alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 15.13



LOAN AGREEMENT



This agreement is for the period from April
1, 2014 to 31st March 2015 is being made at Amira Pure Foods Private Limited (“APFPL”) on 12th
April 2014 between Karan A. Chanana, Chairman and Director of Amira Pure Foods Private Limited, resident of Plot No. 550, Al Nabat,
B-8-707, Palm Jumeirah , Dubai , UAE(hereafter called the party of first part)

And

Amira Pure foods Private Limited , having registered
office at B-1/E-28, Mohan Cooperative Industrial Estate , Mathura Road , New Delhi-110044, India (hereinafter called the party
of the Second Part)

WHEREAS the second part is in need of money
and seek from the first party the said money without security, Second part will be liable to make repayment of the principal amount
along with interest thereon demand made by the First part.

AND WHEREAS, the First part has agreed to lend
loan with security to the Second part as his will and wish. Interest shall be calculated at the rate of 11% per annum on the daily
balances of Loan.



IN WITNESS thereof the parties of this agreement
have set their respective hands on the date month and year first given above



|1.   First Party     |  | WITNESSES:
|-------------------- |  | ----------
|                     |  |           
|                     |  | 1.        
|                     |  |           
|/s/ Karan A. Chanana |  |           
|(Karan A Chanana)    |  |           
|                     |  |           
|2.   Second Party    |  | 2.        
|                     |  |           
|/s/ Rajesh Arora     |  |           
|(Rajesh Arora)       |  |
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

1194 

KA 06-02436 

PRESENT: SCUDDER, P.J., FAHEY, CARNI, VALENTINO, AND MARTOCHE, JJ. 

 

 

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT, 

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

TIMOTHY TURNER, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. 

 

DAVISON LAW OFFICE PLLC, CANANDAIGUA (MARY P. DAVISON OF COUNSEL), FOR

DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. 

SANDRA DOORLEY, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, ROCHESTER (MATTHEW DUNHAM OF

COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT. 

 

Appeal from a judgment of the Monroe County Court (Richard A.

Keenan, J.), rendered July 6, 2006. The judgment convicted defendant,

upon a jury verdict, of criminal possession of a controlled substance

in the third degree, criminal sale of a controlled substance in the

third degree and operating a motor vehicle without a license. 

It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is

unanimously affirmed. 

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him

upon a jury verdict of, inter alia, criminal possession of a

controlled substance in the third degree (Penal Law § 220.16 [1]).

Viewing the evidence in light of the elements of the crimes as charged

to the jury (see People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342, 349), we reject

defendant’s contention that the verdict is against the weight of the

evidence (see People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495). “[R]esolution of

issues of credibility, as well as the weight to be accorded to the

evidence presented, are primarily questions to be determined by the

jury” (People v Hernandez, 288 AD2d 489, 490, lv denied 97 NY2d 729;

see People v Sorrentino, 12 AD3d 1197, 1197-1198, lv denied 4 NY3d

748; People v Hernandez, 288 AD2d 489, 490, lv denied 97 NY2d 729).

Entered: November 9, 2012 Frances E. Cafarell

Clerk of the Court
* 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

December 6, 2006

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-41640

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

JOAQUIN ALVAREZ-LOPEZ,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 5:05-CR-1137-ALL

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

Before REAVLEY, STEWART, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Appealing the Judgment in a Criminal Case, Joaquin AlvarezLopez raises arguments that are foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres

v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998), which held that

8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) is a penalty provision and not a separate

criminal offense. The Government’s motion for summary affirmance

is GRANTED, and the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
Exhibit
32.2








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 Nacel Energy Corporation (the "Company") on
Form 10-Q for the quarter ending June 30, 2009, as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, March Schaftlein,
Principal Accounting Officer of the Company, certify to the best of my
knowledge, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of  2002, that:





(1)
The Report fully complies with the requirements of section  13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and





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





A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906, another
document authenticating, 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 the Company and
will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission or its staff upon request.






/s/
      Marl SchaftleinMarl
      SchaftleinPrincipal
      Accounting Officer


August
13, 2009
CERTIFICATION

Re:
Morgan Stanley Bank of America Merrill Lynch Trust 2012-C5, Commercial
Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2012-C5(the "Transaction"), issued pursuant to
the  Pooling  and  Servicing  Agreement  dated  as  of  July  1,  2012  (the  "Pooling  and  Servicing
Agreement"),  executed  in  connection  with  the  Transaction  (capitalized  terms  used  but  not
defined herein have the meanings set forth in the Pooling and Servicing Agreement).



