alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 10.7
 DEBTOR NAME AND ADDRESS
    
    SECURED PARTY NAME AND ADDRESSANN ARBOR BURGER, INC.
    
    HOME CITY FEDERAL SAVINGS BANK OF SPRINGFIELD857 WEST EISENHOWER PARKWAY
    
    2454 N. LIMESTONE STREETANN ARBOR, MI 48103
    
    P.O. BOX 1288
SPRINGFIELD, OH 45501
  o o þ o     o
 COMMERCIAL SECURITY AGREEMENT
  SECURED DEBTS. þ o
 þ Specific Debts. PROMISSORY NOTE FOR $500,000.00 DATED 06/30/2008
 o All debts
 SECURITY INTEREST.
 PROPERTY DESCRIPTION.
 þ Accounts and Other Rights to Payment
 þ Inventory
 þ Equipment
 o Instruments and Chattel Paper
 þ General Intangibles
 o Documents
 o Farm Products and Supplies
 o Government Payments and Programs
 o Investment Property
 o Deposit Accounts
 o Specific Property Description
 USE OF PROPERTY o þ o o
  DEBTOR
    
    
    
    SECURED PARTYANN ARBOR BURGER, INC.
    
    
    
    HOME CITY FEDERAL SAVINGS BANK OF SPRINGFIELD/s/ T. Michael Ansley
    
    
    
    /s/ Don E. LynamTHOMAS MICHAEL ANSLEY
    
    
    
    DON E. LYNAMPRESIDENT
    
    
    
    EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT




---



##### 



GENERAL PROVISIONS.
 APPLICABLE LAW.
 NAME AND LOCATION
 WARRANTIES AND REPRESENTATIONS.
     DUTIES TOWARD PROPERTY
   PERFECTION OF SECURITY INTEREST.
 INSURANCE.
 AUTHORITY TO PERFORM
     PURCHASE MONEY SECURITY INTEREST.
 DEFAULT.
     REMEDIES.
       WAIVER.
 NOTICE AND ADDITINOAL DOCUMENTS.
  2
##### 



Exhibit 32.2
 CERTIFICATION OF CFO PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
    /s/ Peter S. AtkinsonPeter S. Atkinson
Chief Financial Officer
November 7, 2007
# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

JUDGMENT

No. 04

- 16

- 00803

- CR

Robert Adrian RENDON

, Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 216th Judicial District Court, Gillespie County, Texas

Trial Court No. 5521

Honorable N. Keith Williams, Judge Presiding

BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE MARION

, JUSTICE BARNARD , AND JUSTICE CHAPA

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, the trial court’s judgment is

AFFIRMED.

SIGNED December 13, 2017.

_____________________________ Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice
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 Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases Special Emphasis Panel; RFA DK23-007 HIRN-CBDS.                    

*Date:*                         November 21-22, 2024.                    

*Time:*                         10:30 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.                    

*Agenda:*                         To review and evaluate cooperative agreement applications.                    

*Place:*                         National Institutes of Health, NIDDK, Democracy II, Suite 7000A, 6707 Democracy Boulevard, Bethesda, MD 20892 (Virtual Meeting).                    

*Contact Person:*                         Ann A. Jerkins, Ph.D.,  Scientific Review Officer, National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney, National Institute of Health, 6707 Democracy Boulevard, Rm 7119, Bethesda, MD, 20892-2542, 301-594-2242,                         *jerkinsa@niddk.nih.gov*.                    

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.847, Diabetes, Endocrinology and Metabolic Research; 93.848, Digestive Diseases and Nutrition Research; 93.849, Kidney Diseases, Urology and Hematology Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

Dated: September 24, 2024. 

Miguelina Perez, 

Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 2024-22368 Filed 9-27-24; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
ECOS’ Preliminary Comments on Water Quality Standards rules changes September 17, 2010

Will the rule contain implementation guidance fo r state agencies, or do you expect that to be issued separately later (states prefer to interact with the agen cy to develop a clear implementation plan with likely costs in cluded as part of the final rule)?

