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

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. J. RES. 281

Making further continuing appropriations for the fiscal year 1994, and for

other purposes.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

OCTOBER 20, 1993

Mr. NATCHER introduced the following joint resolution

JOINT RESOLUTION

Making further continuing appropriations for the fiscal year

1994, and for other purposes.

1 Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives

2 of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 That section 106(c) of Public Law 103–88 is amended by

4 striking out ‘‘October 21, 1993’’ and inserting in lieu

5 thereof ‘‘October 28, 1993’’.

Æ
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH DIVISION

JENNIFER VANDERSTOK, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

BLACKHAWK MANUFACTURING 

GROUP INC., et al., 

Intervenor Plaintiffs, 

v. 

MERRICK GARLAND, in his Official 

capacity as Attorney General of the 

United States, et al.,

Defendants.

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

Civil Action No. 4:22-cv-00691-O

ORDER

Before the Court is Defendants’ Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time to File Answer 

to Defense Distributed and Second Amendment Foundation’s Complaint in Intervention (ECF No. 

178), filed February 10, 2023. Having considered the motion and noting it is unopposed, the Court 

GRANTS the motion and ORDERS Defendants to file their Answer no later than 21 days after 

this Court resolves Intervenors’ motions for preliminary injunctive relief and for summary 

judgment. 

SO ORDERED this 10th day of February, 2023. 

Case 4:22-cv-00691-O Document 179 Filed 02/10/23 Page 1 of 1 PageID 3199
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS AND CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS FOUND ON
THE FORM 10-QSB FOR THE THREE MONTH PERIOD ENDED MARCH 31, 2000 AND IS QUALIFIED
IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                         452,266
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  503,177
<ALLOWANCES>                                    89,977
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,264,197
<PP&E>                                       1,522,439
<DEPRECIATION>                                 631,530
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,664,617
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,544,389
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        32,753
<OTHER-SE>                                   1,087,475
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 2,664,617
<SALES>                                      1,542,082
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,542,082
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,908,837
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              63,242
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (413,855)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (413,855)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (413,855)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.01)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.01)


</TABLE>
Prison. The district court is afforded considerable discretion in imposing a

sentence, and its determination will not be disturbed absent an abuse of discretion. 

### Randell v. State, 109 Nev. 5, 8, 846 P.2d 278, 280 (1993). Abuse of discretion will be found only when the record shows "prejudice resulting from consideration of information or accusations founded on facts supported only by impalpable or highly suspect evidence." 

### Silks v. State, 92 Nev. 91, 94, 545 P.2d 1159, 1161 (1976). Appellant does not argue that the district court relied on impalpable or highly suspect evidence; therefore, we conclude the district court did not abuse its discretion. Third, appellant contends that her sentence was disproportionate to the facts and circumstances of the case and to the sentences imposed on her codefendants, constituting cruel and unusual punishment. A sentence that falls within the statutory guidelines is not considered cruel and unusual unless the statute is unconstitutional or the sentence is "so unreasonably disproportionate to the offense as to shock the conscience." 

### Blume v. State, 112 Nev. 472, 475, 915 P.2d 282, 284 (1996) (internal quotation marks omitted). There is no legal requirement that codefendants be sentenced to identical terms. 

### Nobles v. Warden, 106 Nev. 67, 68, 787 P.2d 390, 391 (1990) (emphasizing that "sentencing is an individualized process").

Appellant does not allege that the relevant statutes are unconstitutional, and her sentence falls within the statutory guidelines. 

### See NRS 193.130(2)(c); NRS 205.270(1)(a). The instant offense involved appellant taking a wallet, as her codefendants distracted the victim, and then backing a vehicle into a bystander as she fled the scene. We conclude that the sentence imposed is not unreasonably disproportionate to the

SUPREME COURT

OF NEVADA
(0) 1947A 2
WIC

### J.

J.

3 offense and therefore does not constitute cruel and unusual punishment. Accordingly, we

ORDER the judgment of the conviction AFFIRMED.

Hardesty

Parraguirre

cc: Hon. Steven P. Elliott, District Judge Michael V. Roth Attorney General/Carson City Washoe County District Attorney Washoe District Court Clerk

SUPREME COURT

OF NEVADA
(0) 1947A
Supplemental MOVES Modeling Files

The seven (7) zip files contained in the “Supplemental MOVES Modeling Files,” 

submitted as part of the Connecticut PM2.5 redesignation SIP are available electronically

upon request. Please direct all request to:

