alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
ex1022.htm












LOAN AGREEMENT







August 12, 2015







Richard N. Jeffs (the “Lender”) of Parcela 29, Perales Viejo Vallenar, III Region Chile, advanced USD$24,000 (the “Principal Sum”) to Cell MedX Corp. (the “Borrower”) of 74 N. Pecos Road, Suite D, Henderson, NV, 89074.  The Lender advanced the funds on August 12, 2015.







The Borrower agrees to repay the Principal Sum on demand, together with interest calculated and compounded monthly at the rate of 6% per year (the “Interest”) from August 12, 2015.  The Borrower is liable for repayment for the Principal Sum and accrued Interest and any costs that the Lender incurs in trying to collect the Principal Sum and the Interest.







 


The Borrower will evidence the debt and its repayment of the Principal Sum and the Interest with a promissory note in the attached form.


 


LENDER                                                                          BORROWER


Richard N. Jeffs                                                                    Cell MedX Corp.







Per:                                                                                   Per:







/s/ Richard N. Jeffs                                                                 /s/ Yanika Silina


Richard N. Jeffs                                                                      Yanika Silina, CFO
















  





1











  








PROMISSORY NOTE







Principal Amount:  USD$25,000                                                                                                                                August 12, 2015












For value received Cell MedX Corp., (the “Borrower”) promises to pay on demand to the order of Richard N. Jeffs (the “Lender”) the sum of $25,000 lawful money of United States (the “Principal Sum”) together with interest on the Principal Sum from August 12, 2015 (“Effective Date”) both before and after maturity, default and judgment at the Interest Rate as defined below.







For the purposes of this promissory note, Interest Rate means 6 per cent per year.  Interest at the Interest Rate must be calculated and compounded monthly not in advance from and including the Effective Date (for an effective rate of 6.2% per annum calculated monthly), and is payable together with the Principal Sum when the Principal Sum is repaid.







The Borrower may repay the Principal Sum and the Interest in whole or in part at any time.







The Borrower waives presentment, protest, notice of protest and notice of dishonour of this promissory note.












BORROWER


Cell MedX Corp.







Per:







/s/ Yanika Silina


Yanika Silina, CFO








  





2
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                          18,825
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                              28
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                 9,660
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                    263,813
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                         141,836
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                           141,613
<LOANS>                                        590,438
<ALLOWANCE>                                      6,632
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,065,733
<DEPOSITS>                                     868,548
<SHORT-TERM>                                         0
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                             13,425
<LONG-TERM>                                    100,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            66
<OTHER-SE>                                      83,694
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>               1,065,733
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                 31,885
<INTEREST-INVEST>                               23,746
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                     0
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                55,631
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                              30,789
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              36,916
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                           18,715
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                    2,700
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                  62
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                 14,502
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,309
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                         765
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       765
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.12
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.12
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    2.47
<LOANS-NON>                                      3,851
<LOANS-PAST>                                         0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                 4,009
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                  5,369
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                 4,780
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                    1,494
<RECOVERIES>                                         0
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                5,986
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                             5,986
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                          4,106
        


</TABLE>
(logo) pwc

  

Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

 

To the Board of Directors, PNC Financial Services Group, Inc.:

 

We have examined management's assertion, included in the accompanying Report on Assessment of Compliance with Regulation AB Servicing Criteria, that Midland Loan Services, a division of PNC Bank, National Association (“Midland” or the “Company”) complied with the servicing criteria set forth in Item 1122(d) of the Securities and Exchange Commission's Regulation AB for all transactions serviced on the *Enterprise!*LoanManagement System (the “Platform”), as of December31, 2015 and for the year then ended, excluding criteria 1122(d)(1)(iii), 1122(d)(3)(i)(B), 1122(d)(3)(i)(C), 1122(d)(3)(i)(D), 1122(d)(3)(ii), 1122(d)(3)(iii), 1122(d)(3)(iv), and 1122(d)(4)(xv), which the Companyhas determined are not applicable to the servicing activities performed by it with respect to the Platform.Management is responsible for the Company's compliance with the servicing criteria. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on management's assertion based on our examination.