Will states be asked to implement the rule und er an “interim guidance” prior to the rule’s completion of the federal register process?

If so, does the agency plan to couple the us e of “objection author ity” to the interim guidance?

ECOS and the state environmental agencies have listed several implementation costs to EPA’s Office of Policy, Economics and I nnovation, which the agency has not yet

included in its estimation of costs to states for other rules. ECOS will expect EPA to

include these cost items in its estimations for this rule: for example, compliance assistance (outreach to the regulated commun ities about how to comply with the state agency’s implementation of th e rule) and subsequent enforcement actions. What can you tell us about the agency’s plans for this?

To what extent do these changes incorporate the findings of the "lean" event undertaken by the states in Region VII with the ag ency on water quality standards setting?
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . 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 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

## FILED April 10, 2003 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 02-60350 Summary Calendar

KALED AWDE-MOHAMMAD, Petitioner,

versus JOHN ASHCROFT, U. S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent.

-------------------- Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals BIA No. A28-328-391

-------------------- Before HIGGINBOTHAM, SMITH, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Kaled Awde-Mohammad (Awde) seeks review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’s (BIA) summary affirmance of an Immigration Judge’s (IJ) denial of Awde’s applications for asylum and withholding of deportation, and order that he be deported to Lebanon. Awde contends that the BIA violated his right to due process by summarily affirming the IJ’s decision pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 3.1(a)(7). We AFFIRM.No. 02-60350 -2- Ashcroft contends that Awde’s argument on the merits of his claims for asylum and withholding of deportation is foreclosed by res judicata. The IJ denied Awde’s claim on grounds that relief is precluded by res judicata, and the BIA affirmed without opinion. Because Awde now makes no challenge to this ruling, he is bound by it upon appeal. See Evergreen Presbyterian Ministries, Inc. , 235 F.3d 908, 918 (5th Cir. 2000). Awde contends that the IJ’s order should be reversed because he made no findings or holdings regarding Awde’s request for withholding of deportation. In fact, the IJ specifically stated that Awde’s application therefor was denied. Eligibility for withholding of deportation requires proof of a higher objective likelihood that an alien would be persecuted, than is required to establish his eligibility for asylum. Consequently, the alien’s inability to establish that he is entitled to asylum necessarily results in his inability to demonstrate that he is entitled to withholding of deportation.
See Efe v. Ashcroft , 293 F.3d 899, 906 (5th Cir. 2002). In light of the IJ’s findings regarding asylum, therefore, there was no need for him to state reasons why he also denied Awde’s request for withholding of deportation. Finally, Awde contends that the BIA’s summary affirmance of the IJ’s decision by a single Board member pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 3.1(a)(7) violated his due process rights under the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution. ThisNo. 02-60350 -3- contention was recently held to lack merit in Soadjede v. Ashcroft , ___F.3d___ (5th Cir. March 28, 2003, No. 02-60314), slip op. 2106, 2108. Accordingly, Awde’s petition for review is DENIED, and the order of the BIA is AFFIRMED.
#### E. A. RANNE v. STATE.

No. 17680.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Nov. 27, 1935.

Owen Bybee, of Childress, for appellant.

Lloyd W. Davidson, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

LATTIMORE, Judge.

This cause is one pending upon the dockets of this court wherein the accused is charged with the possession of intoxicating liquor for the purpose of sale; the prosecution being under the Dean Law (Pen. Code 1925, art. 666 et seq., as amended). Following what has been said by us in an opinion this day handed down in Guy Meadows v. State, 88 S.W.(2d) 481, the motion for rehearing is granted, the judgment of affirmance is set aside, the opinion rendered is withdrawn, and the judgment is now reversed, and the prosecution ordered dismissed.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano 

Richard H. Bernstein

Joan L. Larsen, Justices

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

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

 June 22, 2016

a0615

Order 

Clerk

June 22, 2016

152816

STEVEN M. GURSTEN,

Plaintiff,

v SC: 152816

AGC: 0935-14

ATTORNEY GRIEVANCE COMMISSION,

Defendant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the complaint for superintending control is considered. 

