alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
August 9, 2013

Jeffrey Forrest, Ph.D. Chair and Professor, Aviation & Aerospace Science Metropolitan State University of Denver 1250 7th Street, Box 30, P.O. 173362 Denver, CO 80217-3362 Dear Dr. Forrest, Please allow this letter to substantiate the equal interest of Metropolitan State University Denver (herein after referred to as MSU) and Colorado Northwestern Community College (herein after referred to as CNCC) in entering into a pilot training partnership. CNCC supports MSU’s petition for exem ption. Below please find a list of ideas agreed to in principle by MSU and CNCC: 1. MSU Denver and CNCC will enter into a formal, long
-term partnership to offer collegiate aviation degrees and flight and ground training. 2. MSU Denver will construct a program with CNCC where our flight students may seek Part 141 flight training and academic Part 141 ground school. Of specific interest is the FAA commercial and instrument ratings. We will encourage students to seek all FAA ratings and certificates from CNCC and may make this a requirement for one of our degrees
- Professional Flight Officer. 3. CNCCC is accredited by The Higher Learning Commission of the North Central Association of Colleges and Schools. CNCC and MSU Denver have an existing reciprocal agreement for transfer credit, and thus we will cross list our Part 141 program classes for registration at both institutions. We will also list on CNCC’s Part 141 certificate our FAA flight instructors such that they may facilitate Part 141 training at both institutions . 4. As indicated, CNCC is willing to (a) allow MSU Denver students to remain MSU Denver students, cross
enrolled at CNCC; (b) return or have billed all academic tuition collected from our students taking academic classes at CNCC; (c) if sought by the student, transfer
-in from MSU the first two years of academic classes and grant an Associates degree in Av Tech to our students. 5. All fees for flight training will go to CNCC 6. Summer, winter, weekend flight training program (packages) that also include dorm space would be beneficial.Letter to Jeffrey Forrest, Ph.D.

August 9, 2013 Page 2 of 2

4836

-4082

-7157.1. We look forward to establishing this partnership with MSU Denver. John MacMillan 

# John MacMillan Program Director, Aviation Technology Colorado Northwestern Community College
Exhibit 1.2

A Company Limited by Shares

Memorandum of Association

of

Gazit-Globe Ltd.



|1. | The Companys name is:
|-- | ----------------------

In
Hebrew:


LOGO

In English: Gazit-Globe, Ltd.



|2. | The object for which the Company is incorporated is to engage in any legal activity.
|-- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|3. | The members liability is limited.
|-- | ----------------------------------



|4. | The Companys share capital is NIS 500 million, divided into 500 million ordinary shares of NIS 1.0 par value each.
|-- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|5. | The general meeting of the shareholders is authorized, from time to time, to increase the registered share capital of the Company by the issuance of new shares, from an
existing type or a new type, through an ordinary resolution. The increase will be made in such amount and will be divided to shares of such par value, and in the same terms and conditions, as the resolution regarding the issuance of shares shall
instruct. For the purpose of this clause an ordinary resolution shall have the following meaninga resolution for which more than 50% of the Companys shareholders, representing more than 50% (fifty percent) of the total voting
powers of shareholders whose owners attended the meeting and voted with respect to the said resolution, present in person or by a proxy, and voted in its favor.
|-- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Exhibit 32.1



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 EastBridge Investment Group Corporation, (the Company) on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Keith Wong, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350, as adopted pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, That to the best of my knowledge:



(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.



EASTBRIDGE INVESTMENT GROUP CORPORATION;

By /s/ Keith Wong

Keith Wong

Chairman, CEO

March 31, 2009
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-7622

CHARLES LINWOOD PANNELL, Petitioner - Appellant, versus THOMAS R. CORCORAN; ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF MARYLAND, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Marvin J. Garbis, District Judge. (CA-98- 1521-MJG) Submitted: February 11, 1999 Decided: February 24, 1999 Before ERVIN, NIEMEYER, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Charles Linwood Pannell, Appellant Pro Se. John Joseph Curran, Jr., Attorney General, Ann Norman Bosse, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Charles Linwood Pannell seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254(West 1994 & Supp. 1998). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. See Pannell v. Corcoran , No. CA-98-1521-MJG (D. Md. Sept. 30, 1998). 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.