Donald O. Cooke, Environmental Scientist

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

EPA New England Regional Office 

Office of Ecosystem Protection, Air Quality Planning Unit

5 Post Office Square - Suite 100, (Mail code OEP05-2)

Boston, MA 02109 - 3912

Telephone (617) 918-1668

Fax # (617) 918-0668 

E-Mail cooke.donald@epa.gov

1. MOVES_input_FF2009_and_CALEV_to_MYSQL.zip

2. MOVES_input_FF2017_and_FF2025_to_MySQL.zip

3. MOVES_input_NH2009_and_EarlyLEV_to_MYSQL.zip

4. MOVES_input_NH2017_and_NH2025_to_MySQL.zip

5. MOVES_MSAccessOutputAnalysisDB_To_MySQL.zip

6. MOVES_FF_NH_PM_RunOutputs_to_MySQL.zip

7. MOVES_RunSpec_BatchInfo_AndRunLog_To_C_Windows7.zip
#### GILBERT v. STATE.

No. 26256.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Feb. 11, 1953.

No attorney on appeal, for appellant.

George P. Blackburn, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

*785MORRISON, Judge.

The offense is the unlawful possession of whiskey for the purpose of sale in a dry area; the punishment, thirty days in jail and a fine of $150.

The record is before us without a statement of facts or bills of exception.

All the proceedings appearing regular and nothing being presented for our review, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
(logo) Deloitte

 

 

**Deloitte& Touche LLP**

695Town Center Drive 

CostaMesa, CA 92626 

USA

Tel:+1714 436 7100

Fax:+1 714 436 7200

www.deloitte.com

 

 

**REPORTOF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

 

 

ToPacific Life Insurance Company:

 

We have examined management's assertion,included in the accompanying Management's ReportonAssessmentof CompliancewithSECRegulationABServicingCriteria,thatPacific Life Insurance Company (the"Company") complied with the relevant servicing criteria set forth inItem 1122 (d) of the Securities and Exchange Commission's Regulation AB for theSecuritized Commercial Mortgage Loans Platform (the "Platform") as ofand for the year ended December 31, 2017, excluding criteria 1122 (d)(1)(iii),(d)(2)(ii), (d)(3)(i), d(3)(ii), (d)(3)(iii), (d)(3)(iv),(d)(4)(ii),(d)(4)(iv), (d)(4)(v), (d)(4)(ix), (d)(4)(x), (d)(4)(xi), (d)(4)(xii),(d)(4)(xiii), (d)(4)(xiv), and (d)(4)(xv), which management has determined arenot applicable to the activities performed by the Company with respect to thePlatform. Appendix A to management's assertion identifies the individualasset-backed transactions defined by management as constituting the Platform.Management is responsible for the Company's compliance with the relevantservicing criteria. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on management'sassertion about the Company's compliance with the relevant servicing criteriabased on ourexamination.

 

Our examinationwas conducted in accordance with attestationstandardsof thePublicCompany Accounting Oversight Board(United States) and, accordingly, included examining, on a test basis,evidenceabouttheCompany'scompliance withtheapplicableservicingcriteria,includingtests on a sample basis of servicing activities related to the Platform,determining whether the Company performed those selected activities incompliance with the relevant servicing criteria duringthespecifiedperiod,andperformingsuchotherproceduresasweconsiderednecessary in the circumstances. Our procedureswere limited toselected servicing activities performed by the Company during the periodcovered by this report and, accordingly, such samples may nothaveincludedservicingactivitiesrelatedtoeachspecificasset-backedtransactionincluded in the Platform. Further, anexamination is not designed to detect noncompliance arising from errors thatmay have occurred prior to the period specified above that may have affectedthe balances or amounts calculated or reported by the Company during the periodcovered by this report. We believe that our examination provides a reasonablebasis for our opinion. Our examination does not provide a legal determinationon the Company's compliance with the relevant servicingcriteria.

 

In our opinion, management's assertionthat the Company complied with the aforementioned applicableservicingcriteriaasofandfortheyearendedDecember31,2017fortheSecuritized Commercial Mortgage LoansPlatform is fairly stated, in all materialrespects.

 

 

/s/Deloitte & Touche LLP

February28, 2018
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

CHRISTOPHER DAVID RYAN,

 Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

 

 State.

 

§

§

§

 

§

§

§ 

 

§

'

'

No. 08-14-00167-CR

Appeal from the

112th District Court

of Upton County, Texas 

(TC# 05-05-U790-DPO)

 O R D E R

The Court GRANTS the Appellant’s third motion for extension of time to file the brief 

until October 4, 2014. NO FURTHER MOTIONS FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE THE 

APPELLANT’S BRIEF WILL BE CONSIDERED BY THIS COURT.

It is further ORDERED that the Hon. Don Payne, the Appellant’s Attorney, prepare the 

Appellant’s brief and forward the same to this Court on or before October 4, 2014.

IT IS SO ORDERED this 3

rd day of September, 2014.

PER CURIAM
NOTE: This order is nonprecedential. 

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit 

__________________________ 

LLOYD J. FLEMING, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v. 