Because the Attorney Grievance Commission did not sufficiently communicate the basis 

for its decision, we DIRECT it to provide a supplemental response, within 28 days of the 

date of this order, in support of its decision not to initiate formal proceedings in AGC File 

No. 0935-14. The explanation must reference the ABA Standards for Imposing Lawyer 

Sanctions and address the allegations that the respondent attorney altered law firm 

records to indicate that files were closed, when it appears that they were not, and that the 

respondent attorney continued to represent those particular clients after the law firm’s 

files were closed. The supplemental answer will be considered part of the AGC file and 

held confidential pursuant to MCR 9.126. 

The complaint for superintending control remains pending.

MCCORMACK, J., did not participate because she may have independent 

knowledge regarding this case.

BERNSTEIN, J., did not participate due to his prior relationship with the Sam 

Bernstein Law Firm.
SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO . A

- 4620

- 17T4

IN THE MATTER OF THE

ESTATE OF ADDISON HEWITT,

D eceased

.

__ _____________________________

Submitted March 27, 2019

– Decided April 3, 2019

Before Judges Alvarez and Nugent.

On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey,

Chancery Division, Burlington County, Docket No.

2014

- 1738.

Mark J. Molz, attorney for appellant Joan Hewitt.

McNeely McGuigan & Esmi, LLC, attorneys for

respondent Margaret Hewitt ( Lori M. McNeely, on the

brief )

.

Law Office of McInerney and S chmidt, LLC, attorneys

for minor respondents ( Sandford F. Schmidt, on the

brief )

.

PER CURIAM NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE

APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court

. " A lthough it is posted on the

internet

, this opinion is binding only on the parties in the case and its use in other cases is limited

. R. 1:36

- 3.2 A

- 4620

- 17T4

The parties having informed the court that this matter is settled, this appeal

is dismissed, with prejudice and without costs.
Exhibit
23





Consent of Independent
Registered Public Accounting Firm




The Board
of Directors and


Stockholders
of Porta Systems Corp.


Syosset,
New York




We hereby
consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statements (Reg. 333-68321) and (Reg. 333-72369) on Form S-8 of our report
dated March 24, 2009, relating to the consolidated financial statements of Porta
Systems Corp. appearing in the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year
ended December 31, 2008.  Our report contains an explanatory paragraph
regarding the Company’s ability to continue as a going concern.




/s/ BDO Seidman, LLPBDO
      Seidman, LLPMelville,
      New York




March 26,
2009
EXHIBIT
32.1





STATEMENT
OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER





PURSUANT
TO SECTION 1350 OF TITLE 18 OF THE UNITED STATES CODE




Pursuant
to Section 1350 of Title 18 of the United States Code, the undersigned, Stanley
A. Hirschman, Principal Executive Officer of Optex Systems Holdings, Inc. (the
“Company”), hereby certifies that:




The
Company’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended December 27, 2009
(the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Sections 13(a) or 15(d)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and




The
information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.





/s/  Stanley A Hirschman.Stanley
      A. Hirschman, Principal Executive OfficerDated:
      February 10, 2010
#### R-TEX OIL COMPANY, Relator, v. James V. ALLRED, Atty. Gen., of Texas, Respondent.

No. 1519—1757—6640.

Commission of Appeals of Texas, Sections A and B.

April 18, 1934.

Renfro, Ledbetter & McConjbs, of Dallas;,-, for relator.

James V. Allred, Átty. Geq., and Hqn^er.(0;; DeWolfe,. Asst." Átty.'Gen., for respondent

SMEDLEY, Commissioner.