DISMISSED
#### POWELL *et al. v.*HARTSFIELD, mayor, *et al.*

No. 13403.

September 24, 1940.

Rehearing denied October 15, 1940.

*840*F. Joe Turner,*for plaintiffs.

*J. C. Savage, J. G. Murphy, Edwin L. Sterne,*and *F. A. Hooper Jr.,*for defendants.

Duckworth, Justice.

'“Equity will take no part in the administration of the criminal law. It will neither aid criminal courts in the exercise of their jurisdiction, nor will it restrain or obstruct them.” Code, § 55-102. This rule has been applied to municipal ordinances. *Phillips*v. *Stone Mountain,*61 *Ga.*386; *Garrison*v. *Atlanta,*68 *Ga.*64; *Pope*v. *Savannah,*74 *Ga.*365; *Mayor &c. of Moultrie*v. *Patterson,*109 *Ga.*370 (34 S. E. 600); *City of Bainbridge*v. *Reynolds,*111 *Ga.*758 (36 S. E. 935); *Salter*v. *Columbus,*125 *Ga.*96 (54 S. E. 74); *Mayor &c. of Shellman*v. *Saxon,*134 *Ga.*29 (67 S. E. 438, 27 L. R. A. (N. S.) 452); *Mayor &c. of Jonesboro*v. *Central of Georgia Ry. Co.,*134 *Ga.*190 (67 S. E. 716); *Starnes*v. *Atlanta,*139 *Ga.*531 (77 S. E. 381); *Corley*v. *Atlanta,*181 *Ga.*381 (182 S. E. 177); *Smith*v. *Carlton,*182 *Ga.*494 (185 S. E. 777); *Spur Distributing Co.*v. *Americus,*post. While it has been held that this rule does *not*apply where it is evident that criminal proceedings directly threaten private property *(Georgia Railroad & Banking Co.*v. *Atlanta,*118 *Ga.*486 (7), 45 S. E. 256); *City of Macon*v. *Samples,*167 *Ga.*150 (2), 145 S. E. 57; *Southeastern Greyhound Lines Inc. v. Atlanta,*177 *Ga.*181, 170 S. E. 43; *Walker*v. *Carollton,*187 *Ga.*237, 200 S. E. 268; *Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co.*v. *Columbus,*189 *Ga.*458, *8416 S. E. 2d, 320), yet-in such cases injunction was allowed not for the purpose of preventing criminal prosecutions as such, but for the protection of property. The reasons assigned by plaintiffs in the present case why equity should intervene are reasons that practically any one charged with crime might truly assign for seeking equitable relief. Necessarily arrest and imprisonment deprives one of the right to work, the income from his labor, the use of his property, and the conduct of his business, and might reflect unfavorably upon his reputation as a law-abiding citizen; but his proper remedy, and an adequate remedy, is a defense on the trial of such criminal ease. To permit an injunction of the criminal case for these reasons would nullify the statute (Code, § 55-102). The primary purpose of the petition is to enjoin criminal prosecutions, and for this reason it was properly dismissed on demurrer.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*All the Justices concur, except Atlcimon, P. J., who dissents.*
# EUR-Lex - 32001R2458 - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 32001R2458

**Commission Regulation (EC) No 2458/2001 of 14 December 2001 amending Regulation (EC) No 327/98 opening and providing for the administration of certain tariff quotas for imports of rice and broken rice **

*
Official Journal L 331 , 15/12/2001 P. 0010 - 0012 *

Commission Regulation (EC) No 2458/2001

of 14 December 2001

amending Regulation (EC) No 327/98 opening and providing for the administration of certain tariff quotas for imports of rice and broken rice

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1095/96 of 18 June 1996 on the implementation of the concessions set out in Schedule CXL drawn up in the wake of the conclusion of the GATT XXIV.6 negotations(1), and in particular Article 1 thereof,

Having regard to Council Decision 96/317/EC of 13 May 1996 concerning the conclusion of the results of the consultations with Thailand under GATT Article XXIII(2), and in particular Article 3 thereof,

Whereas:

(1) Commission Regulation (EC) No 327/98 of 10 February 1998 opening and providing for the administration of certain tariff quotas for imports of rice and broken rice(3), as amended by Regulation (EC) No 648/98(4), contains, in Annex I, the export certificate for exports from Thailand and, in Annex III, a model for Member States' notifications to the Commission.

