alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 10.4


 


 


 


Gene Joseph


Brown Energy International LLC


99-19 66th rd Rego Park NY 11374


 


October 30, 2017


 


Gerald Brock, President and CEO


SkyWolf Wind Turbine Corporation


156 Court Street


Geneseo, New York 14454


 


Re: LETTER OF INTENT


 


Dear Gerald Brock!


This is a Letter of Intent that proposes to outline
the partnership you and I discussed during our visit on October 12, 2017. I do not consider the terms and conditions stated in
this letter as binding and am open to discussion as this business partnership materializes.


 


This letter of intent is made between the
above two parties for the Representation of the SkyWolf Solar Hybrid DAWT (Product) by Brown Energy for projects in the
territory that include:


 


Georgia: 10MW and 100MW


Ukraine: 270MW


Russia: 560MW


Nigeria: 1,700MW


 


Brown Energy will:


 


a) solicit and forward requests for quotation and/or
orders for SkyWolf Products in the listed regions, in accordance with SkyWolf current sales policies;


 


b) assist SkyWolf in negotiation for all such quotations/orders
developed by Brown Energy in the regions listed; and


 


c) assist SkyWolf in follow-up, after the sale
activities for all such quotations/orders developed by Brown energy in the listed region.


  


New York - 9919, 66th rd, Suite 5B, Rego Park, NY, 11374, USA. Tel.:
+1-718-864 41 44


Miami - 2720 NW 55th Court, Fort Lauderdale, Florida,
33309, USA. Tel.: +1-305-339 1990


Email: Info@brownenergy.net , WEB: http://brown-energy-international-llc.n4.biz/


 




     


     


    

 


SkyWolf Wind Turbine Corporation will:


 


a) provide Brown Energy with quotations in response
to all requests for quotation forwarded by Representative to the Principal for job requirements in the above Territory.


 


b) accept
all orders forwarded by Brown Energy that are in agreement with quotations previously issued by SkyWolf in response to requests
by Brown Energy, as well as all orders forwarded by Brown Energy that are in agreement with SkyWolf established sales policies.


 


c) SkyWolf will exercise due diligence in completing all such orders within the requirements stated in SkyWolf quotations and/or
established sales policies.


 


d) SkyWolf will keep Brown Energy advised of all changes in its products, services and established
sales policies in a timely manner.


 





	
        Sincerely,

        Gene Joseph

         

        Brown Energy International LLC

        99-19 66th rd

        Rego Park NY 11374
	 



 


New York - 9919, 66th rd, Suite 5B, Rego Park, NY, 11374, USA. Tel.:
+1-718-864 41 44


Miami - 2720 NW 55th Court, Fort Lauderdale, Florida,
33309, USA. Tel.: +1-305-339 1990


Email: Info@brownenergy.net , WEB: http://brown-energy-international-llc.n4.biz/
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

November 21, 2014

No. 04-14-00291-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF N.S., a Child

From the 73rd Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 1997-PA-01542

Honorable John D. Gabriel, Jr., Judge Presiding

ORDER

The Appellee’s Second Motion to Extend Time for Filing Brief is GRANTED. The 

appellee’s brief is due on December 19, 2014.

_________________________________

Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice

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

court on this 21st day of November, 2014.

___________________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
#### WHITE v. ERWIN.

No. 7191.

Supreme Court of Texas.

Jan. 4, 1939.

J. S. Stallings, of Claude, and S. E. Fish, of Amarillo, for plaintiff.

A. A. Lumpkin, Tom D. Lumpkin, and H. H. Cooper, all o'f Amarillo, for defendant.

GERMAN, Commissioner.

The Court of Civil Appeals reversed and remanded this cause because of a remark inadvertently made in the presence of the jury by the presiding judge. 97 S.W.2d 707. Writ of error was granted in favor of plaintiff in error White because the Court was inclined to the opinion that the remark did not constitute reversible error. Writ of error in favor of defendant in error Erwin was granted solely because of granting the writ in favor of White.

On examination of the pleadings we find that Erwin as plaintiff in the district court sued for only $549.62, with six per cent, interest; and White in cross action sued for only $290.17, with six per cent, interest. It is thus seen that the suit is one over which the county court might have had jurisdiction, although brought in the district court. In such case the Supreme Court is without jurisdiction. Grand Lodge Colored K. P. of Texas v. Johns, 127 Tex. 241, 91 S.W.2d 1049. There was no such conflict shown as would give jurisdiction. See same case and authorities there cited.

