alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Prepared by R.R. Donnelley Financial -- Promissory Note



 EXHIBIT 10.2 
  
 PROMISSORY NOTE 
  
 1.    Principal and
Interest.    For value received, PCSUPPORT.COM INC. (the “Borrower”), of suite 300-3605 Gilmore Way, Burnaby, BC, hereby promises to pay to or to the order of VOYUS CANADA INC.(the “Lender”) at
such address as the Lender may from time to time designate by notice in writing to the Borrower the principal sum of CDN $100,000.00 (the “Principal”) plus interest on the Principal outstanding from time to time from the date of advance
until the Principal is repaid in full, calculated monthly, not in advance, as well after as before maturity and both before and after default, payable as follows: 
  

	 	(i)
	 
	the Principal plus accrued and unpaid interest shall become due and be paid in full ON DEMAND; 
 

  

	 	(ii)
	 
	interest on the unpaid Principal outstanding from time to time shall become due and be paid as follows: 
 

  

	 	(1)
	 
	interest at the rate of 7% per annum shall be paid on the first day of each month commencing June 1, 2002, and continuing on the first day of each month
thereafter until the Principal is repaid in full; and 
 

  

	 	(2)
	 
	interest at the rate of 4.5% per annum shall accrue from the date of advances of the Principal and be payable at such time as the Principal is due and payable.

 

  
 After demand for payment the Borrower shall have 45 days of grace to repay all outstanding
Principal and accrued and unpaid interest owing under this Note. 
  
 2.    Prepayment:    At any time and from time to time any portion of the Principal may be prepaid without any notice being given to the Lender and without any bonus
or penalty being paid to the Lender. 
  
 3.    Non-waiver:    The extension of the time for making any payment which is due and payable hereunder at any time or times or the failure, delay or omission on
the part of the Lender to exercise or enforce any rights or remedies of the Lender hereunder or under any instrument securing payment of the indebtedness evidenced by this Promissory Note shall not constitute a waiver of the right of the Lender to
enforce such rights and remedies thereafter. 
  
 4.    Applicable
Law:    This Promissory Note shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of British Columbia and the laws of Canada applicable therein. 
  
 5.    Time of the Essence:    Time shall in all respects be of the essence of this
Promissory Note. 
 

 1 








  
 6.    Waiver of Benefits:    The
Borrower hereby waives the benefits of division and discussion, demand and presentment for payment, notice of non-payment, protest and notice of protest of this Promissory Note. 
  
 IN WITNESS WHEREOF the Borrower has executed this Promissory Note this 17th day of May, 2002. 
  
  
 PCSupport.com Inc. 
  
  

	Per:
	 
	/s/    Michael G. McLean 
 

 
                   Michael G. McLean 
 

 2
**Exhibit 10.2**

**Consent of Independent Public Accounting Firm**

The Board of Directors 

Atrium European Real Estate Limited:

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statement (No. 333-188107) on Form F-3 of Gazit-Globe Ltd of our report datedMarch 12, 2014, with respect to the consolidated statements of financial position of Atrium European Real Estate Limited and subsidiaries as of December 31, 2013 and 2012, and the related consolidated income statements, consolidatedstatements of comprehensive income, consolidated cash flow statements, and consolidated statements of changes in equity for each of the years in the two year period ended December 31, 2013; as well as our report dated March 12, 2013, withrespect to the consolidated statements of financial position of Atrium European Real Estate Limited and subsidiaries as of December 31, 2012 and 2011, and the related consolidated income statements, consolidated statements of comprehensiveincome, consolidated cash flow statements, and consolidated statements of changes in equity for each of the years in the two year period ended December 31, 2012, which reports appear in the December 31, 2013 annual report on Form 20-F/A ofGazit-Globe Ltd. 

KPMG Channel Islands Limited 

Jersey,Channel Islands 

September 23, 2014
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Raymon Anthony HIGGS, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 17-6288

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: June 12, 2017

Decided: June 21, 2017

Raymon Anthony Higgs, Appellant Pro Se. Leesa Washington, Assistant United States Attorney, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Before NIEMEYER, TRAXLER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Raymon Anthony Higgs seeks to appeal from the district court’s order denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. The district court’s 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).

Higgs previously filed a § 2255 motion that was adjudicated on the merits. *See Higgs v. United States,*Nos. 3:04-cr-00867-CMC; 3:06-cv-01829-CMC (D.S.C. Mar. 15, 2007) (unpublished). Thus, Higgs’ current § 2255 motion is successive. Higgs has not obtained authorization from this court, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2244 (2012), to file a successive § 2255 motion. In the absence of prefiling authorization from this court, the district court lacked jurisdiction to consider the motion. *See*28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3).

Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*DISMISSED*
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 17-6612

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

GEORGE WASHINGTON CRANE, V,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at 

Alexandria. Liam O’Grady, District Judge. (1:13-cr-00297-LO-1)

Submitted: August 17, 2017 Decided: August 22, 2017

Before KEENAN, THACKER, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

George Washington Crane, V, Appellant Pro Se. Lawrence Joseph Leiser, Assistant 

United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

George Washington Crane, V, appeals the district court’s order denying his 

18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2012) motion. We have reviewed the record and find no 

reversible error. See United States v. May, 855 F.3d 271, 274 (4th Cir. 2017). 

Accordingly, we deny Crane’s motion to expedite and affirm for the reasons stated by the 

district court. United States v. Crane, No. 1:13-cr-00297-LO-1 (E.D. Va. May 1, 2017). 

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately 

presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional 

process.

AFFIRMED
I 

114TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 6007 

To amend title 49, United States Code, to include consideration of certain 

impacts on commercial space launch and reentry activities in a navigable 

airspace analysis, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

SEPTEMBER 13, 2016 

Mr. MCCARTHY introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

A BILL 

To amend title 49, United States Code, to include consideration of certain impacts on commercial space launch 

and reentry activities in a navigable airspace analysis, 

and for other purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. NAVIGABLE AIRSPACE ANALYSIS FOR COM4 MERCIAL SPACE LAUNCH SITE RUNWAYS. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 44718(b)(1) of title 49, 

6 United States Code, is amended— 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 6007 IH

1 (1) by striking ‘‘air navigation facilities and 

2 equipment’’ and inserting ‘‘air or space navigation 

3 facilities and equipment’’; 

4 (2) in subparagraph (D), by striking ‘‘; and’’ 

5 and inserting a semicolon; 

6 (3) in subparagraph (E), by striking the period 

7 at the end and inserting ‘‘; and’’; and 

8 (4) by adding at the end the following: 

9 ‘‘(F) the impact on launch and reentry for 

10 launch and reentry vehicles arriving or departing 

11 from a launch site or reentry site licensed by the 

12 Secretary.’’. 

13 (b) RULEMAKING.—Not later than 18 months after 

14 the date of enactment of this Act, the Administrator of 

15 the Federal Aviation Administration shall initiate a rule16 making to implement the amendments made by subsection 

17 (a). 

Æ 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with BILLS
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-7253
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus MICHAEL EUGENE WALTON, JR., Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Richard L. Williams, Senior District Judge. (CR-00-3) Submitted: October 10, 2002 Decided: October 21, 2002 Before WILLIAMS, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Michael Eugene Walton, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Michael Cornell Wallace, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Michael Eugene Walton, Jr., seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000). We have reviewed the record and conclude for the reasons stated by the district court that Walton has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. See United States v. Walton , No. CR-00-3 (E.D. Va. Aug. 13, 2002). Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c) (2000). 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
xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?


L\_2004240EN.01001601.xml


| | | | |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 10.7.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 240/16 |

---

Corrigendum to Council Regulation (EC) No 2341/2002 of 20 December 2002 fixing for 2003 the fishing opportunities and associated conditions for certain fish stocks and groups of fish stocks, applicable in Community waters and, for Community vessels, in waters where catch limitations are required

(
[Official Journal of the European Communities L 356 of 31 December 2002](http://publications.europa.eu/resource/oj/JOL_2002_356_R_TOC)
)

On page 73, in Annex III, concerning ‘Sandeel’:

for:

‘IIa (1), North Sea (1)’,

read:

‘IIa (1), Skagerrak, Kattegat, North Sea (1)’.

On page 84, in Annex V, point 6(d), (e) and (f):

for:

‘..., the by-catches should not exceed ... ’,

read:

‘..., the by-catches shall not exceed ... ’.

On page 110, in Annex XVI, in the second line of the table (Ammodytes spp.):

| | | | | | | | |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| — | in the first column: | | | | | --- | --- | --- | | for | : | ‘SAN/24.’, | | read | : | ‘SAN/23A4.’. | |

| | | | | | | | |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| — | in the third column: | | | | | --- | --- | --- | | for | : | ‘II, IV’, | | read | : | ‘IIa, IIIa, IV (1)’. | |

---
<PAGE>   1

                                                                   EXHIBIT 15.1


The Board of Directors
PowerCerv Corporation


We are aware of the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement
(Form S-8 No. 333-3960) of PowerCerv Corporation for the registration of
3,675,000 shares of its common stock of our report dated July 16, 1999, relating
to the unaudited condensed consolidated interim financial statements of
PowerCerv Corporation that is included in its Form 10-Q for the quarter ended
June 30, 1999.