__________________________________________


I, George Kok, certify that:


1.
I have reviewed this report on Form 10-K and all reports on Form 10-D required
to be filed in respect of the period covered by this report on Form 10-K of Morgan Stanley Bank
of America Merrill Lynch Trust 2012-C5 (the "Exchange Act periodic reports");


2.
Based on my knowledge, the Exchange Act periodic reports, taken as a whole, do
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, all of the distribution, servicing and other information
required to be provided under Form 10-D for the period covered by this report is included in the
Exchange Act periodic reports;


4.
Based on my knowledge and the servicer compliance statement(s) required in this
report under Item 1123 of Regulation AB, and except as disclosed in the Exchange Act periodic
reports,  the  servicer(s)  have  fulfilled  their  obligations  under  the  servicing  agreement(s)  in  all
material respects; and


5.
All of the reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-
backed securities and their related attestation reports on assessment of compliance with servicing
criteria for asset-backed securities required to be included in this report in accordance with Item
1122 of Regulation AB and Exchange Act Rules 13a-18 and 15d-18 have been included as an
exhibit to this report, except as otherwise disclosed in this report.  Any material instances of
noncompliance described in such reports have been disclosed in this report on Form 10-K.


In giving the certifications above, I have reasonably relied on information provided to me
by the following unaffiliated parties:



U.S. Bank National Association, as Certificate Administrator


Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, as Custodian


KeyBank National Association, as Master Servicer


Midland  Loan  Services,  a  Division  of  PNC  Bank,  National  Association,  as
Special Servicer


Situs Holdings, LLC, as Trust Advisor


Berkadia Commercial Mortgage LLC, as Primary Servicer

2


Midland  Loan  Services,  a  Division  of  PNC  Bank,  National  Association,  as
Primary Servicer

SOX Certification - MSBAM 2012-C5
Date:  March 30, 2016


By /s/ George Kok
Name: George Kok
Title: President
Exhibit (23)




                CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS


As  independent  public  accountants, we hereby consent to the incorporation of
our reports included in this  Form  10-K,  into  Portland General Corporation's
previously filed Registration Statement No. 33-27462 on Form S-8,  Registration
Statement No. 33-40943 on Form S-8, Registration Statement No. 33-49811 on Form
S-8, Registration Statement No. 33-55321 on Form S-3 and Registration Statement
No. 33-61313 on Form S-8.


                                                      Arthur Andersen LLP


Portland, Oregon,
January 20, 1997





                CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS


As independent public accountants, we hereby consent  to  the  incorporation of
our  reports  included  in  this  Form  10-K,  into  Portland  General Electric
Company's previously filed Registration Statement No. 33-62549 on Form S-3.


                                                      Arthur Andersen LLP


Portland, Oregon,
January 20, 1997

<PAGE>
ASSESSMENT OF COMPLIANCE WITH THE APPLICABLE SERVICING CRITERIA 

Management of the Document Custody Section of the Corporate Trust Services division of Wells Fargo Bank, National Association (the "Company") is responsible for assessing compliance with the servicing criteria set forth in Item 1122(d) of Regulation AB of the Securities and Exchange Commission.  Management has determined that the servicing criteria are applicable in regard to the servicing platform for the period as follows: 

Platform: Publicly-issued 
(i.e., transaction-level reporting required under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended) residential

**

mortgage-backed securities and commercial mortgage-backed securities issued on or after January I, 2006 for which the Company provides document custody services, excluding any such securities issued by any agency or instrumentality of the U.S. government (other than the Federal Deposit Insurance Company) or any government sponsored entity (the "Platform"). 

Period: As of and for the twelve months ended December 31, 2012 (the "Period"). 

Applicable Servicing Criteria: Theservicing criteria set forth in Item 1122(d)(1)(iv), 1122(d)(4)(i) and1122(d)(4)(ii), in regard to the activities performed by the Company with respect to the Platform (the "Applicable Servicing Criteria"). Management of the Company has determined that all other servicing criteria set forth in Item 1122(d) are not applicable to the Platform. 