Both applications are now dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

Opinion adopted by the Supreme Court.
United States 

Office of 

Personnel Management 

The Federal Government’s Human Resources Agency

Benefits Administration Letter 

Number: 07-402 Date: 8-21-07 

Subject: 2007 Federal Benefits Open Season: Rider Information

This is the second Benefits Administration Letter (BAL) in our series of Federal Benefits Open 

Season BALs. The first BAL, BAL 07-401, provided an introduction to the new focus of the 

Federal Benefits Open Season. 

The Guide to Federal Benefits is the only Federal Benefits Open Season publication agencies 

must pay for. The other materials for the Federal Flexible Spending Account Program 

(FSAFEDS), the Federal Employees Dental and Vision Insurance Program (FEDVIP), and the 

Federal Employees Health Benefits (FEHB) Program are free of charge to agencies. The Guide 

also is the only Federal Benefits Open Season publication agencies must order through the 

Government Printing Office Rider. 

Attached is the August 2007 Federal Benefits Open Season Rider. Your agency also should 

receive the rider through regular printing officer channels. Agencies may order the publications 

on the attached list by riding the U.S. Office of Personnel Management's requisition. Field and 

regional offices should submit their requirements to your department or agency’s Washington, 

DC, area headquarters printing office before the September 14, 2007, cutoff date. The 

headquarters office must submit the consolidated requisitions to the U.S. Government Printing 

Office (GPO) by COB September 14, 2007. In order to provide products to our customers on a 

timely basis, this cutoff date will not be extended. Products will be shipped to agency 

distribution points beginning October 18, 2007. 

If you are the headquarters agency and you do not know which customer service team at GPO is 

assigned to your agency, please call GPO on (202) 512-0111 or use the following link for 

information: www.gpo.gov/customerservices/aps.htm. 

Note: Field and regional offices with questions regarding submitting requisitions to their agency 
printing officer should contact their agency headquarters Benefits Officer. Please follow the link 

for a directory of headquarters level agency benefits officers: http://apps.opm.gov/abo/.

Sincerely, 

 Howard Weizmann 

 Deputy Director 

Enclosure 

2
[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 191 (Wednesday, October 2, 2024)]
[Notices]
[Page 80281]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-22614]


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

POSTAL SERVICE


Product Change--Priority Mail Express, Priority Mail, and USPS 
Ground Advantage[supreg] Negotiated Service Agreement

AGENCY: Postal Service<SUP>TM</SUP>.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the 
Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services 
contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail 
Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.

DATES: Date of required notice: October 2, 2024.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sean C. Robinson, 202-268-8405.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The United States Postal Service[supreg] 
hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on 
September 16, 2024, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a 
USPS Request to Add Priority Mail Express, Priority Mail & USPS Ground 
Advantage[supreg] Contract 343 to Competitive Product List. Documents 
are available at www.prc.gov, Docket Nos. MC2024-689, CP2024-698.

Sean C. Robinson,
Attorney, Corporate and Postal Business Law.
[FR Doc. 2024-22614 Filed 10-1-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM ANNUAL
REPORT ON FORM 10-K FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1999 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                           8,974
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  104,195
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,875
<INVENTORY>                                     30,741
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               212,805
<PP&E>                                         137,155
<DEPRECIATION>                                  76,800
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 295,044
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          113,469
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        33,549
<OTHER-SE>                                     138,856
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   295,044
<SALES>                                        629,089
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               629,089
<CGS>                                          533,267
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  533,267
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               2,645
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 39,283
<INCOME-TAX>                                    14,983
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             24,300
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    24,300
<EPS-BASIC>                                       3.39
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     3.23


</TABLE>
**Exhibit 18.1**

August 7, 2009 

Spectra Energy Partners, LP 

5400 Westheimer Court 

Houston, Texas 77056 

DearSirs/Madams: 

At your request, we have read the description included in your Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q to the Securities and ExchangeCommission for the quarter ended June 30, 2009, of the facts relating to the change in the date of the goodwill annual impairment test from August 31 to April 1. We believe, on the basis of the facts so set forth and other informationfurnished to us by appropriate officials of Spectra Energy Partners, LP (the “Partnership”), that the accounting change described in your Form 10-Q is to an alternative accounting principle that is preferable under the circumstances.

