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

                                 EXHIBIT 10.217



$643,000.00                                                   New York, New York
                                                              March 11, 2002


FOR VALUE RECEIVED, the undersigned, Wilshire Technologies, Inc. a California
corporation (hereinafter referred to as "Borrower"), hereby unconditionally
PROMISES TO PAY to the order to TRILON DOMINION PARTNERS, LLC, a Delaware
limited liability company ("Lender"), at 245 Park Avenue, 28th Floor, New York,
NY 10167, or at such other place as the holder of this Demand Note may designate
from time to time in writing, in lawful money of the United States of America
and in immediately available funds, the principal amount of Six Hundred Forty
Three Thousand and 00/100, DOLLARS ($643,000.00), together with interest on the
unpaid principal amount of this Demand Note outstanding from time to time from
the date hereof, at a rate per annum equal to the Prime rate of interest plus
3.0%, or the highest rate permitted by law, whichever shall be less.

         The principal amount of the indebtedness evidenced hereby shall be
payable on demand. Interest thereon shall be paid when principal is paid from
the date hereof until such principal amount is paid in full at such interest
rate as specified above. Following failure to pay on demand, Borrower agrees to
pay interest on any overdue payment of principal at a rate per annum equal to
the stated interest rate plus 5%, or the highest rate permitted by law,
whichever shall be less. All interest calculations shall be computed on the
basis of a 360 day year.

         Demand, presentment, protest and notice of nonpayment and protest are
hereby waived by Borrower.

         Borrower shall have no right to make any off-set against or deduct from
any payment due under this Demand Note.

         Principal and interest may be prepaid at any time without penalty.

         This Demand Note may not be changed orally, but only by an agreement in
writing and signed by the party against whom enforcement of such change is
sought.

         All covenants of Borrower in this Demand Note and all rights of the
holder under this Demand Note shall bind Borrower and its successors and
assigns, and all such covenants and rights shall inure to the benefit of the
holder of this Demand Note and its successors and assigns.

         This Demand Note has been delivered and accepted at New York, New York
and shall be interpreted, governed by, and construed in accordance with, the
laws of the State of New York.



                                        Wilshire Technologies, Inc.



                                        By: /S/ Kathleen Terry
                                            -----------------------------
                                        Name:  Kathleen E. Terry
                                        Title: Chief Financial Officer
EXHIBIT 4.3

December 2001

       In December 2001, BCP and Fundo Servimedia, a Portuguese fund, reached
       agreement on the establishment of a securitization program known as
       Magellan Mortgages. The agreement provides for BCP to assign to the fund
       a portfolio of first mortgage assets the principal outstanding balance of
       which BCP represents to be true and correct and for the fund to purchase
       the portfolio and to thereafter issue its units up to the global amount
       of 1,000,000,000 euros. Under the terms of a Mortgage Sale Agreement with
       the fund, dated December 20, 2001, BCP assigned to the fund a portfolio
       of first mortgage assets it represented to have a principal outstanding
       balance of 1,000,000,000 euros for which it was paid by the fund a
       purchase price equivalent to such principal outstanding balance. To the
       extent that the principal outstanding balance of the portfolio of first
       mortgage assets is less than the amount represented, BCP is obligated
       under the Mortgage Sale Agreement to either pay over to the fund such
       difference in amount or to assign to the fund additional first mortgage
       assets the principal outstanding balance of which is equivalent to such
       difference in amount.


                                      216
<PAGE>
 
                                                                    EXHIBIT 10.2

                            FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE
                         EMPLOYEE STOCK PURCHASE PLAN
                              OF PAYMENTECH, INC.

     WHEREAS, Paymentech, Inc. a Delaware corporation (the "Company"), has
heretofore maintained the Employee Stock Purchase Plan of Paymentech, Inc.
(formerly known as the Employee Stock Purchase Plan of First USA Paymentech,
Inc.; the "Plan") for the benefit of its employees; and

     WHEREAS, the Company considers it advisable to amend the Plan to increase
by 250,000 shares the number of shares of Common Stock of the Company, $.01 par,
available for issuance under the Plan, making a total of 400,000 shares
available for issuance under the Plan; and

     WHEREAS, the Board of Directors of the Company, pursuant to Section 17 of
the Plan, authorized this amendment on April 22, 1998;

     NOW THEREFORE, effective as of April 22, 1998, (the "Effective Date"), the
Company hereby amends the Plan as follows:

          The first sentence of Section 10(a) is hereby deleted and replaced
with the following:

          The maximum number of shares of Common Stock which shall be reserved
          for sale under the Plan shall be 400,000, subject to adjustment upon
          changes in capitalization of the Company as provided in paragraph 16.

     Except as amended, all other provisions of the Plan shall remain in full
force and effect.

     IN WITNESS HEREOF, the Company has adopted this amendment as of the
Effective Date.

