alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 10.3 Letter Agreement


Exhibit 10.03




April 6, 2010




Health Enhancement Products, Inc.

7740 E. Evans Rd.  St A101

Scottsdale, AZ 85260

Attn:  Janet Crance, CFO




RE:  Amended and Restated Sublease




Dear Janet:




Reference is made to that certain amended and restated sublease between the undersigned and Health Enhancement Products, Inc. (“Company”), dated April 12, 2006 (“Sublease”).

We have agreed in principle to amend the Sublease effective October 1, 2009, as follows:




·

The Company will no longer occupy those portions of the premises designated Space B and Space C in the Sublease.




·

The square footage occupied by the Company of that portion of the premises designated Space D in the Sublease has been reduced from 5,900 sq. ft. to 2,949 sq. ft.




·

The total space to be occupied by the Company will consist of 4,672 sq. ft. of warehouse space and 4,794 of office space.




·

The monthly rent shall be $18,200, which includes monthly real estate taxes of $1,480.




·

I as landlord will be responsible for taxes, repairs and maintenance; the Company shall reimburse me for 70% of repairs and maintenance, upon submission of proper documentation.  The Company’s portion of real estate taxes (currently $1,480 per mo.) is included in the monthly rent, as noted above.  The annual escalation shall not apply to that portion of the rent constituting real estate taxes, which shall be subject to annual adjustment based on actual taxes payable.




We will work to enter into a Second Amended and Restated Lease which reflects the above terms, as soon as reasonably possible.




Please indicate your agreement with the foregoing by countersigning this letter agreement below where indicated, whereupon this agreement will be deemed to have amended the Sublease between us.  The sublease remains in full force and effect except as amended hereby.










/s/ Howard Baer                    

Accepted and Agreed:

Howard. R. Baer

Health enhancement Products, Inc.  




/s/ Janet Crance                

Janet Crance, CFO
Date 4/11/14 Page of 

POST FOCUS EXPOSURE REPORT 

Summary Page 

Chemical ID: P-13-0864 Reviewer: Cinali/SS 

Endpoints-Assessed Table 

Endpoints/Assessment 

Cycles1

Releases 

Assessed 

in 

NCEM2? 

Reasons for not assessing releases 

No XB 

Testing 

Required 

No 

Hazard 

Concern 

No 

Releases 

Release 

Below 

Acute 

Threshold5

Release 

Below 

Chronic 

Threshold5

Other 

Ingestion 

 Surface water 

 Ground water (landfill) 

 Consumer Use: DtD2

Inhalation 

 Air: incineration (stack) 

 Air: fugitive 

 Consumer Use: CEM3

Dermal 

 Consumer Use: CEM 

Eco 

 Surface water: ADR 

conc and/or PDM4

 Consumer Use: DtD

1

Assessment cycles are endpoint concentrations and dose calculations within the NCEM2 model. 2

Down-the-Drain 

3

Consumer Exposure Model 

4

Probabilistic Dilution Model 

5

The threshold values for assessing endpoints are 1 mg/day for acute doses and 1 mg/year for chronic doses. 

EAB DROP:

EPA SANITIZED Page 1 of 1
| (logo) WELLS

           FARGO | **Commercial  Mortgage Servicing**D1050-084,  8th Floor  401 South Tryon St.  Charlotte, NC 28202  1-800-326-1334

 

  |
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

**ANNUAL STATEMENT OFCOMPLIANCE**

** **

** **

Reference is herebymade to that certain Trust and Servicing Agreement dated as of June 9, 2017, byand among Morgan Stanley Capital I Inc., as Depositor, Wells Fargo Bank,National Association, as Servicer, Aegon USA Realty Advisors, LLC, as SpecialServicer, Wilmington Trust, National Association, as Trustee and Wells FargoBank, National Association, as Certificate Administrator and Custodian withrespect to Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates Series 2017-GM (the"Agreement"). Capitalized terms used herein not otherwise definedshall have the meanings assigned in the Agreement.

 

Pursuant to Section10.8 of the Agreement, I, Leslie Hayton, Managing Director of CommercialMortgage Services do hereby certify that:

 

1.           Areview of the activities of the Master Servicer during the period from January1, 2018 through December 31, 2018 (the “Reporting Period”), and of itsperformance per the Agreement during such period has been made under mysupervision, and

 

2.           To thebest of my knowledge, based on such review, the Master Servicer, has fulfilledall of its obligations under the Agreement in all material respects throughoutthe Reporting Period.

 

 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF,the undersigned has executed this Certificate as of the 28th day of February2019.