(2) Thailand has amended its export certificates and Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 327/98 should therefore be replaced.

(3) Experience of the management of the quotas has shown the advantage of including the export certificate number in Member States' notifications to the Commission. Regulation (EC) No 327/98 should therefore be amended and Annex III thereto should be replaced.

(4) The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for Cereals,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

Regulation (EC) No 327/98 is hereby amended as follows:

1. The first indent of Article 8 is replaced by the following: "- within two working days of their issue, of the quantities, broken down by eight-figure CN code and country of origin, covered by the import licences issued, with details of the date of issue, the export certificate number, the licence number and the name and address of the holder,"

2. Annexes I and III are replaced by Annexes I and II hereto.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on 1 January 2002.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 14 December 2001.

For the Commission

Franz Fischler

Member of the Commission

(1) OJ L 146, 20.6.1996, p. 1.

(2) OJ L 122, 22.5.1996, p. 15.

(3) OJ L 37, 11.2.1998, p. 5.

(4) OJ L 88, 24.3.1998, p. 3.

ANEXO I/BILAG I/ANHANG I/ΠΑΡΑΡΤΗΜΑ Ι/ANNEX I/ANNEXE I/ALLEGATO I/BIJLAGE I/ANEXO I/LIITE I/BILAGA I

>PIC FILE= "L_2001331EN.001102.TIF">

ANNEX II

"ANNEX III

Rice - Regulation (EC) No 327/98

>PIC FILE= "L_2001331EN.001203.TIF">"
#### Darius R. Lathrop *et al. versus*The Inhabitants of Sharon.

*Metcalf,*for the plaintiffs,

in support of the motion for a new trial, cited *Sampson*v. *Smith,*15 Mass. R. 367 ; *Baylies*v. *Davis,*1 Pick. 210.

S. *D. Ward*for the defendants.

*Nov. 5th.*

In this case it was held, that where the jury have been correctly instructed by the court and have returned a verdict, the inquiry is not to be made, as a ground for a new trial, whether they did not misunderstand the instructions. It is to be presumed that the jury understand the directions given to them, and if counsel have reason to apprehend that they do not, it should be suggested at the time of the trial, in order that the judge may be more explicit.
EX-35 (f)
GREENPOINT MORTGAGE FUNDING, INC.

SERVICER COMPLIANCE STATEMENT

GSAA 2006-17

I, Michael De Francesco, an authorized officer of GreenPoint Mortgage Funding,
Inc. (the "Servicer"), certify that:

     1. A review of the Servicer's activities during the period from and
including January 1, 2006 through and including December 31, 2006 (or applicable
portion thereof) and of the Servicer's performance under the applicable
servicing agreement has been made under my supervision.

     2. To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Servicer has
fulfilled all of its obligations under the applicable servicing agreement in all
material respects throughout such period.

     Capitalized terms used but not defined herein have the meanings ascribed to
them in the Agreement.

Date: February 28, 2007

/s/ Michael De Francesco
Michael De Francesco
Senior Vice President, Loan Administration
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
COMPANY'S CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS AND CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF OPERATION
AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                          47,744
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                           6,721
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                95,645
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                37,082
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                    366,193
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                          37,037
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                            37,081
<LOANS>                                      1,790,143
<ALLOWANCE>                                     30,441
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,490,181
<DEPOSITS>                                   2,180,721
<SHORT-TERM>                                    59,098
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                             26,060
<LONG-TERM>                                     17,443
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                           28,750
<PREFERRED>                                      1,500
<COMMON>                                        21,112
<OTHER-SE>                                     155,497
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                 178,109
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                124,207
<INTEREST-INVEST>                               25,389
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                     0
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                               149,596
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                              76,581
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              79,968
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                           69,628
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                   14,400
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                              (1,000)
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                 59,231
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 10,396
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     4,852
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .44
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .43
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    8.27
<LOANS-NON>                                     54,071
<LOANS-PAST>                                         3
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                 1,879
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                 37,120
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                28,177
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                  (13,246)
<RECOVERIES>                                     1,115
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                               30,441
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                            30,441
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0


</TABLE>
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Cero Castro CAJADO, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 16-17188 Non-Argument Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.