RICHARD COWARD AND P. HEMPHILL, OFFICER 

#2478, 

Defendants-Appellees, 

AND

WALTER W. TWEEDY, POOL, OFFICER, 

ADRIANNE TODMAN, FRANK LANCASTER, AND 

LORRY BLUITT BONDS, 

Defendants-Appellees, 

AND

ARUN C. WILLIAMS AND PATRICK ASSOUAD, 

Defendants-Appellees, 

AND

GARRETT, MOTENAR ROBERSON, JOSEPH 

DUKES, EBENEZER OLOMO, LARRY LOUCUS, 

TOM WOODSON, BEEMON FLEMING, JIMMY 

MCGIVIE, KESHA TAYLOR, JESSICA, RECITA 

EVANS, STEPHEN WHEELE, KAREN BUSH, AND

MEREDITH KOLBRENER, 

Defendants. 

__________________________ 

Case: 13-1091 Document: 14 Page: 1 Filed: 01/11/2013
LLOYD FLEMING V. RICHARD COWARD 2

2013-1091 

__________________________ 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the 

District of Columbia in case no. 12-CV-0330, Judge Richard J. Leon. 

__________________________ 

ON MOTION 

__________________________ 

O R D E R 

Upon consideration of Lloyd J. Fleming’s motion seeking various relief from the court, 

IT IS ORDERED THAT: 

(1) The motion is denied. 

(2) Appellees’ briefs are due 21 days from the date of 

this order. 

FOR THE COURT

/s/ Jan Horbaly

Jan Horbaly 

Clerk 

s26 

Case: 13-1091 Document: 14 Page: 2 Filed: 01/11/2013
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTzuCT OF TEXAS

ABILENE DT!'ISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

CARMEN WYNNE BRITTAIN,

Defendant.

ORDER ACCEPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

OF TIIE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JIJDGE

CONCERNING PLEA OF GI,JILTY

After reviewing all relevant matters of record, including the Notice Regarding Entry

of a Plea of Guilty, the Consent of the Defendant, and the Report and Recommendation

Conceming Plea of Guilty of the United States Magistrate Judge, and no objections thereto

having been filed within fourteen (14) days of service in accordance with 28 U.S.C.

$ 636(bxl), the undersigned Distria Judge is ofthe opinion that the Report and

Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge conceming the Plea of Guilty is correct, and it is

hereby accepted by the Court. Accordingly, the court accepts the plea of guilty and

Defendant is hereby adjudged guilty.

Sentence will be imposed in accordance with the Court's scheduling order.

SO ORDERED.

Datedlanrary /l ,2023.

/o. /k,

JAMES SLEY HENDRIX

STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

NO. 1:22-CR-054-03-H

Case 1:22-cr-00054-H-BU Document 116 Filed 01/10/23 Page 1 of 1 PageID 311
Exhibit 10.9


 





P.V. Nano Cell Ltd.


 


CAPITAL NOTE





	 	 	Date of Issuance
	USD 100,000	 	November 26, 2014
	 	 	 


P.V. Nano Cell Ltd.,
an Israeli company (the “Company”), hereby promises to pay to the order of IP Bank International (Suzhou)
Co., Ltd. (“IPB”), the sum of one hundred thousand US dollars ($100,000) (the “Note Amount”),
in connection with the Side Agreement by and between the Company and IPB, dated as of July 20, 2014 (the “Side Agreement”),
all pursuant to the terms and conditions of this general unsecured capital note (this “Note”).


 


Capitalized terms used but
not otherwise defined in this Note, shall have the meanings ascribed to them in the Side Agreement.


 


1.           Payment. The Note Amount shall be paid by the Company to IPB, within 14 days
following the consummation of the closing of a Trigger Event (as such term is defined in Section 3 to the Side Agreement), upon
surrender of this Note to the Company. Payment of the Note Amount shall be made in lawful money of the United States of America,
at the principal office of the Company or at such place as may be designated in writing by IPB. The Note Amount shall not bear
interest. 


 


2.           Miscellaneous. This Note, and the obligations and rights of the Company hereunder,
shall be binding on and inure to the benefit of the Company, IPB, and their respective heirs, successors, and assigns. This Note
shall be governed by, and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of Israel, without regard to its conflict of law rules.
Any dispute arising under or in relation to this Note shall be resolved in the competent court in Tel-Aviv, and each of the parties
hereby submits irrevocably to the jurisdiction of such court. This Note embodies the entire agreement and understanding of the
parties hereto with respect to the subject matter hereof, and it supersedes all prior agreements, arrangements, understandings
and undertakings, written or oral, relating to the subject matter hereof, if any. This Note may not be modified or amended except
with the written consent of the Company and IPB. This Note may be executed in two counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an
original, but all of which together shall constitute one and the same instrument.


