alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>

                                GUARANTEE AGREEMENT

     In order to induce Summit Design, Inc., a Delaware corporation, and Anam 
S&T Co., Ltd., a Korean corporation (each a "Lender" and together, "Lenders") 
to make certain loans (the "Loans") to Summit Design Asia, Ltd., a Hong Kong 
corporation ("SDA"), the undersigned ("Guarantor") desires to guarantee SDA's 
repayment of the Loans and other obligations to Lenders.  Therefore, 
Guarantor agrees as follows:

     1.   Guarantor hereby absolutely, unconditionally and irrevocably 
guarantees to Lenders the due and punctual payment by SDA of (a) all amounts 
now or hereafter owed by SDA to Lenders in respect of the Loans and (b) all 
late charges, interest, collection costs and other costs and expenses in 
respect thereof.  

     2.   Guarantor waives all rights to require Lenders to proceed against 
SDA or to exhaust any remedy prior to enforcing this Guarantee.  Guarantor 
waives any defense based on the cessation for any cause whatsoever of the 
liability of SDA.  Guarantor waives all demands, presentments and notices of 
every kind. Lenders may at any time and from time to time alter, amend, 
renew, or extend the time for payment of any obligation of SDA and may 
otherwise deal with SDA as Lenders may elect, all without notice to Guarantor 
and without diminishing, releasing or discharging the liability of Guarantor. 
Guarantor agrees not to enforce any claim it may have against SDA, including, 
but not limited to, any rights acquired by way of subrogation under this 
Guarantee, until all obligations of SDA to Lenders have been paid in full.

     3.   This Guarantee shall be binding upon and shall inure to the benefit 
of the parties and their heirs, successors and assigns.  If Guarantor refuses 
payment under this Guarantee, Guarantor shall pay the reasonable costs and 
expenses, including attorney's fees, incurred by Lenders in the enforcement 
of this Guarantee.

     4.   This Guarantee shall be governed by the laws of the State of Oregon.

     DATED  May 12, 1998

                                   GUARANTOR:

                                   ASIA DESIGN CORPORATION, LTD.,
                                        a Korean corporation

                                   By:  /s/ K.H. Kwon  
                                      -----------------------------------------
                                        Name:     Ki Hong Kwon
                                        Title:    President
---

---

EXHIBIT 15.2

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT
REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS FIRM

Retalix Holdings, Inc. Plano,
Texas

We hereby consent to the
incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement on Form S-8 (file no. 333-14238,
333-12146, 333-09840, 333-109874 and 333-118930) and Form F-3 (file no. 333-110681) of
Retalix Ltd. (the Company) of our report dated March 31, 2004, relating to the
financial statements of Retalix Holdings, Inc., appearing in the Companys Annual
Report on Form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2004.

|/s/ Nation Smith Hermes Diamond
San Diego, CaliforniaMarch 21, 2005
|-------------------------------------------------------------------

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT
CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS

Retalix Holdings, Inc. Plano,
Texas

We hereby consent to the
incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement on Form S-8 (file no. 333-14238,
333-12146, 333-09840, 333-109874 and 333-118930) and Form F-3 (file no. 333-110681) of
Retalix Ltd. (the Company) of our report dated March 31, 2004, relating to the
financial statements of Retalix Holdings, Inc., appearing in the Companys Annual
Report on Form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2004.

|/s/ Nation Smith Hermes Diamond
San Diego, CaliforniaMarch 21, 2005
|-------------------------------------------------------------------

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT
CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS

Retalix Holdings, Inc. Plano,
Texas

We hereby consent to the
incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement on Form S-8 (file no. 333-14238,
333-12146, 333-09840, 333-109874 and 333-118930) and Form F-3 (file no. 333-110681) of
Retalix Ltd. (the Company) of our report dated February 1, 2003, relating to
the consolidated financial statements of Retalix Holdings, Inc., appearing in the
Companys Annual Report on Form 20-F as of and for the year ended December 31, 2004.

|/s/ Nation Smith Hermes Diamond
San Diego, CaliforniaMarch 21, 2005
|-------------------------------------------------------------------



---

---
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-6228

NICHOLAS QUEEN,

Petitioner – Appellant,

v.