With respect to the Platform and the Period, the Company's management provides the following assertion of compliance with respect to the Applicable Servicing Criteria: - 

1. The Company's management Is responsible for assessing the Company's compliance with the Applicable Servicing Criteria. 

2, The Company's management 
has assessed the Company's compliance with the Applicable Servicing Criteria. In

performing this assessment, management used the criteria set forth by the Securities and Exchange Commission in paragraph (d) of Item 1122 of Regulation All 

3. Based on such assessment as of and for the Period, the Company has complied, in all material respects with the Applicable Servicing Criteria. 

KPMG LLP, an independent registered public accounting firm, has issued an attestation report with respect to management's assertion of compliance with the Applicable Servicing Criteria as of and for the Period. 

**

. 

WELLS FARGO BANK, National Association 

B y :   / s /   S h a r i   L .   G i l l u n d  

Shari L. Gillund 

Title:  Senior Vice President 

Dated: February 15, 2013
## SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

## Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

1194 KA 06-02436 PRESENT: SCUDDER, P.J., FAHEY, CARNI, VALENTINO, AND MARTOCHE, JJ.

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT,

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

TIMOTHY TURNER, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

DAVISON LAW OFFICE PLLC, CANANDAIGUA (MARY P. DAVISON OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
SANDRA DOORLEY, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, ROCHESTER (MATTHEW DUNHAM OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.

Appeal from a judgment of the Monroe County Court (Richard A. Keenan, J.), rendered July 6, 2006. The judgment convicted defendant, upon a jury verdict, of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree and operating a motor vehicle without a license.
It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.
Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon a jury verdict of, inter alia, criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree (Penal Law § 220.16 [1]). Viewing the evidence in light of the elements of the crimes as charged to the jury ( see People v Danielson , 9 NY3d 342, 349), we reject defendant’s contention that the verdict is against the weight of the evidence ( see People v Bleakley , 69 NY2d 490, 495). “[R]esolution of issues of credibility, as well as the weight to be accorded to the evidence presented, are primarily questions to be determined by the jury” ( People v Hernandez , 288 AD2d 489, 490, lv denied 97 NY2d 729; see People v Sorrentino , 12 AD3d 1197, 1197-1198, lv denied 4 NY3d 748; People v Hernandez , 288 AD2d 489, 490, lv denied 97 NY2d 729).

Entered: November 9, 2012 Frances E. Cafarell Clerk of the Court
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

 Respondent

 v.

TYRON SOMBERGER,

 Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 543 EAL 2014

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the

Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 11th day of February, 2015, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal

is DENIED.
#### W. E. McCHAREN, County Judge, v. Charlie MITCHELL.

No. 23772.

Supreme Court of Texas.

Nov. 23, 1938.

Dismissing cause, see 119 S.W.2d 676.

■PER CURIAM.

Granted and cause dismissed as per order. It appearing to this Court that this case is now moot, it is ordered that the judgments of the two lower courts be reversed and this cause is dismissed.
Civil Service 

Retirement 

System 

Federal Employees’ 

Group Life 

Insurance Program 

Federal Employees 

Health Benefits 

Program 

Federal Employees 

Retirement 

System 

Federal 

Long Term 

Care Insurance 

Program 

United States 

Office of 

Personnel Management 

The Federal Government’s Human Resources Agency

Retirement and Insurance Service 

Benefits Administration Letter 

Number: 01-329 Date: November 27, 2001 

Subject: No Payroll Deductions for Early Enrollees in the FLTCIP 

Initially, we informed agency payroll offices that the Federal Long Term Care Insurance Program 

(FLTCIP) would be effective in October 2002. Now that we have received proposals from 

insurance companies, we are able to offer an early enrollment/acceptance opportunity in the 

February/March 2002 timeframe. This means that eligible individuals, who already know about 

long term care insurance and do not need extensive educational materials, can apply for the 

insurance early. Some agency payroll officials have expressed concern that they will be unable 

to modify their systems to provide FLTCIP payroll/annuity deductions within these timeframes. 

Please be assured that payroll systems will NOT need to be ready to deduct FLTCIP premiums in 

time for this early enrollment period. Early LTCI enrollees will NOT be allowed to pay their 

premiums by payroll or annuity deduction. 

We will hold an FLTCIP open season sometime around late summer/early fall 2002, following 

extensive education and marketing. Agencies must be able to support payroll/annuity deductions 

for individuals who enroll in the FLTCIP during this open season. In addition, those individuals, 

who enrolled early, must be able to change to payroll/annuity deductions. 