                                        PAYMENTECH, INC.

                                        By:  /s/ Philip Taken
                                           -----------------------------------
                                        Title:  Chief Administrative Officer, 
                                              --------------------------------
                                                General Counsel and Secretary
Exhibit 10.3
 TRIANGLE CAPITAL CORPORATION
 EXECUTIVE OFFICER
RESTRICTED SHARE AWARD AGREEMENT
     Grant of Restricted Shares
   Terms and Rights as a Stockholder




---



##### 



(i)
    
    the Employee shall not be entitled to delivery of the stock
certificate for any Shares until the Vesting Date as to such Shares;(ii)
    
    none of the Restricted Shares may be sold, assigned,
transferred, pledged, hypothecated or otherwise encumbered or disposed of prior
to the applicable Vesting Date; and(iii)
    
    except as otherwise determined by the Board or the Committee
at or after the grant of the Award hereunder, any of the Restricted Shares as
to which the Restricted Period has not expired shall be forfeited, and all
rights of the Employee to such Shares shall terminate, without further
obligation on the part of the Company, unless the Employee remains in the
continuous employment of the Company or a Subsidiary for the entire Restricted
Period relating to such Restricted Shares, as the case may be.
   (i)
    
    termination of the Employees employment with the Company or
any Subsidiary which results from the Employees death or Disability (as
defined in the Plan); or(ii)
    
    the occurrence of a Change in Control (as defined in the Plan).
 Termination of Restrictions
 Delivery of Shares
  2




---



##### 



Section 4(b) Section 4(c) Section 2(b)
    THIS CERTIFICATE AND THE SHARES OF STOCK REPRESENTED HEREBY ARE SUBJECT TO
THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS (INCLUDING FORFEITURE AND RESTRICTIONS AGAINST
TRANSFER) CONTAINED IN THE TRIANGLE CAPITAL CORPORATION AMENDED AND RESTATED
2007 EQUITY INCENTIVE PLAN (THE PLAN) AND THE RESTRICTED SHARE AWARD
AGREEMENT (THE AGREEMENT) BETWEEN THE OWNER OF THE RESTRICTED SHARES
REPRESENTED HEREBY AND TRIANGLE CAPITAL CORPORATION (THE COMPANY). THE
RELEASE OF SUCH SHARES FROM SUCH TERMS AND CONDITIONS SHALL BE MADE ONLY IN
ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THE PLAN AND THE AGREEMENT, COPIES OF
WHICH ARE ON FILE AT THE COMPANY.
 Effect of Lapse of Restrictions
 Adjustments
 Amendment to Award
 3




---



##### 



Taxes; Section 83(b) Election; Tax Consequences
    Withholding of Taxes
 No Employment or Service Contract
 Plan Governs
 Severability
 4




---



##### 



Notices
 To the Company:
    
    Triangle Capital Corporation3600 Glenwood Avenue, Suite 104Raleigh, North Carolina 27612Attn: Garland S. Tucker, IIITo the Employee:
    
    The address then maintained with respect to the Employee in the Companys records.
 Governing Law
 Employee Undertaking.
 Successors in Interest
 Resolution of Disputes
 Counterparts
 ***Balance of Page Intentionally Blank  Signatures on Next Page***
 5




---



##### 



IN WITNESS WHEREOF
 TRIANGLE CAPITAL CORPORATIONBy:Name:
    
    Garland S. Tucker, IIITitle:
    
    Chief Executive Officer and PresidentEMPLOYEE:Please PrintSignature
 6
| (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. |
|-----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|  Date: November 17, 2011 |   | /s/ Yung Kong Chin                               |   |
|-------------------------------|--------|--------------------------------------------------|--------|
|                          |   | Yung Kong Chin, Secretary                        |   |
|                          |   | (Principal Financial and AccountingOfficer) |   |

----
EXHIBIT 35.2
                  SERVICER COMPLIANCE STATEMENT (ITEM 1123)
                               GMAC MORTGAGE, LLC
             RALI SERIES 2006-QS17 TRUST (THE "ISSUING ENTITY")

The undersigned,  a duly authorized  officer of GMAC Mortgage,  LLC, as servicer
(the "Servicer")  pursuant to the applicable  servicing  agreement,  does hereby
certify that:

1.   A review of the  Servicer's  activities  during the  period  covered by the
     Issuing  Entity's  report  on Form 10-K 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.

IN WITNESS  WHEREOF,  the undersigned has duly executed this Certificate this 26
day of March 2007.

By:      /s/ Anthony N. Renzi
      Name:  Anthony N. Renzi
      Title:    Executive Vice President
Opinion issued March 3, 2016

In The

Court of Appeals 

For The 

First District of Texas 

————————————

NO. 01-15-00644-CR

———————————

RIGOBERTO MONRROY, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 228th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Case No. 1445254

MEMORANDUM OPINION

A jury found appellant, Rigoberto Monrroy, guilty of the felony offense of 

possession with an intent to deliver a controlled substance, namely, cocaine,
2

weighing more than one gram and less than four grams.

