1

• DJI	Inspire	X5

• DJI	S900	(All	Models)

• DJI	S1000	(Al l	Models)

Please	advise	us	of	any	additional	information	or	changes	that	may	be	required.©	Copyright	201 6

, Drone	Universities,	All	Rights	Reserved.	Revision	1 6 January	11,	2016 Sincerely,

Michael	Robbins,

Owner Vertworx,	LLC

0 1 / 11 /20 16
### 333 Exemption Checklist

• Operator’s name and address : Bruno Doria of Worklight Pictures, LLC 147 10th Street New Orleans, Louisiana 70124

• The specific applicable regulations from which relief is required (CFRs);

Weight (including battery and propellers) 1280 g Diagonal size (including propellers) 590 mm Max Speed 16 m/s (ATTI mode, no wind) Max Ascent Speed 5 m/s Max Descent Speed 3 m/s

Limited operating area associated with the aircraft and its operation : Would not be used on closed-set motion pictures or closed-set television filming, or used for capturing invasive footage of prohibited properties.

• How the operator will maintain an equivalent level of safety or no adverse impact to

safety; Maintain: Will maintain by adhering to manufacturer updates and required safety measures. Adverse impact: The DJI Phantom is unmanned and is unable to carry passengers and/or crew.

• How granting the exemption would be in the public interest; Available stock footage for independent and corporate companies, etc.

• The proposed operations; and, Aerial data collection; Aerial video and photography for corporate videography, real estate photography and videography, special events, documentaries, television production, and landscape

• The make and model of the aircraft for proposed operations (aircraft manuals are not

necessary). UAS proposed DJI Phantom Professional 3
**Subsidiaries      of Registrant**

| **Name**                                              | **Jurisdiction**              |
|-------------------------------------------------------|-------------------------------|
| iPass                U.K., Limited                    | United                Kingdom |
| iPass                Asia, Pte., Ltd.                 | Singapore                     |
| iPass                Holdings, Pty, Ltd.              | Australia                     |
| iPass                France, SAS                      | France                        |
| iPass                Japan, K.K.                      | Japan                         |
| iPass,                Ltd.                            | Israel                        |
| iPass                Deutschland GmbH                 | Germany                       |
| Safe3w,                Inc.                           | Delaware                      |
| Mobile                Automation, Inc.                | Delaware                      |
| GoRemote                Internet Communications, Inc. | Delaware                      |
(logo)Rialto 

         CAPITAL

 

 

 

**2017 AnnualStatement of Servicer Compliance (Item 1123)**

 

Poolingand Servicing Agreement (the “Pooling and Servicing Agreement”) dated asof  March 1, 2015  by and among Wells Fargo Commercial MortgageSecurities, Inc., as Depositor, Wells Fargo Bank, National Association asMaster Servicer, Rialto Capital Advisors, LLC as Special Servicer, TriMont RealEstate Advisors, Inc. as Trust Advisor, Wells Fargo Bank, National Associationas Certificate Administrator, as Tax Administrator and as Custodian, andWilmington Trust, National Association as Trustee relating to the Wells FargoCommercial Mortgage Trust 2015-LC20, Commercial Mortgage Pass-ThroughCertificates, Series 2015-LC20 **(WFCM 2015-LC20)**

 

 

Theundersigned, a duly authorized officer of Rialto Capital Advisors, LLC, asspecial servicer (the “Special Servicer”) herein certifies to the following:

 

1.       All servicingactivities and performance of such servicing activities under the Pooling andServicing Agreement are performed on behalf of the Special Servicer.

 

2.       A review of theservicing activities and performance by the Special Servicer for the period ofJanuary 1, 2017 to December 31, 2017 (the “Reporting Period”) in accordancewith the Pooling and Servicing Agreement has been conducted under mysupervision.

 

3.       To the best of myknowledge, based on such review, the Special Servicer has fulfilled all of itsobligations under the terms of the Pooling and Servicing Agreement, in allmaterial respects for the Reporting Period and if there has been a failure tofulfill any such obligations in any material respect, each failure and thenature and status thereof has been specifically identified herein.

 

 

Certifiedby: /s/ AdamSinger                                                                Date: March 1, 2018

     Adam Singer, Managing Director
Case 3:22-cr-00152-B Document 27 Filed 08/02/22 Page 1 of 1 PageID 58
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

November 29, 2005 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh Elizabeth A. Weaver 129034 Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Justices Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 129034 COA: 258449 Genesee CC: 99-005340-FC, JACK DUANE HALL, 99-005541-FC Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application fo r leave to appeal the April 7, 2005 order of the Court of Appeals is considered, a nd it is DENIED, because the defendant has failed to meet the burden of establishi ng entitlement to relief under MCR 6.508(D).

d1121 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

November 29, 2005

Clerk
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 20
- 0596 STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee, v. JOSEPH JOHN MCNAMARA,

Defendant and Appellant.