 

Our examination was conducted in accordance with attestation standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States) and, accordingly, included examining, on a test basis, evidence about the Company's compliance with the applicable servicing criteria and performing such other procedures as we considered necessary in the circumstances. Our examination included testing of selected asset-backed transactions and securities that comprise the Platform, testingof selected servicingactivities related to the Platform, and determining whetherthe Company processed those selected transactions and performed those selected activities in compliance with the applicable servicing criteria. Our procedures were limited to the selected transactions and servicing activities performed by the Company during the period covered by this report. Our procedures were not designed to detect noncompliance arising from errors that may have occurred prior to or subsequent to our tests that may have affected the balances or amounts calculated or reported by the Company during the period covered by this report. We believe that our examination provides a reasonable basis for our opinion. Our examination does not provide a legal determination on the Company's compliance with the servicing criteria.

 

In our opinion, management's assertion that Midland complied with the aforementioned applicable servicing criteria as of and for the year ended December 31, 2015 for the Platformis fairly stated,in all material respects.

 

 

/s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP

February 25, 2016

 

 

PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, 1100 Walnut Street, Suite 1300, Kansas City, MO 64106 

*T: (816) 472 7921, F: (816) 218 1890 www.pwc.com/us*
I

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 1074

To suspend until January 1, 1997, the duty on mounted closed circuit

television lenses.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

FEBRUARY 23, 1993

Mr. WALKER introduced the following bill; which was referred to the

Committee on Ways and Means

A BILL

To suspend until January 1, 1997, the duty on mounted

closed circuit television lenses.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. MOUNTED CLOSED CIRCUIT TELEVISION

4 LENSES.

5 Subchapter II of chapter 99 of the Harmonized Tar6 iff Schedule of the United States is amended by inserting

7 in numerical sequence the following new heading:
2

•HR 1074 IH

‘‘ 9902.90.02 Mounted lenses

consisting of

lenses suitable

for use in, and

presented separately from,

closed circuit television cameras,

with or without

attached electrical or nonelectrical closed

circuit television

camera connectors, and with or

without attached

motors (provided

for in subheading

9002.11.80,

9002.90.90, or

8529.90.30) ...... Free No change No change On or before

12/31/96 ’’.

1 SEC. 2. APPLICABILITY.

2 The amendment made by section 1 applies with re3 spect to goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for

4 consumption, on or after the 15th day after the date of

5 the enactment of this Act.

Æ
Exhibit 99.1

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Northeast Indiana
Bancorp, Inc. (the "Company") for the quarterly period ending June 30, 2002 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), I, Stephen E. Zahn, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify,
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; and

     (2)  the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
          material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of
          the Company.



By:    /s/ Stephen E. Zahn
       -------------------
Name:  Stephen E. Zahn
Chief Executive Officer
August 14, 2002

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
**Exhibit 34.17**

**Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm**

To the Board of Directors 

Situs Holdings, LLC 

We have examined management’s assertion, included in the accompanying Management’s Report on Assessment of Compliance with Applicable Regulation ABServicing Criteria (Management’s Assertion), that Situs Holdings, LLC (the Company) complied with the servicing criteria set forth in Items 1122(d)(3)(i) and 1122(d)(4)(vii) of the Securities and Exchange Commission’s (SEC) Regulation AB(the applicable servicing criteria) for services by the Company that are encompassed by contractual obligations to perform Regulation AB reporting for the Operating or Trust Advisor Services Platform (the “Platform”), including only thoseasset-backed securities transactions defined below, as of and for the year ended December 31, 2017. Appendix B to management’s assertion identifies the individual asset-backed transactions defined by management as constituting thePlatform. Management is responsible for Situs Holdings, LLC’s compliance with the applicable servicing criteria. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on management’s assertion about the Company’s compliance with the applicableservicing criteria based on our examination. 

Our examination was conducted in accordance with attestation standards of the Public Company AccountingOversight Board (United States) and, accordingly, included examining, on a test basis, evidence about the Company’s compliance with the applicable servicing criteria, including tests on a sample basis of the servicing activities related to thePlatform, determining whether the Company performed those activities in compliance with the servicing criteria during the specified period and performing such other procedures as we considered necessary in the circumstances. Our procedures werelimited to selected servicing activities performed by the Company during the period covered by this report and, accordingly, such samples may not have included servicing activities related to each asset-backed transaction in the Platform. Further,an examination is not designed to detect noncompliance arising from errors that may have occurred prior to the period specified above that may have affected the balances or amounts calculated or reported by the Company during the period covered bythis report. We believe that our examination provides a reasonable basis for our opinion. Our examination does not provide a legal determination on the Company’s compliance with the servicing criteria. 