WARDEN DARLENE DREW, Warden, FCI Bennettsville,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Charleston. Timothy M. Cain, District Judge. 

(2:11-cv-02573-TMC)

Submitted: May 7, 2012 Decided: May 23, 2012

Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Nicholas Queen, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Nicholas James Queen, Sr., a federal prisoner, appeals 

the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the 

magistrate judge and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2241 

(West 2006 & Supp. 2011) petition. We have reviewed the record 

and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the 

reasons stated by the district court. Queen v. Drew, No. 2:11-

cv-02573-TMC (D.S.C. Jan. 12, 2012). 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
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

DA 20-0148

_________________

IN THE MATTER OF:

M.J.D.,

 A Youth in Need of Care.

O R D E R

_________________

Appellant mother of M.J.D. was granted an extension of time to file and serve her

opening brief on or before July 31, 2020. Appellant mother was advised that no further 

extensions of time would be granted. The opening brief is now overdue.

THEREFORE,

IT IS ORDERED that Appellant shall prepare, file and serve the opening brief on 

appeal no later than August 31, 2020. No further extensions will be granted. Failure to 

file the brief within that time will result in dismissal of this appeal with prejudice and 

without further notice. 

The Clerk is directed to provide a copy of this Order to all counsel of record. 

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

August 10 2020

08/10/2020

Case Number: DA 20-0148
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-7771

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff – Appellee,

v.

LACEY LEROY MCCLAM, JR.,

 Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Florence. Terry L. Wooten, Chief District 

Judge. (4:07-cr-01277-TLW-1; 4:13-cv-01396-TLW)

Submitted: February 12, 2015 Decided: February 19, 2015

Before MOTZ, WYNN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Lacey Leroy McClam, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Alfred William Walker 

Bethea, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Florence, South 

Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Lacey Leroy McClam, Jr., seeks to appeal the district 

court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) 

motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or 

judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012). A certificate of appealability will not 

issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a 

constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012). When the 

district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies 

this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would 

find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional 

claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 

484 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 

(2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural 

grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive 

procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a 

debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 

529 U.S. at 484-85. 

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude 

that McClam has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we 

deny McClam’s motion for a certificate of appealability and 

dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the 

facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the 
3

materials before this court and argument would not aid the 

decisional process.

DISMISSED
**Chemical Structure Removed**
#### Stott Briquet Company, Inc., Respondent, vs. City of Superior, Appellant.

*March 10*

April *15, 1941.*

*452For the appellant the cause was submitted on the brief of *Maynard Berglund,*corporation counsel, and *Claude F. Cooper,*assistant corporation counsel.

For the respondent there was a brief by *Powell & Sprowls*of Superior, and *Otis, Fancy & Burger*of Saint Paul, Minnesota, and oral argument by *John S. Sprowls*and *Roland J. Faricy.*

Fairchild, J.

The appellant asserts that the complaint is fatally weak in that it does not contain an allegation that “the Great Lakes Coal & Dock Company was engaged in the business of handling coal for the use of the general public or of anybody other than this plaintiff,” and contends that therefore the pleading fails to state facts showing that the coal in question was subject,to an occupational tax under the provisions of sec. 70.42 (1), Stats., and therefore exempt from other taxation as provided in that section.

The coal is subject to the personal property tax unless it was subject to the occupational tax. The complaint does show facts enough to sustain respondent’s claim. The coal was stored on docks of the Great Lakes Coal & Dock Company under an agreement with respondent to unload and store “in separate piles from other coal” and to be delivered on order. The pleader indicates the existence of separate entities as he-*453tween the dock company, the respondent, and other customers of the dock company. The only inference to be drawn from the allegation of the assessment of the occupational tax as set out in the complaint is that the occupational tax was properly assessed by officers doing their duty as required by statute, and that the coal is therefore exempt from the personal property tax. *Wisconsin E. S. Co. v. Fidelity & D. Co.*191 Wis. 645, 650, 211 N. W. 670; *State ex rel. Anderton v. Kempf,*69 Wis. 470, 473, 34 N. W. 226; 20 Am. Jur. p. 174, § 170.