This is a companion case to Rhoads Drilling Company et al. v. James V. Allred, Attor*588ney General, 70 S.W.(2d) 576, this day decided. Relator is the owner of an oil and gas lease covering a certain tract in the bed of the Sabine river, and identical in date and terms, except the description of the area leased, with the' leases involved in that case. Respondent declined to approve a supplemental contract executed by the board of mineral development and relator on July 1, 1033, containing substantially the same recitals, terms, and conditions as those contained in the supplemental contract in that case -construed. The pleadings present similar facts and the briefs the same questions.

The writ of mandamus will issue in accordance with the prayer of relator’s petition, and directing approval of the contract as of July 1, 1933.

Adopted by the Supreme Court April 18, 1934.
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 12**  **- 6617** 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,
v. KALEIBA SHONNTA BOULER , Defendant

- Appellant
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina , at Charlotte
. Frank D. Whitney , District Judge. ( 3:07

- cr - 00010

- FDW

- 3 )

Submitted : June 14, 2012 Decided: June 20, 2012

Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and KEENAN , Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion
. Kaleiba Shonnta Bouler, Appellant Pro Se. Keith Michael Cave, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charlotte, North Carolina; Amy Elizabeth Ray, Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinion s are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Kaleiba Shonnta Bouler appeals the district court’s order denying her motion to reconsider the denial of her motion seeking a reduction of sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3582 (2006). As we have recog nized, however, a district court has no authority to grant a motion to reconsider its previous order denying a 3582(c) motion. United States v. Goodwyn , 596 F.3d 233, 235

- 36 (4th Cir. 2010). And in any event, it is evident from the record that Bouler is ineligible for the sentence reduction that she seeks. * Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. United States v. Bouler , No. 3:07

- cr 00010

- FDW

- 3 (W.D.N.C. Mar. 6, 2012) We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal content ions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED

* We note as well that Bouler’s notice of appeal was untimely filed. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(b)(1)(A)(i). Nevertheless, because Rule 4(b)’s time limits are not jurisdictional, because the Government has not invoked the time bar, and because we do not find t hat the delay was inordinate, we decline to dismiss Bouler’s appeal on the grounds of untimeliness. See Rice v. Rivera , 617 F.3d 802, 810 (4th Cir. 2010) (stating that non

- statutory claim

- processing rules are not jurisdictional); United States v. Urutyan , 564 F.3d 679, 685 (4th Cir. 2009); United States v. Mitchell , 518 F.3d 740, 744, 750 (10th Cir. 2008).
Page 1 of 3

Disposition Comments

Docket No: FAA-2015-3741 ☐ These comments are in

Directorate ID: 2014-SW-040-AD response to an SNPRM

Originating Office Tracking No.: 

Next Step: ☒ FRAN ☐ SNPRM

☒ No Comments/Only Supportive Comments Received – If this box is checked, no signatures are 

required.

No Has the referenced service information been revised since the NPRM was issued? 

If yes, list latest revision and attach a copy. Note that changes beyond the scope of the

previously published NPRM will require a new notice. Contact the Directorate focal point 

for guidance. Latest Revision.

Instructions: Summarize all comments by issue (not by commenter) and provide your recommended resolution of 

each issue. All comments relating to the same issue should be discussed together. Do not list all of the issues 

from one commenter together. If changes to the AD are required based on the comments received, explain why and 

describe in detail what change(s) you recommend. Reference FAA-IR-M-8040.1C Chapter 9.

ISSUE 1: Select one of the following: Choose one.

If other, explain: 

Commenter(s): Click here to enter text.

What change to the AD action is requested? Click here to enter text.

Why is the change requested or how is it justified? Click here to enter text.

Do we agree? Yes/No

If YES, we agree because Insert justification Make the following changes to the AD: List any 

changes to the AD

If PARTIALLY AGREE, we agree with Insert text because Insert justification We disagree with

Insert text because Insert justification Make the following changes to the AD: List any 

changes to the AD

If NO, we don’t agree because Insert our rationale

ISSUE 2: Select one of the following: Choose one.

If other, explain: Click here to enter text.

Commenter(s): Click here to enter text.

What change to the AD action is requested? Click here to enter text.