 

 

/s/Leslie Hayton

Leslie Hayton 

Managing Director

Wells Fargo Bank

 

 

| Wells Fargo Bank,  N.A. | (logo) Together  we’ll go far |
|-------------------------|-------------------------------------|
Date: 5/15/2015

RE: FAA-2015-1203-0001

Principle Team Qualifications

This document has been written in support of our Section 333 exemption request of April 27, 2015. 

It is a summary of the principle team of HighGround Images, LLC. 

Owner / Flight Director 

 Name: Whitney M. Johnson

 Address: 310 E. Port Au Prince Ln.

	 	 Phoenix, AZ 85022

 Phone: 480-335-9242 

Background: Retired from the FAA as an Air Traffic Controller after 30 years of service. Worked 

as a controller in all three options: ARTCC, AFSS, and ATCT. Last journeymen 

position was in Prescott Arizona ATCT.

During his career Whitney spent several years on staff details in the Airspace & 

Procedures, Training, and Quality Assurance departments. These details required 

the completion of numerous FAA Academy training programs. The result of this 

experience is an in-depth, detailed understanding of ATCT procedures, airspace, 

and a full range of FAR knowledge applicable to sUAS operation. 

Director of Training 

 Name: Sherman E. Pollard

	 	 CFI, CFII, MEI, IGI

	 	 Flight Safety B-200, SimCom C421

	 	 Total Flight Time: 7,000+ Hrs, Multi-engine Time: 1,500 Hrs

	 	 FAA Certificate Number 2793877CFI

 Address: 4117 W. Beryl Ave.

	 	 Phoenix, AZ 85021

 Phone: 602-451-8215 

310 E Port Au Prince Ln Phoenix, Arizona 85022

support@highgroundimages.com
Background: Sherman began his career as an owner of Pacific Flight Aviation, flying private, 

commercial, airline transport. He was responsible for training new pilots and 

advanced training for existing pilots. As a corporate pilot, he flew C421, CE500, 

and CE550 aircraft.

Sherman went on to work as a contract instructor with Lufthansa, conducting 

actual flight and simulator instruction for private and airline transport pilots, and 

assisted students working on their initial, advance, and instructor ratings.

He brings years of knowledge and experience to HighGround Images as our 

Director of Training. 

Chief Pilot 

 Name: Phillip E. Hanley

	 	 Private Pilot - Single Engine Land

	 	 Complex / High Performance

	 	 FAA Certificate Number 3510920

	 	 Second Class Medical - 09/25/2014

 Address: 2636 East Vogel Avenue

	 	 Phoenix, AZ 85028

 Phone: (602) 996-8390

Background: Phillip is a current and active private pilot with 28 years of flying experience. He 

has owned a variety of aircraft over his flying career, and currently owns and 

operates a Beechcraft Bonanza. He has an accident free record and has never 

had a flight violation or suspension of his flying privileges. He has logged over 800 

accident free hours as PIC, and has participated in numerous training and safety 

programs. Routinely operating in and around the Phoenix Sky Harbor TCA, he 

has a solid understanding of airspace rules and limitations. 

Thank you for your consideration.

310 E Port Au Prince Ln Phoenix, Arizona 85022

support@highgroundimages.com
ex10-54.htm


 


Exhibit 10.54







DIRECTOR / OFFICER INDEMNIFICATION












This Director/Officer Indemnification is granted to Ms. Lorraine Breece (“D-O”), an individual residing in the State of Texas and currently serving as Chief Financial Officer of Digital Angel Corporation, as well all as an officer or director of one or more of its affiliates or subsidiaries (“DIGA”).







DIGA shall indemnify and hold harmless D-O to the fullest extent permitted by applicable law against all costs (including reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs), judgments, penalties, fines, amounts paid in settlements, interest, and all other liabilities incurred or paid by D-O in connection with the investigation, defense, prosecution, settlement, or appeal of any threatened, pending, or completed action, suit, or proceeding, whether civil, criminal, administrative, or investigative and to which D-O was or is a party or is threatened to be made a party by reason of the fact that D-O is or was an officer, employee, director or agent of DIGA or its affiliates or subsidiaries, or by reason of anything done or not done by D-O in any such capacity or capacities, provided that the D-O acted in good faith and in a manner D-O reasonably believed to be in or not opposed to the best interests of the DIGA or any of its affiliates or subsidiaries and, with respect to any criminal action or proceeding, had no reasonable cause to believe his/her conduct was unlawful.