In our opinion, management’s assertion that Situs Holdings, LLC complied with the aforementioned applicable servicing criteria as of and for the yearended December 31, 2017, for the Platform is fairly stated, in all material respects. 

/s/ RSM US LLP 

Duluth, Minnesota 

February 28, 2018 

 
1
1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA §

§

v. § CASE NO.: 3:22-CR-00326-L

§

CORRY ROBERSON (25) §

ORDER ACCEPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE CONCERNING PLEA OF GUILTY

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 Concerning Plea of Guilty of the United States Magistrate Judge, 

and no objections thereto having been filed within fourteen days of service in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), the 

undersigned District Judge is of the opinion that the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge concerning the 

Plea of Guilty is correct, and it is hereby accepted by the Court. Accordingly, the Court accepts the plea of guilty, and 

CORRY ROBERSON is hereby adjudged guilty of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(C), and 18 U.S.C. § 2, namely, Possession 

With Intent to Distribute a Controlled Substance, Aiding and Abetting. Sentence will be imposed in accordance with the 

Court's scheduling order.

☒ The defendant is ordered to remain in custody.

☐ The Court accepts the findings of the United States Magistrate Judge by clear and convincing evidence that the 

defendant is not likely to flee or pose a danger to any other person or the community if released and should therefore 

be released under § 3142(b) or (c).

☐ Upon motion, this matter shall be set for hearing before the United States Magistrate Judge who set the conditions 

of release for determination, by clear and convincing evidence, of whether the defendant is likely to flee or pose a 

danger to any other person or the community if released under § 3142(b) or (c).

☐ The defendant is not ordered detained pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3143(a)(2) pending determination of whether it has 

been clearly shown that there are exceptional circumstances under § 3145(c) why the defendant should not be 

detained under § 3143(a)(2), and whether it has been shown by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant is 

not likely to flee or pose a danger to any other person or the community if released under § 3142(b) or (c). This 

matter shall be referred to the United States Magistrate Judge who set the conditions of release.

SIGNED this 11th day of September, 2024.

________________________________________

SAM A. LINDSAY

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:22-cr-00326-L Document 531 Filed 09/11/24 Page 1 of 1 PageID 1718
Case 4:22-cr-00238-O Document 32 Filed 10/05/22 Page 1 of 2 PageID 59
Case 4:22-cr-00238-O Document 32 Filed 10/05/22 Page 2 of 2 PageID 60
Transport Airplane Directorate

1601 Lind Avenue, S.W.

Renton, Washington 98057-3356

September 27, 2012

Mr. Doug Lane, Director, 

Deputy Lead Administrator 

Regulatory Administration

The Boeing Company 

PO Box 3707 

Seattle, Washington, 98124 

Dear Mr. Lane;

We received your petition which was posted on the FAA regulations.gov website on 

September 4, 2012 and has your stamped date of July 9, 2012, for exemption from 

requirements of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) 25.785(j), 25.795(b)(2), 

(c)(l) and (c)(3), 25.809(a), 25.810(a)(l) 25.857(e), and 25.1447(c)(l), for the Boeing 767-2C 

all-cargo airplanes. The exemption, if granted, would allow main deck access during flight 

and the carriage of eleven supernumeraries on the Boeing 767-2C freighter. 

This request, which you submitted to the Department of Transportation’s Federal Docket 

Management System (FDMS), has been given Docket No. FAA-2012-0956. We are in the 

process of reviewing your request, and will contact you if we need additional information.

A summary of your petition will be published in the Federal Register for public comment, in 

accordance with the requirements of § 11.85. You will be advised of the agency’s decision 

on your petition as soon as possible. 

If you have any questions or concerns regarding your petition or the petition process, please 

contact Alan Sinclair, ANM-115, at 425-227-2195, or e-mail, Alan.Sinclair@faa.gov.