Pursuant to Rule 436(c) of the Securities Act of 1933 our reports are not a
part of the registration statement prepared or certified by accountants within
the meaning of Section 7 or 11 of the Securities Act of 1933.


                                       /s/ Ernst & Young LLP
                                       ---------------------------------------
                                           Ernst & Young LLP

Tampa, Florida
July 16, 1999
#### Willie Mae BYRD, as Administratrix of the Estate of Lawrence Byrd, Deceased, Plaintiff-Appellant, Cross-Appellee, v. Heinrich Schmidt REEDEREI, Defendant-Appellee, Cross-Appellant.

No. 78-3064.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

June 24, 1981.

Joel D. Eaton, Walter H. Beckham, Jr., Miami, Fla., Roger Vaughan, Wagner, Cunning, Vaughan & Genders, Tampa, Fla., for plaintiff-appellant, cross-appellee.

Fowler, White, Gillen, Boggs,-Villareal & Banker, Nathaniel G. W. Pieper, Dewey R. Villareal, Jr., Tampa, Fla., for defendantappellee, cross-appellant.

ON PETITION FOR REHEARING AND PETITION FOR REHEARING EN BANC

(5 Cir., 1981, 638 F.2d 1300).

Before GODBOLD, Chief Judge, and BROWN, AINSWORTH, CHARLES CLARK, RONEY, GEE, TJOFLAT, HILL, FAY, RUBIN, VANCE, KRAVITCH, FRANK M. JOHNSON, Jr., GARZA, HENDERSON, REAVLEY, POLITZ, HATCH-ETT, ANDERSON, RANDALL, TATE, SAM D. JOHNSON, THOMAS A. CLARK and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.

BY THE COURT:

A member of the Court in active service having requested a poll on the application for rehearing en banc and a majority of the judges in active service having voted in favor of granting a rehearing en banc, 638 F.2d 1300, 5 Cir.

IT IS ORDERED that the cause shall be reheard by the Court en banc with oral argument on a date hereafter to be fixed. The Clerk will specify a briefing schedule for the filing of supplemental briefs.
```

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5869 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

114th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 5869

 To amend the Federal Credit Union Act to require the National Credit 
 Union Administration Board to provide a rationale for any amounts the 
 Board proposes to use from the National Credit Union Share Insurance 
                     Fund, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             July 14, 2016

 Mr. Mulvaney (for himself and Mr. Heck of Washington) introduced the 
   following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Financial 
                                Services

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend the Federal Credit Union Act to require the National Credit 
 Union Administration Board to provide a rationale for any amounts the 
 Board proposes to use from the National Credit Union Share Insurance 
                     Fund, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. FUND TRANSPARENCY.

    Section 203 of the Federal Credit Union Act (12 U.S.C. 1783) is 
amended by adding at the end the following:
    ``(g) Fund Transparency.--
            ``(1) In general.--The Board shall accompany each annual 
        budget submitted pursuant to section 209(b) with a report 
        containing--
                    ``(A) a detailed analysis of how the expenses of 
                the Administration are assigned between prudential 
                activities and insurance-related activities and the 
                extent to which those expenses are paid from the fees 
                collected pursuant to section 105 or from the Fund; and
                    ``(B) the Board's supporting rationale for any 
                proposed use of amounts in the Fund contained in such 
                budget, including detailed breakdowns and supporting 
                rationales for any such proposed use related to titles 
                of this Act other than this title.
            ``(2) Public disclosure.--The Board shall make each report 
        described under paragraph (1) available to the public.''.
                                 <all>
```
EXHIBIT
32.1





CERTIFICATION





We, John
N. Hatsopoulos, Chief Executive Officer, and Anthony S. Loumidis, Chief
Financial Officer, of American DG Energy Inc., or the company, certify,
pursuant to Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:




1. The
Amendment No. 1 to Annual Report on Form 10-K/A of the company for the year
ended December 31, 2009, or the Report, fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78 m or
78o(d)); and




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




Date:
      September 17, 2010/s/
      John N. HatsopoulosJohn
      N. HatsopoulosChief
      Executive Officer/s/
      Anthony S. LoumidisAnthony
      S. LoumidisChief
      Financial Officer




The
foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350
and is not being filed as part of the Report or as a separate disclosure
document.