1

 The trial court assessed his 

punishment at confinement for four years. Appellant timely filed a notice of appeal.

Counsel for appellant has filed a motion to withdraw the appeal. The motion 

is signed by counsel and includes a copy of a letter from appellant to which the 

motion refers. The letter is signed by appellant and expressly states that he no longer 

wishes to go forward with the appeal and asks counsel to terminate the appeal as 

soon as possible. We construe the motion as a motion to dismiss the appeal and 

conclude that it substantially complies with Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 

42.2(a). See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.2(a). We have not issued a decision in the appeal, 

and more than ten days have passed and the State has not responded or otherwise 

expressed opposition to the motion. See TEX. R. APP. P. 10.3(a), 42.2(a).

Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 43.2(f). We dismiss 

any other pending motions as moot.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Jennings, Massengale, and Huddle.

Do not publish. TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).

 

1 TEX. HEALTH & SAFETY CODE ANN. §§ 481.102(3)(D), 481.112(a), (b) (Vernon 

2010).
#### Carol WALKER Plaintiff-Appellant v. Nancy A. BERRYHILL, Acting Commissioner of Social Security Defendant-Appellee

No. 17-1418

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted: November 09, 2017

Filed: November 15, 2017

Shannon Muse Carroll, Lane & Muse, Hot Springs, AR, for Plaintiff-Appellant

Traci B. Davis, Ruben Montemayor, Assistant Regional Counsel, Social Security Administration, Office of General Counsel Region VI, Dallas, TX, for Defendant-Ap-pellee

Before GRUENDER, BOWMAN, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Carol Walker appeals the district court’s1 order affirming the denial of disability insurance benefits. Having jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, this court affirms.

Upon de novo review, this court agrees with the district court that substantial evidence on the record as a whole supports the administrative law judge’s (ALJ’s) weighing of the medical opinion evidence and Walker’s subjective statements in formulating her residual functional capacity (RFC). *See Igo v. Colvin,*839 F.3d 724, 728 (8th Cir. 2016) (standard of review); *Myers v. Colvin,*721 F.3d 521, 527 (8th Cir. 2013) (RFC determination is based on all relevant evidence, including medical records, observations, of treating physicians and others, and claimant’s own description of her limitations). Because the ALJ properly relied on the vocational expert’s (VE’s) response to the hypothetical that the ALJ posed, which was consistent with the ALJ’s RFC findings, there is no merit to Walker’s argument concerning the VE’s testimony. *See Gieseke v. Colvin,*770 F.3d 1186, 1189 (8th Cir. 2014).

The judgment is affirmed.

1

. The Honorable Barry A. Bryant, United States Magistrate Judge for the Western District of Arkansas, to whom the case was referred for final disposition by consent of the parties pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c).
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 911 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

  1st Session
                                 S. 911

To authorize the Secretary of Transportation to issue a certificate of 
   documentation with appropriate endorsement for employment in the 
   coastwise trade of the United States for the vessel SEA MISTRESS.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                 June 9 (legislative day, June 5), 1995