We have a standing committee of agency payroll officials who meet with us periodically to 

discuss the specifics of the FLTCIP and its effect on payroll systems. We last met with the 

committee in July and documented a “strawman” payroll process for the FLTCIP. We have not 

settled on any details yet, but we plan to conduct our next meeting with the committee after we 

have announced our insurance partners.
-2- 

We encourage agency payroll officials to frequently access the FLTCIP website at 

www.opm.gov/insure/ltc for updates and to subscribe to the FLTCIP listserv, LTCInfo. [For 

instructions on joining the FLTCIP listserv, please visit www.opm.gov/insure/ltc/hr.htm .] 

If you have any questions regarding this information, we would prefer that you email us at 

finance@opm.gov, so that we have a record of our communication. You may also phone us on 

(202) 606-0606. 

 Robert A. Yuran, Chief 

 Financial Policy Staff 

 Retirement and Insurance Service
# #2

Agenda for NEMA Meeting on Lamp Codes & S - 's Issues

Date: November 21, 2002 Time: 11:00 AM - 12:30 PM Place: 2E-07 1 Participants: DOE- Bryan Berringer, Brian Card, Ron Lewis, Michael J. McCabe, Rick Orrison

NEMA - Peter Bleashy, Arnie Glassberg, Ed Graj, Joe Howley, Al Rousseau, Dale Work, Craig Updike, Ed Yandek T. Introductions and opening remarks - Ron Lewis IL HID Determination

- Brian Card Issue Submitted priority setting comments and discussion III. ER/BR Lamp

- Brian Card Issue Submitted priority setting comments and discussion IV. CFL Rulemaking Request Ron Lewis Issue 1 Requirements beyond energy efficiency

a. Lumen depreciation b. Life c. Color Concern Precedent and spill over to other appliances Issue 2 Medium screwbase socket lamp options Concern Class of product may be interpreted to include incandescent lamps which would

expand the scope substantially Issue 3 Testing, verification and enforcement Concern Number of models, sizes, shapes, etc. combined with long life testing could be a

burden to manufacturers and any enforcement procedures Issue 4 Rulemaking vs Test Procedures & FTC labeling Concern Enforcement and effectiveness Issue 5 Rulemaking vs EnergyStar Program Concern Confusion and differentiation V. Any other directly related lamp codes & standards priority issues
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-6326

THOMAS D. CROOKS, JR.,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

and

STEVE R. LUCAS,

Plaintiff,

versus

MICHAEL MOORE, Director of the South Carolina

Department of Corrections,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Charleston. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., District

Judge. (CA-94-3242-2-17AJ)

Submitted: December 12, 1996 Decided: January 31, 1997

Before MURNAGHAN, NIEMEYER, and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Thomas D. Crooks, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. David Leon Morrison,

ELLIS, LAWHORNE, DAVIDSON & SIMS, P.A., Columbia, South Carolina,

for Appellee.
2

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals the district court's order denying his

motion for a preliminary injunction or a temporary restraining

order. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion

accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and find no

reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the

district court. Crooks v. Moore, No. CA-94-3242-2-17AJ (D.S.C.

Feb. 15, 1996). We also deny Appellant's motion for consolidation.

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.

AFFIRMED
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health

Pursuant to section 1009 of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.

The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

*Name of Committee:*                         National Human Genome Research Institute Initial Review Group; Genome Research Study Section.                    

*Date:*                         November 12, 2024.                    

*Time:*                         9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.                    

*Agenda:*                         To review and evaluate grant applications.                    

*Place:*                         National Human Genome Research Institute, National Institutes of Health, 6700B Rockledge Drive, Suite 3100, Bethesda, MD 20892 (Virtual Meeting).                    

*Contact Person:*                         Keith McKenney, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Scientific Review Branch, National Human Genome Research Institute, National Institutes of Health, 6700B Rockledge Drive, MSC 6908, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-594-4280,                         *mckenneyk@mail.nih.gov*.                    

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.172, Human Genome Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

Dated: September 19, 2024.

David W. Freeman,

Supervisory Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 2024-21902 Filed 9-24-24; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
HeinOnline -- 45 Fed. Reg. 53136 1980HeinOnline -- 45 Fed. Reg. 53137 1980