A signed
original of this written statement required by 18 U.S.C. § 1350 has been
provided to the company and will be retained by the company and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
UNITED STATESDISTRICT COURT FORTHE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Derian Douglas Hickman, ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Plaintiff, 

### v. Civil Action No. BankofAmerica et aI., Defendants.
MEMORANDUM OPINION 

# FILED JUN 1 52010 Clerk, U.S. District &Bankruptcy Courts for the District of Columbia 

# 10 1006

The plaintiff, Derian Douglas Hickman, filed a pro se complaint and application to proceed without prepayment offees. Hickman's applicationto proceed without prepayment of fees will be granted, the complaint will be dismissed as frivolous, and the plaintiffwill be directed to show cause in writing why he should not be prospectivelybarred from filing without prepayment offees. Hickman, knownto this court from prior frivolous and otherwise defective filings, has filed the instant complaint against Bank ofAmerica, J.P. Morgan Chase Bank, and Wells Fargo Bank, alleging as follows: Requesting return ofprevious account holdings money and any safe deposit box contents[.] Also over 1000 dollars in overdraft charges from J.P. Morgan Chase. And documents involving previous business rev(:nue. At close to 1,000,000 stolen from my Bank ofAmerica account card. Requesting trial by jury[.] Asking for documents and amount due. Compi. at 1. Such a complaint not only fails to meet the minimumrequirements ofRule 8(a) ofthe Federal Rules ofCivil Procedure, but also appears to be based on fantastic and delusionalpremIses. Complaints describing fantastic or delusional scenarios are subject to immediate dismissal as frivolous. See Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 328 (1989); Bestv. Kelly, 39 F.3d 328, 330-31 (D.C. Cir. 1994). Accordingly, this complaint will be dismissed with prejudice. Including this one, the plaintiffhas filed 17 complaints since February of2009, each of which warranted immediate dismissal, either because it did not meetthe minimum requirements ofRule 8 orbecause it was frivolous. This pattern offiling results in an unwarranted consumption of judicial resources. The plaintiffwas warned previouslythat ifhe persisted in filing frivolous orotherwise defective complaints, the Court could limit or deny his abilityto proceed without prepayment offees. See Slip. op., Derian Douglas HicAman v. Derian Douglas HicmanArchives et al., Civil ActionNo. 10-12, at 2 (D.D.C. Jan. 6,2010). Accordingly, the plaintiffwill be required to show cause in writing why he should not be barred prospectively from filing without prepayment ofthe filing fee. A separate, related order accompanies this memorandum opinion.

Uni

- 2 -
* Pursuant to Local Rule 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 Local Rule 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 95-11203

 

DARRELL LEE ACLESE,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

DALLAS COUNTY JAIL, Et Al,

Defendants

JIM BOWLES, Sheriff;

STEVE ACKERMAN, Captain,

Defendants-Appellants.

 

Appeal from the United States District Court

For the Northern District of Texas, Dallas

 

 

February 13, 1997

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DAVIS, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

We are persuaded that there are no genuine issues of material

fact for trial. See Farmer v. Brennan, ___ U.S. ___, 114 S.Ct.

1977; Hare v. City of Corinth, 74 F.3d 633 (5th Cir. 1996) (en

banc). We reverse the order denying summary judgment and enter

judgment in favor of Sheriff Jim Bowles and Captain Ackerman. 
2

REVERSED.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

, 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.

December 10, 2014

t1203 

# Order

Clerk December 10, 2014

149630

GARY BRUGGER,

Plaintiff

- Appell ant,

v SC: 149630

COA: 313925

Ottawa CC: 12

- 002711

- CZ

CITY OF HOLLAND,

Defendant

- Appellee.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the May 29, 2014

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 6983 Referred in Senate (RFS)]

<DOC>
118th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 6983

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                              June 4, 2024

     Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland 
                   Security and Governmental Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
 at 15 South Valdosta Road in Lakeland, Georgia, as the ``Nell Patten 
                        Roquemore Post Office''.

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

SECTION 1. NELL PATTEN ROQUEMORE POST OFFICE.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 15 South Valdosta Road in Lakeland, Georgia, shall be known 
and designated as the ``Nell Patten Roquemore Post Office''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Nell 
Patten Roquemore Post Office''.

            Passed the House of Representatives June 3, 2024.

            Attest:

                                             KEVIN F. MCCUMBER,

                                                                 Clerk.
```