It is considered that this case is ruled by the decision in *State ex rel. Consolidated Coal Co. v. Arnold,*186 Wis. 609, 203 N. W. 373. There, as here, the dock company owned and operated a coal dock. It was under contract with a customer who shipped coal from eastern ports to the dock where it was unloaded and piled on the dock for storage in piles separate from other coal. Under the contract the dock company was required to deliver the coal to the customer on trucks owned by the dock company. The dock company complied with the provisions of the occupational tax. It was there held that the occupational tax was valid, and that because it had been paid, the coal there involved was exempt from all other taxes.

The validity of the assessment and the collection of the occupational tax on the coal is sufficiently shown and the demurrer was properly overruled.

*By the Court.*— Order 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
  (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 operations
of the Company.
 August 5, 2010
    /s/ James C. ReaganJames C. ReaganSenior Vice
President and
Chief Financial
Officer A signed original of this written statement has been provided to Vangent and will be retained
by Vangent and furnished to the SEC or its staff upon request.
```

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 408 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

106th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 408

 To direct the Secretary of the Interior to convey a former Bureau of 
Land Management administrative site to the City of Carson City, Nevada, 
                      for use as a senior center.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           February 10, 1999

   Mr. Bryan introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
       referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To direct the Secretary of the Interior to convey a former Bureau of 
Land Management administrative site to the City of Carson City, Nevada, 
                      for use as a senior center.

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

SECTION 1. CONVEYANCE OF CERTAIN BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT LANDS IN 
              CARSON CITY, NEVADA.

    (a) Conveyance.--Not later than 120 days after the date of 
enactment of this Act, the Secretary of the Interior, acting through 
the Director of the Bureau of Land Management, shall convey to the City 
of Carson City, Nevada, without consideration, all right, title, and 
interest of the United States in the property described as Government 
lot 1 in sec. 8, T. 15 N., R. 20 E., Mount Diablo Meridian, as shown on 
the Bureau of Land Management official plat approved October 28, 1996, 
containing 4.48 acres, more or less, and assorted uninhabitable 
buildings and improvements.
    (b) Use.--The conveyance of the property under subsection (a) shall 
be subject to reversion to the United States if the property is used 
for a purpose other than the purpose of a senior assisted living center 
or a related public purpose.
                                 <all>
```
[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 206 (Thursday, October 24, 2024)]
[Notices]
[Page 84943]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-24609]


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

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 24, 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 
October 15, 2024, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a USPS 
Request to Add Priority Mail Express, Priority Mail & USPS Ground 
Advantage[supreg] Contract 485 to Competitive Product List. Documents 
are available at www.prc.gov, Docket Nos. MC2025-91, K2025-89.

Sean C. Robinson,
Attorney, Corporate and Postal Business Law.
[FR Doc. 2024-24609 Filed 10-23-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
Exhibit 31.1  Section 302 Certification of Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer  I, Mark Cohen, certify that:  1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of AI Document Services, Inc.  2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does 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 quarterly report;  3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this quarterly report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this quarterly report;  4. I am responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and have:  a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to me by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this quarterly report is being prepared;  b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of this quarterly report (the Evaluation Date); and  c) presented in this quarterly report my conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures based on my evaluation as of the Evaluation Date;  5. I have disclosed, based on my most recent evaluation, to the registrants auditors and the audit committee of registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):  a) all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal controls which could adversely affect the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial data and have identified for the registrants auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; and  b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrants internal controls  6. I have indicated in this quarterly report whether or not there were significant changes in internal controls or in other factors that could significantly affect internal controls subsequent to the date of my most recent evaluation, including any corrective actions with regard to significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.   Date: August 14, 2013  /s/ Mark Cohen Mark Cohen Title: President and Chief Financial Officer
[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 206 (Thursday, October 24, 2024)]
[Notices]
[Page 84921]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-24676]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-4828-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2024-0001]


Florida; Amendment No. 6 to Notice of a Major Disaster 
Declaration

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration 
for the State of Florida (FEMA-4828-DR), dated September 28, 2024, and 
related determinations.