We have not audited any consolidated financial statements of the Partnership and its consolidated subsidiaries as of any date or for anyperiod subsequent to December 31, 2008. Therefore, we are unable to express, and we do not express, an opinion on the facts set forth in the above-mentioned Form 10-Q, on the related information furnished to us by officials of the Partnership,or on the financial position, results of operations, or cash flows of Spectra Energy Partners, LP and its consolidated subsidiaries as of any date or for any period subsequent to December 31, 2008. 

Yours truly, 

/s/ Deloitte & Touche LLP 

Houston, Texas
Civil Service Federal Employees Federal Employees Federal Employees

Retirement Group Life Health Benefits Retirement

System Insurance Program System

United States

Office of Personnel Management

Retirement and Insurance Service

Benefits Administration Letter

Number: 97-412 Date: December 9, 1997 

Subject: 1997 Federal Employees Health Benefits (FEHB) Program Open Season: 

MVP Health Plan (New York) - Reduction of Service Area

We have just been informed that MVP Health Plan, which serves New York State, is dropping

Clinton, Essex, Franklin, and St. Lawrence counties from its service and enrollment area

covered by enrollment code M9. The plan has taken steps to notify its enrollees of the

reduction of its service/enrollment area, and it has also sent a letter about the subject to

installations in the New York State areas affected. This means that employees who live or

work in those counties may not newly enroll in code M9. 

It also means that employees in those counties who are already enrolled in the plan should

consider changing to another FEHB plan for 1998. Enrollees who do not choose a new plan

for 1998 will have to travel to the plan's remaining service area to receive full coverage from

the plan for medical care. 

Although it may be too late for some employees to make a timely open season change by the

time this year's open season ends (December 8), please remind your employing offices in the

affected area that they have the authority to accept belated open season changes in individual

cases. This is certainly an occasion that warrants the approval of belated changes, and we

encourage you to urge your installations in the area to do so.

Please bring this matter to the attention of your local installations as quickly as possible. 

Abby L. Block, Chief

Insurance Policy 

 and Information Division
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

____________________________________ )

MASHPEE WAMPANOAG TRIBE, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) Civil Action No. 18

- 2242 (PLF)

)

DAVID BERNHARDT, in his official )

capacity as Secretary of the Interior, et al

., )

)

Defendants, )

)

and )

)

DAVID LITTLEFIELD, et al

., )

)

Defendant

- Intervenors. )

____________________________________)

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND O RDER

This matter is before the Court on the motion [Dkt. No. 65 ] of members of

Congress for leave to file a brief as amic i curiae in support of the plaintiff. The plaintiff consent s

to this motion , and neither the federal defendants nor the defendant

- intervenors have stated a

position at this time

.

T his Court has “broad discretion” in determining whether to permit a party to

participate in a lawsuit as amicus curiae. Commonwealth of the N orthern Mariana Islands v.

United States

, Civil Action No. 08

- 1572, 2009 WL 596986, at *1 (D.D.C. Mar. 6, 2009) (citing

Na t’ l As s’ n of Home Builders v. United States Army Corps of Engineers , 519 F.Supp.2d 89, 93

(D.D.C. 2007) ) ; see also United States v. Microsoft Corp.

, Civil Action No. 98

- 1232 2002 WL

319366, at *2 (D.D.C. Feb. 28, 2002)

. The filing of an amicus brief should be permitted if it will2 assist the judge “by presenting ideas, arguments, theories, insights, facts or data that are not to be

found in the parties ’ briefs.” Voices for Choices v. Illinois Bell Telephone Co. , 339 F.3d 542,

545 (7th Cir. 2003). See also Ryan v. Commodity Futures Trading Commission , 125 F.3d 1062,

1063 (7th Cir. 1997) (“An amicus brief should normally be allowed when

. . . the amicus has

unique information or perspective that can help the court beyond the help that the lawyers for the

parties are able to provide.”).

Upon careful consideration, the Court concludes that the members of Congress’s

proposed brief will assist the Court in this matter b ecause it includes unique arguments not found

in the parties’ briefs , and thus, the Court may be nefit from its input . The Court will therefore

permit the members of Congress to participate in this matter as amic i curiae by filing their

proposed amicus brief. Accordingly, it is hereby

ORDERED that the members of Congress’s motion [Dkt. No. 65 ] for leave to file

a brief as amic i curiae in support of the plaintiff is GRANTED ; and it is

FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall file the members of

Congress ’s amicus brief [Dkt. No. 65

- 1] on the docket

.