   Mr. Robb introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
   referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To authorize the Secretary of Transportation to issue a certificate of 
   documentation with appropriate endorsement for employment in the 
   coastwise trade of the United States for the vessel SEA MISTRESS.
    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled, That notwithstanding 
section 27 of the Merchant Marine Act, 1920 (46 App. U.S.C. 883), the 
Act of June 19, 1886 (46 App. U.S.C. 289), and section 12106 of title 
46, United States Code, the Secretary of Transportation may issue a 
certificate of documentation with appropriate endorsement for 
employment in the coastwise trade of the United States for the vessel 
SEA MISTRESS (United States official number 696806).
                                 <all>
```
#### Washington G. RUFFIN, Jr., Claimant-Appellant v. David J. SHULKIN, Secretary of Veterans Affairs, Respondent-Appellee

2016-2401

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

October 13, 2017

Lynn K. Neuner, Simpson Thacher *&*Bartlett, LLP, New York, NY, argued for claimant-appellant.

Douglas Glenn Edelschick, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC, argued for respondent-appellee. Also represented by Chad A. Readler, Robert E. Kirschman, Jr., Martin F. Hockey, Jr.; Brian D. Griffin, Derek Scadden, Office of General Counsel, United States Department of Veterans Affairs, Washington, DC.

(Newman, Clevenger, and Chen, Circuit Judges).

*1033JUDGMENT

Per Curiam

This Cause having been heard and considered, it is Oedered and Adjudged:

AFFIRMED. *See*Fed. Cir. R. 36.
[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 46 (Wednesday, March 9, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Page 13278]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-04970]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

Patent and Trademark Office

[Docket No.: PTO-P-2022-0003]


Grant of Interim Extension of the Term of U.S. Patent No. 
6,953,476; Reducer[supreg]

AGENCY: United States Patent and Trademark Office, Department of 
Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of interim patent term extension.

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

SUMMARY: The United States Patent and Trademark Office has issued an 
order granting a one-year interim extension of the term of U.S. Patent 
No. 6,953,476.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ali Salimi, Senior Legal Advisor, 
Office of Patent Legal Administration, by telephone at 571-272-0909 or 
by email to <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#e1808d88cf92808d888c88a1949291958ecf868e97"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="08696461267b6964616561487d7b787c67266f677e">[email protected]</span></a>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section 156 of Title 35, United States Code, 
generally provides that the term of a patent may be extended for a 
period of up to five years if the patent claims a product, or a method 
of making or using a product, that has been subject to certain defined 
regulatory review, and that the patent may be extended for interim 
periods of up to one year if the regulatory review is anticipated to 
extend beyond the expiration date of the patent.
    On February 22, 2022, Neovasc Medical Ltd., the patent owner of 
record, timely filed an application under 35 U.S.C. 156(d)(5) for a 
third interim extension of the term of U.S. Patent No. 6,953,476. The 
patent claims a catheter delivered implantable device, Reducer[supreg]. 
The application for patent term extension indicates that a Premarket 
Approval Application (PMA) P190035 was submitted to the Food and Drug 
Administration (FDA) on December 31, 2019. Review of the patent term 
extension application indicates that, except for permission to market 
or use the product commercially, the subject patent would be eligible 
for an extension of the patent term under 35 U.S.C. 156, and that the 
patent should be extended for one year as required by 35 U.S.C. 
156(d)(5)(B). Because the regulatory review period will continue beyond 
the extended expiration date of the patent, March 27, 2022, interim 
extension of the patent term under 35 U.S.C. 156(d)(5) is appropriate.
    An interim extension under 35 U.S.C. 156(d)(5) of the term of U.S. 
Patent No. 6,953,476 is granted for a period of one year from the 
extended expiration date of the '476 patent.

Robert Bahr,
Deputy Commissioner for Patents, United States Patent and Trademark 
Office.
[FR Doc. 2022-04970 Filed 3-8-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-16-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S.J. Res. 49 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

  2d Session
S. J. RES. 49

  Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to 
       require two-thirds majorities for bills increasing taxes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

            February 27 (legislative day, February 23), 1996

  Mr. Kyl (for himself, Mr. Coverdell, Mr. Craig, Mr. Faircloth, Mr. 
Grams, Mr. Inhofe, Mr. Kempthorne, Mr. Lott, Mr. McCain, Mr. Pressler, 
  Mr. Santorum, Mr. Shelby, Mr. Smith, Mr. Thomas, and Mr. Thompson) 
  introduced the following joint resolution; which was read twice and 
               referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION

 
  Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to 
       require two-thirds majorities for bills increasing taxes.

    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled (two-thirds of each House 
concurring therein), That the following article is proposed as an 
amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which shall be 
valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when 
ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States 
within seven years after the date of its submission by the Congress:

                              ``Article--

    ``Section 1. Any bill to levy a new tax or increase the rate or 
base of any tax may pass only by a two-thirds majority of the whole 
number of each House of Congress.
    ``Section 2. The Congress may waive section 1 when a declaration of 
war is in effect. The Congress may also waive section 1 when the United 
States is engaged in military conflict which causes an imminent and 
serious threat to national security and is so declared by a joint 
resolution, adopted by a majority of the whole number of each House, 
which becomes law. Any provision of law which would, standing alone, be 
subject to section 1 but for this section and which becomes law 
pursuant to such a waiver shall be effective for not longer than 2 
years.
    ``Section 3. All votes taken by the House of Representatives or the 
Senate under this article shall be determined by yeas and nays and the 
names of persons voting for and against shall be entered on the Journal 
of each House respectively.''.
                                 <all>
```
#### Edgar THOMAS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. The State of SOUTH CAROLINA, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 17-1876

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: September 26, 2017

Decided: September 28, 2017

Edgar Thomas, Appellant Pro Se.

Before NIEMEYER and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Edgar Thomas appeals the district court’s order adopting the recommendation of the magistrate judge to dismiss Thomas’ civil action without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, and its order denying Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) relief. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. *Thomas v. South Carolina,*No. 3:17-cv-01345-CMC (D.S.C. June 27 & July 19, 2017); *see also Robinson v. Wix Filtration Corp.,*599 F.3d 403, 407 (4th Cir. 2010) (reviewing Rule 59(e) denial for abuse- of discretion). We dispense with oral argu*790ment because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*AFFIRMED*