DATES: This amendment was issued October 13, 2024.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dean Webster, Office of Response and 
Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW, 
Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-2833.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The notice of a major disaster declaration 
for the State of Florida is hereby amended to include the following 
areas among those areas determined to have been adversely affected by 
the event declared a major disaster by the President in his declaration 
of September 28, 2024.

    Baker and Putnam Counties for Public Assistance, including 
direct federal assistance (already designated for Individual 
Assistance).
    Nassau County for Public Assistance, including direct federal 
assistance.

    The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers 
(CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, 
Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis 
Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster 
Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance 
Grant; 97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and 
Households In Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, 
Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance--Disaster Housing 
Operations for Individuals and Households; 97.050 Presidentially 
Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals and Households--Other 
Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants--Public Assistance (Presidentially 
Declared Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.

Deanne Criswell,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2024-24676 Filed 10-23-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-23-P
#### Independent School District No. 3, Fremont Township, v. James Gunn, Appellant.

Practice: paimtes. A grantor, under whom all parties to an action to quiet title claim, is not a necessary part to the action.

*Appeal from, Cedar District Court.*— Hon. J. H. Preston, Judge.

Tuesday, December 18, 1894.

This suit involves the title to a school house site, of which each of the parties claims to be the owner. There was a decree for the plaintiff, and defendant *appeals.*

Affirmed.

*W. H. Smith*and *J. W. Jamison*for appellant.

*Wheeler*& *Moffitt*for appellee.

Rothrock, J.

This action is in equity to quiet the title-of the plaintiff to the premises in dispute. - The *45land from which the school house site was taken is situated in the northwest corner of a section, and consisted of a lot four rods by ten. That and other lands adjoining were formerly owned by Susanna P. Parsons. In the year 1876 she entered into a contract by which she sold the school house lot to the plaintiff, and possession was then taken, and the purchase money paid. No conveyance of the title has at any time been executed, but the plaintiff was in actual, open, notorious, adverse possession of the lot under the contract until the year 1890, when the defendant, who purchased the tract of land from which the lot was taken, entered upon the lot, and took forcible possession of the same. It will be- seen from the above statement of facts that the plaintiff was entitled to a decree quieting its title to the lot. It is the absolute owner of the fee title by reason of adverse possession under claim of ownership for more iban len years before the suit was commenced.

The defendant insisted that Susanna Parsons should have been made a party defendant, and this appeal was taken because the court refused to compel 1 the plaintiff to make her a party. The defendant had no right to make any such demand. Parsons was not a necessary party to a determination of the controversy between the plaintiff and the defendant. It is provided by section 2551 of the Code that “the court may determine any controversy between the parties before it. when it can be done without prejudice to the rights of others, or by saving their rights. But when a determination of the controversy between the parties before the court cannot be made without the presence of other parties the court must order them to be brought in.” The facts in the case of *Camp v. McGillicuddy,*10 Iowa, 201, relied upon by the defendant, are not the same as in the case at bar. We need not "point out wherein the *46case is not applicable to this controversy. The difference is too plain for discussion.

It is suggested in the argument of appellant that he may have a right of action against Parsons on the covenants of her deed .to the land, and that he may be compelled “to resort to an independent action at law” in case of plaintiff’s recovery of the land. It is apparent that the court did not err in refusing to make the order, and thus enable the defendant to add an action at law triable by jury to a purely equitable suit, in which law action the plaintiff was 'in no manner con*cerned.*— Affirmed.