Sincerely, 

Michael Menkin

Transport Airplane Directorate

Aircraft Certification Service
#### LCB Parking Corp., Respondent, v Butterfield House Inc., Appellant.

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Felice Shea, J.), entered on July 27, 1989, unanimously affirmed, for the reasons stated by Felice Shea, J., with costs and with disbursements. Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Ross, Kassal, Smith and Rubin, JJ.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH DIVISION

JENNIFER VANDERSTOK; MICHAEL 

G. ANDREN; TACTICAL MACHINING 

LLC, a limited liability company; 

FIREARMS POLICY COALITION, 

INC., a nonprofit corporation,

Plaintiffs,

v.

MERRICK GARLAND, in his Official 

capacity as Attorney General of the 

United States; UNITED STATES 

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE; STEVEN 

DETTELBACH, in his official capacity as 

Director of the Bureau of Alcohol, 

Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives; 

BUREAU OF ALCOHOL, TOBACCO, 

FIREARMS, AND EXPLOSIVES,

Defendants.

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

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

ORDER

Before the Court is Defendants’ Unopposed Motion to Exceed Page Limits (ECF No. 30), 

filed August 26, 2022. Noting the motion is unopposed and finding good cause, the Court 

GRANTS the motion for leave to file a response in opposition exceeding 25 pages.

SO ORDERED this 26th day of August, 2022.

Case 4:22-cv-00691-O Document 32 Filed 08/26/22 Page 1 of 1 PageID 389
Case 4:22-cv-00803-O-BP Document 1 Filed 09/09/22 Page 1 of 2 PageID 1
Case 4:22-cv-00803-O-BP Document 1 Filed 09/09/22 Page 2 of 2 PageID 2
MEMORANDUM TO FILE 

TO: Docket No. EPA-R09-OAR-2013-0009; Approval of Air Quality 

Implementation Plans; Navajo Nation; Regional Haze Requirements for Navajo 

Generating Station; Proposed Rule 

FROM: Anita Lee 

Date: March 17, 2014 

Subject: Record of Meeting with Maricopa Stanfield Irrigation and Drainage District 

1. Participants at Meeting 

 Tom Powers, EPA 

 Tamara Saltman, EPA 

 Martha Keating, EPA (by phone) 

 Anita Lee, EPA (by phone) 

 Ann Lyons, EPA (by phone) 

 Grant Ward, MSIDD 

 Paul Orme, MSIDD 

 Dan Thelander, MSIDD 

 Siebe Hamstra, MSIDD 

2. Date and Location of Meeting: 

 March 12, 2014, Washington, DC 

3. General Statement of the Topic of Discussion: 

 MSIDD summarized the comments submitted to EPA from the Central Arizona Project 

Agricultural Water Users Task Force on Navajo Generating Station 

4. Copy of Any Materials Presented or Received: 

 MSIDD provided a copy of the Executive Summary of their comment letter. The full comment 

letter is already in the docket at: http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=EPA-R09-

OAR-2013-0009-0305
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-7823

ROBIN VIRGINIA MEADOWS COLLINS, 

 Plaintiff - Appellant, 

v. 

CORPORAL LOIS VERZALL, 

 Defendant - Appellee. 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Dever, III, 

Chief District Judge. (5:14-ct-03110-D) 

Submitted: April 20, 2015 Decided: May 5, 2015

Before KEENAN, WYNN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges. 

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

Robin Virginia Meadows Collins, Appellant Pro Se. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 
2

PER CURIAM: 

Robin Virginia Meadows Collins seeks to appeal the district 

court’s order dismissing without prejudice her civil rights

action under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1) (2012) for failure to state 

a claim on which relief may be granted. This court may exercise 

jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2012), 

and certain interlocutory and collateral orders. 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1292 (2012); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. 

Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 545-47 (1949). Because the 

deficiencies identified by the district court may be remedied by 

the filing of an amended complaint, we conclude that the order

Collins seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an 

appealable interlocutory or collateral order. Domino Sugar 

Corp. v. Sugar Workers Local Union 392, 10 F.3d 1064, 1066-67 

(4th Cir. 1993). 

Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack of 

jurisdiction. We dispense with oral argument because the facts 

and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials 

before this court and argument would not aid the decisional 

process. 

DISMISSED