  


	
        Agreed and Accepted:

         
	 	P.V. Nano Cell Ltd.
	 	 	 
	IP Bank International (Suzhou) Co., Ltd. (“IPB”)	 	By:__________________________
	 	 	 
	By:____________________________	 	Title:________________________
	 	 	 
	Title:__________________________
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 222 (Thursday, November 16, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 69296]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-29333]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RP01-77-000]


Midwestern Gas Transmission Company; Notice of Tariff Filing

November 9, 2000.
    Take notice that on November 2, 2000, Midwestern Gas Transmission 
(Midwestern), tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, 
Second Revised Volume No. 1, the following revised tariff sheets, with 
an effective date of December 1, 2000:

Second Revised Sheet No. 60
Sixth Revised Sheet No. 61

    Midwestern states that the purpose of this filing is to revise its 
tariff in order to incorporate GISB Standards' language and terms. 
Further, Midwestern states the revisions will bring Midwestern's Tariff 
more in-line with standard practices across the interstate pipeline 
grid.
    Any person desiring to be heard or to protest said filing should 
file a motion to intervene or a protest with the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, N.E., Washington, D.C. 20426, 
in accordance with Sections 385.214 or 385.211 of the Commission's 
Rules and Regulations. All such motions or protests must be filed in 
accordance with Section 154.210 of the Commission's Regulations. 
Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the 
appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants 
parties to the proceedings. Any person wishing to become a party must 
file a motion to intervene. Copies of this filing are on file with the 
Commission and are available for public inspection in the Public 
Reference Room. This filing may be viewed on the web at http://www.ferc.fed.us/online/rims.htm (call 202-208-2222 for assistance). 
Comments and protests may be filed electronically via the internet in 
lieu of paper. See, 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on 
the Commission's web site at @http://www.ferc.fed.us/efi/doorbell.htm.

Linwood A. Watson, Jr.,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 00-29333 Filed 11-15-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
EXHIBIT 10.20

                                 PROMISSORY NOTE

Stamford, Connecticut
January 4, 2000

$152,499.20

         FOR VALUE RECEIVED, Mario F. Rossi promises to pay to SmartServ Online,
Inc., a Delaware corporation (the "Company"), or order, the principal sum of One
Hundred  Fifty-Two  Thousand Four Hundred  Ninety-Nine  Dollars and Twenty Cents
($152,499.20),  together with interest on the unpaid  principal  hereof from the
date  hereof at the rate of 7.5%  [such  interest  equal to one point  below the
prime  rate  as of the  date of  this  Note]  per  annum,  compounded  annually.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, the principal amount of the Note shall be subject
to an automatic  reduction to the principal  amount pursuant to the terms of the
Purchase Agreement (as defined below).

         This Note shall be due and  payable in full on  December  29, 2003 (the
"Due Date"),  unless  accelerated as provided  herein.  Upon the  termination of
employment  of Mario F.  Rossi from the  Company  for  Cause,  the whole  unpaid
balance on this Note of principal and interest shall become  immediately  due at
the  option  of the  holder  of this  Note.  In the event  that  Mario F.  Rossi
terminates  his  employment  with the Company for Good Reason,  the whole unpaid
balance on this Note of principal and interest shall be due and payable upon the
earlier of the Due Date or six (6) months from the Date of Termination. Payments
of principal and interest  shall be made in lawful money of the United States of
America.

         The  undersigned  may at any time  prepay  without  penalty  all or any
portion of the principal owing hereunder.

         This Note is  subject  to the terms of that  certain  Restricted  Stock
Purchase  Agreement  by and between the Company and Mario F. Rossi,  dated as of
December 29, 1998, as amended (the "Purchase  Agreement") and capitalized  terms
used herein which are not otherwise  defined shall have the meanings ascribed to
them in the Purchase Agreement or in an employment agreement between the Company
and Mario F.  Rossi,  dated as of  January  1,  1999.  This Note is secured by a
pledge of the Company's Common Stock under the terms of a Security  Agreement of
even  date  herewith  (the  "Security  Agreement")  and is  subject  to all  the
provisions thereof.

         This Note is  intended  to  evidence  a  non-recourse  obligation  with
respect to the principal  hereof to secure the purchase of the Company's  Common
Stock  pursuant  to the  Purchase  Agreement.  Accordingly,  this Note  shall be
without  recourse  with respect to the  principal  against Mario F. Rossi and no
person  entitled  to payment  under this Note shall have any right to his assets
other than the collateral given for this Note and earnings  attributable to such
collateral or the investment of such collateral, if any. The obligation to repay
interest pursuant to the terms of this Note shall be a recourse obligation.

         This Note shall be governed and construed in  accordance  with the laws
of the State of Connecticut.



-------------------------
Mario F. Rossi