Why is the change requested or how is it justified? Click here to enter text.

Do we agree? Yes/No 
Page 2 of 3

If YES, we agree because Insert justification Make the following changes to the AD: List any 

changes to the AD

If PARTIALLY AGREE, we agree with Insert text because Insert justification We disagree with

Insert text because Insert justification Make the following changes to the AD: List any 

changes to the AD

If NO, we don’t agree because Insert our rationale

For additional issues, double-click here
Page 3 of 3

Signature Section

Signature indicates concurrence with this action.

Originating Office Tracking No.: 

ASE Printed Name: Date

Branch Manager Date
Owen	Carroll

Aero	One	LLC

PO	Box	170274

Atlanta,	GA	30317

January	4,	2016

U.S.	Department	of	Transportation

Docket	Management	System

1200	New	Jersey	Ave	SE

Washington,	DC	20590

Re:	Docket	FAA-2015-7479-0001

To	Whom	It	May	Concern:

With	respect to	docket	number	FAA-2015-7479-0001,	the	petitioner,	Beverly	Hills	Aerials,	

would like	to	be	approved	to	operate	a	DJI	Inspire	1	Professional under	their	333	exemption,	in	

addition	to	those	already	listed	in	the flight	operations	manual.		Please	ensure	that	this	model	is	

included	on	the	exemption	approval. The	drone	meets	requirements	for	section	333	

exemption,	including	weighing	less	than	55	lbs.	with	all	payload.

Sincerely,

/s/

Owen	Carroll

Consultant	to	Beverley	Hills	Aerials
Attachment 1C: 

Remittance Report for FY 2023 Voluntary Early Retirement Authority (VERA) with 

Voluntary Separation Incentive Payments (VSIP)

Remittance Date (MM/DD/YYYY):

FY 2023 Retirement Month & Year (MM/YYYY):

Reporting Entity:

Funds Submitted By (Indicate IPAC, EFT, or Check): 

IPAC

EFT

Check

Point of Contact Name:

Point of Contact Email: 

Point of Contact Phone Number:

Table A: Federal Employee Retirement System (FERS) 

Payroll Office Number: 

(Column 1) 

Agency Location Code: 

(Column 2) 

Number of Covered Employees: 

(Column 3) 

Amount Submitted 

(Column 3 x $694.19) 

FERS Total: 

Table B: Civil Services Retirement System (CSRS)

Payroll Office Number: 

(Column 1) 

Agency Location Code: 

(Column 2) 

Number of Covered Employees: 

(Column 3) 

Amount Submitted 

(Column 3 x $694.19) 

CSRS Total: 

Combined Total (FERS Total + CSRS Total) Amount Submitted: 

To the best of my knowledge, I certify the accuracy and completion of this Remittance Report.

Name (Printed) Signature

Title Date (MM/DD/YYYY):
Opinion issued August 3 , 2017

In The 

## Court of Appeals For The 

## First District of Texas

———————————— NO. 01 - 17 - 00135 - CR

——————————— AIDE ARACELY ESTRELL A , Appella nt

V. THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appell e e On Appeal from the 240th District Court Fort Bend County, Texas Trial Court Ca se No. 13 - DCR - 064798
MEMORANDUM OPINION Aide Aracely Estrella has filed a motion to dismiss he r appeal in compliance with Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 42.2 (a). See T EX . R. A PP . P. 42.2(a). The State has not unopposed the motion. We have not issued a decision in the appeal
.2

Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal. See T EX . R. A PP . P. 43.2(f). We dismiss any pending motions as moot
. PER CURIAM Panel consists of Justices Higley, Bland, and Brown
. Do not publish. T EX . R. A PP . P. 47.2(b).
|   | (1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and |
|--------|-----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

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

| Date: May 20, 2010 | By:    | /s/ David Bychkov         |   |
|--------------------|--------|---------------------------|--------|
|               |   | David Bychkov             |   |
|               |   | Chief Executive Officer   |   |
|               |   | (Chief executive officer) |   |