(October 30, 2017)

Roberta'Josephina Bodnar, U.S. Attorney’s Office—FLM, Ocala, FL, Arthur Lee Bentley, III, Joseph K. Ruddy, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Tampa, FL, for Plaintiff-Ap-pellee

Before TJOFLAT, JULIE CARNES and JILL PRYOR, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Mark O’Brien, appointed counsel for Cero Cajado in this direct criminal appeal, has moved to withdraw from further representation of the appellant and filed a brief pursuant to *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed. 2d 493 (1967). Our independent review of the entire record reveals that counsel’s assessment of the relative merit of Cajado’s appeal is correct. Because independent examination of the entire record reveals no arguable issues of merit, counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED, and Cajado’s convictions and sentences are AFFIRMED.
**EXHIBIT 32.2**

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. §1350,**

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

In connection with the Annual Report of U.S. Auto Parts Network, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the fiscal year endedJanuary 1, 2011 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Theodore Sanders, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant toSection 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that: 

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

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

Date: March 16, 2011
Third District Court of Appeal

State of Florida

Opinion filed August 24, 2022.

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

No. 3D21-1327

Lower Tribunal No. 19-28545

________________

Marlon Zamora, et al.,

Appellants,

vs.

Citizens Property Insurance Corporation,

Appellee.

An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Lourdes 

Simon, Judge.

Shield Law Group of Florida, LLC, and Jamie Alvarez, Clement Dean, 

and Jesse Peterson (Davie), for appellants.

Williams, Leininger & Cosby, PA, and Carri S. Leininger and Maureen 

Martinez (N. Palm Beach), for appellee. 

Before FERNANDEZ, C.J., and LOGUE and LINDSEY, JJ. 

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
### Regulatory Evaluation

Docket No. FAA

- 

### 2015

- 6544 Directorate Identifier: 

### 2014

- NM

- 198

- AD

If you make changes to the values in the table below, you must ensure the totals update accordingly. If

they do not, click (or Tab) into and then ou t of the changed cell

.

Estimated Costs:

Action

(e.g., Inspection,

replacement)

Do not include on

condition costs here Costs per Product (e.g., aircraft, engine,

propeller, appliance)

Work

- hours

(include

access, testing,

and close

- up) Labor

cost

(@$8 5 / h

our) Parts Cost Total Costs

(labor +

parts) Number of

U.S.

Registered

Products Total Cost

for U.S. Fleet



### Replacement 78.0 $ 6,630.0

0 $33,000 $ 39,630.00 

### 105 $ 4,161,150.0

0

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0 .00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00



### The known number of products in compliance: 0



### Total Costs of compliance for U.S. fleet: $ 4,161,150



### Costs covered under warranty ( if known ) $

On

- Condition Costs:

Action

(e.g., Inspection,

replacement) Work

- hours

(include access,

testing, and close

up) Labor cost

(@$85/hour) Parts Cost Cost per Product



### Inspection 0.0 $ 0. 00 $0 $ 0.00



### Repair $ 0.00 $0 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.0 0 $ 0.00



### Special considerations for Economic Analysis ( Use this field to explain anything in the Estimated Costs table

that was assumed or might not be obvious. This field can also be u sed to explain warranty costs) 

### :

### Executive Order 12866:

Could the AD be considered a “significant regulatory action”?

YES * NO

* Explanation:

DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures:

Is the AD significant?

YES * NO

* Explanation:

Regulatory Flexibility Act:

Wil l the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities? E xplain for

either a Yes or No answer.

YES NO

Explanation: 

### Does not afect small business.

Intrastate Aviation in Alaska:

This AD could affect intrastate aviation in Alaska. Is it app ropriate to include specific requirements for

aircraft operated in Alaska where aviation might be the only mode of transportation?

YES * NO



### * Explanation 

### :