SO ORDERED.

/s/

PAUL L. FRIEDMAN

United States District Judge

DATE: May 28 , 2020
### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED JUNE 2 2 , 2023

NO. 03

- 22

- 00196

- CV

John Muir , Appellant

v.

The University of Texas at Austin , Appellee

APPEAL FROM THE 250TH DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY

BEFORE JUSTICES BAKER , TH EOFANIS, AND JONES

REVERSED AND REMANDED

-- OPINION BY JUSTICE JONES

This is an appeal from the O rder granting the plea to the jurisdiction s igne d by the tr i a l court on

March 11, 2022 . Having reviewed the record and the parties’ arguments, the Court holds that

there was reversible error in the court’s O rder

. Therefore, the Court reverses the trial court’s

O rd er granting the plea to the jurisd iction and remands the case to the trial court for further

proceedings

. A ppell ee shall pay all costs relating to this appeal, both in this Court and in the

court below.
# l o This message was sent with high importance. 

### Ken Eisenbeis from: To: Cc: Subject: Attachments: Ken Eisenbeis E-Mohameed.khan@ee.doe.gov
Re: New Rules for Gas Furnaces in the Northern areas ?
Mohameed , Please answer some questions for me. 

### Sent: Fri 1/13/2012 8:55 AM

I am responsible for 8 Apartment Communities in the Midwest area, most of these Units are ofthe late 1960's/early 1970's construction type, so we are faced with furnace replacement on a regular basis. With the specs about the gas discharge pipes for a 90% efficient fumace not able to be close to a window are door. How are we supposed to Instan these 90% efficient furnaces due to windows and doors being everywhere in apartment buildings? Please think about how these buildings are laid out and constructed: They are multi level usually between 2 & 4 stories and units are laid out one after another side by side. So the units are stacked on top of each other and lines up one after another from left to right. Justto get the new PVC flue from the furnace location to the outside provided there is not a window are door out there we would have to run through several units to get to the exiting location. Ifthis was new construction that would not be so difficult, however after construction it is nearly Impossible and the cost will be astronomical. These units do not have basements where the furnace can be Installed otherwise this would not be an issue. Me and my company are all about saving energy and natural resources , we have changes tOilets, shower heads, and aerators to water saving types in most of our communities and installed florescent and LEO lighting as well with out being forced to do so by the Government but this is an unreasonable request This is not to mention what the corrosive properties ofthe condensate water exiting the new Flue pipes is going to do to our roofs and gutters if the exit pipes have to empty onto a roof. The switch to R410
-A refrigerants is hard enough for us to accomplish with out adding yet another huge financial burden like these 90% furnace Installations on these Property Management Companies. 

### I think this is a great idea for single family houses but not at all feasible for The Multi Family Communities. Please help me understand how we are supposed to accomplish this task in our Multi Family Communities

. Thank You so much in advance! Ken Eisenbeis Project Manager Banner Property Management Cell
- 314-596-6929 Fax
- 636-255-0071 ken.eisenbeis@bannerapartments.com

# ~ECe'V.,-o**~")::m" ~**  0'" 

## ,2oJ

..... 12. TowA

.. """,,,,,

## T~**'7"'-O~ A~e>->c>1** 
NICK

## Z((..,El-H/~**3~t; -~~:z..(,** 

http:// webmail.bannerapartments.com!exchangelken.eisenbeis/Sent%20Items/Re:%20NewOIo20Ruies%20for%20Gas

...
EXHIBIT 32.1





CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER


PURSUANT TO 18U.S.C. SECTION 1350





In connection with the Quarterly Report of Anchor Funding Services, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Morry Rubin, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.1350, as adopted
pursuant to ss.906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, 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/ MORRY F. RUBINMorry F. RubinChief Executive OfficerAugust 13, 2009
Exhibit 31.1
 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
      (a)
    
    Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and
procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information
relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by
others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being
prepared;(b)
    
    Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internal control
over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to provide reasonable
assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial
statements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting
principles;(c)
    
    Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and procedures and
presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls
and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such
evaluation; and(d)
    
    Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over financial
reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter (the registrants
fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is
reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal control over financial
reporting; and
  (a)
    
    All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of
internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect
the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and(b)
    
    Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have
a significant role in the registrants internal control over financial reporting.
  By:
    /s/ James P. DolanJames P. DolanChairman, Chief Executive Officer and President