**ORDER** Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, and good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension of time to and including November 29 , 2021 , within which to prepare, file, and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

October 22 2021

10/22/2021

Case Number: DA 20-0596
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-6030

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus MICHAEL ALLEN KOKOSKI, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Beckley. Elizabeth V. Hallanan, Senior District Judge. (CR-92-90; CA-01-944-5) Submitted: March 11, 2004 Decided: March 19, 2004 Before WIDENER, WILKINSON, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Michael Allen Kokoski, Appellant Pro Se. Michael Lee Keller, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 2 - PER CURIAM: Michael Allen Kokoski seeks to appeal the district court’s orders accepting the report and recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000), and denying relief on his motion to reconsider filed pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e). An appeal may not be taken from the final order in a § 2255 proceeding unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that his constitutional claims are debatable and that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or wrong. See Miller-El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee , 252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Kokoski has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We also deny Kokoski’s motion to permit access to the court and his motion for bail pending 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
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

March 31, 2020

No. 04-19-00721-CV

Rufina Reyes YANEZ,

Appellant

v.

AMERICAN GENERAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY,

Appellee

From the 341st Judicial District Court, Webb County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2019CVK001146D3

Honorable Rebecca Ramirez Palomo, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

Appellant’s third motion for an extension of time to file the appellant’s brief is granted. 

We order the appellant’s brief due April 30, 2020. Counsel is advised that no further extensions 

of time will be granted absent a timely motion that (1) demonstrates extraordinary circumstances 

justifying further delay, (2) advises the court of the efforts counsel has expended in preparing the 

brief, and (3) provides the court reasonable assurance that the brief will be completed and filed 

by the requested extended deadline. The court does not generally consider a heavy work 

schedule to be an extraordinary circumstance.

_________________________________

Irene Rios, Justice

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

court on this 31st day of March, 2020.

___________________________________

Michael A. Cruz,

Clerk of Court
Case 3:22-mc-00027-B Document 5-1 Filed 05/19/22 Page 1 of 8 PageID 16
Case 3:22-mc-00027-B Document 5-1 Filed 05/19/22 Page 2 of 8 PageID 17
Case 3:22-mc-00027-B Document 5-1 Filed 05/19/22 Page 3 of 8 PageID 18
Case 3:22-mc-00027-B Document 5-1 Filed 05/19/22 Page 4 of 8 PageID 19
Case 3:22-mc-00027-B Document 5-1 Filed 05/19/22 Page 5 of 8 PageID 20
Case 3:22-mc-00027-B Document 5-1 Filed 05/19/22 Page 6 of 8 PageID 21
Case 3:22-mc-00027-B Document 5-1 Filed 05/19/22 Page 7 of 8 PageID 22
Case 3:22-mc-00027-B Document 5-1 Filed 05/19/22 Page 8 of 8 PageID 23
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

IN RE:

DESIGNATION OF CHAIR OF THE 

DOMESTIC RELATIONS PROCEDURAL 

RULES COMMITTEE

:

:

:

:

:

NO. 670

CIVIL PROCEDURAL RULES DOCKET

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 12th day of October, 2017, Walter J. McHugh, Esquire, is 

designated as Chair of the Domestic Relations Procedural Rules Committee, 

commencing January 25, 2018.
<PAGE>
 
                                                                    EXHIBIT 11.1

                                  PSINET INC.

CALCULATION OF BASIC AND DILUTED LOSS PER SHARE AND WEIGHTED AVERAGE SHARES USED
                          IN CACULATION  (UNAUDITED)


                                        
                                                           THREE MONTHS ENDED
                                                              March 31, 1998
                                                              --------------
                                        
Weighted average shares outstanding:
Common stock:

     Shares outstanding at beginning of period..............     40,477,786
     Weighted average shares issued during the three
      months ended March 31, 1998
     (10,497,477 shares)....................................      4,118,638
                                                                -----------

                                                                 44,596,424
                                                                ===========


Net loss to common shareholders.............................   $(29,854,000)
                                                                ===========

Basic and diluted loss per share............................     $    (0.67)
                                                                ===========


================================================================================

                                       22
<PAGE>
 
                                                                  EXHIBIT 23.1

                     CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS


We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statements of 
ATG Inc. on Form S-8 (File No. 333-72349 and File No. 333-62963) of our reports 
dated February 26, 1999, on our audits of the consolidated financial statements 
and financial statement schedule of ATG Inc. as of December 31, 1998 and 1997 
and for the years ended December 31, 1998, 1997 and 1996 which reports are 
included in this Annual Report on Form 10-K.



/s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP

San Jose, California
March 31, 1999