DIGA also shall pay any and all expenses (including reasonable attorney’s fees) incurred by D-O as a result of D-O being called as a witness in connection with any matter involving DIGA and/or any of its officers or directors.  Nothing herein shall limit or reduce any rights of indemnification to which D-O might be entitled under the organizational documents of DIGA, its affiliates or subsidiaries, or as allowed by applicable law.  This indemnification shall be governed by Delaware law.







Signed this 6th day of March, 2012.









	 	
DIGITAL ANGEL CORPORATION

	 
	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 
	 	
By: 

	/s/ Patricia Petersen	 
	 	 	Patricia Petersen	 
	 	 	Corporate Secretary	 
	 	 	(pursuant to Board authorization)
Success Framework Checklist

Reflect on the questions below and check the appropriate box for each. For questions to 

which you respond "yes, but needs improvement" or "no“, consult the full Success Framework

for recommended actions and resources that will help you to answer "yes."

Yes Yes, but needs 

improvement No

Define Goals and Priorities

A1. Do you have a defined vision to guide your 

partner network’s goals, objectives, performance 

indicators, and activities?

A2. Do you obtain input from an advisory group to 

inform partner network goals, objectives, 

performance indicators, and activities?

A3. Do you use data to guide partner network goals, 

objectives, performance indicators, and activities?

A4. Do you collaborate with the partner network 

to refine goals, objectives, performance indicators 

and activities?

Expand Organizational 

Capacity

B1. Do you have the necessary types of staff to 

manage the partner network to achieve identified 

goals?

B2. Do you have the right partners in your network 

to implement activities and achieve the defined 

goal?

B3. Do you have secured funding and other 

resources to support the partner network in 

carrying out identified activities, as needed?

Advance Activity 

Implementation

C1. Do you have a defined approach to managing 

and coordinating partners’ activities? 

C2. Do you facilitate communication to advance 

partner network goals and activities?

C3. Do you provide resources and training to equip 

partners with the skills and information needed 

to carry out identified activities?

Evaluate and 

Learn

D1. Do you collect and analyze data to support 

partners’ progress toward shared adult 

vaccination coverage and health equity goals?

D2. Do you use available data to enhance goals and 

activities and/or to update the structure of the 

partner network?
Order entered August 10 , 2015

In The 

## Court of Appeals **Fifth District of Texas at Dallas** No. 05 - 15 - 00945 - CV IN RE SONJA Y. WEBSTER, Relator Original Proceeding from the Probate Court No. 2 Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. PR - 10 - 865 - 2 

### O RDER Before Justices Francis, Myers and Schenck Before the Court is relator’s petition for writ of mandamus. We DENY the petition. We ORDER relator to bear the costs of this original proceeding.

/s/ MOLLY FRANCIS JUSTICE
No. 11-6879.

#### Anthony Steven Aguilar, Petitioner v. United States.

565 U.S. 1043, 132 S. Ct. 597,

181 L. Ed. 2d 438,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 8238.

November 14, 2011.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.
2D Barcode Technology

Paul Robinson 

Deloitte Consulting 

20 

"Reviewed November 2014"
Two-Dimensional (2D) Barcodes
 
 

Barcode Symbology Examples
 

Maximum Alphanumeric Character Capacity 

Linear 

GS1-128 

48 2,335 4,296 

2D 

Quick Read (QR) 

2D 

Data Matrix 
 

Source: GS1 Healthcare US

 

 

 

 

GTIN with embedded NDC 

0 0 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 6 

GS1 

Indicator 

Digit 

GS1 Company Prefix + Item Reference Check Digit 

Position Position 2 – Position 13 

1 

Position 

14 

03 + FDA Labeler Code NDC Product/Package 

Global Trade Item Number (GTIN)
 

• In 2D barcodes, the NDC is embedded in the GTIN. 

Scanned 2D Barcode Data example 

• 01003492815890581713102810U4275AA is the 2D barcode data string 

• GTIN = 00349281589058 

• Expiration Date = 131028 (YYMMDD) 

• Lot # = U4275AA 

• 01, 17 and 10 are GS1 Application Identifiers 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Global Document Type Identifier (GDTI) 

•	 GDTI is a code that identifies a document by type. For instance the VIS for 

influenza and for MMR would have different GDTI codes. 

•	 The GDTI for a specific VIS document will not change, even as new editions 

are published. 

•	 Application Identifiers are bracketed in in the Human Understandable 

Interpretation. The parentheses are not part of the data and are not encoded 

in the barcode 

GDTI Structure for VIS 

GS1 Company Prefix + Document Type + Check digit Edition date 

11 then (YYMMDD) 

(253) 0 8 8 6 9 8 3 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 0 6 

AI GDTI (13 char) 

GS1 Application 

Identifier (AI) for 

GDTI 

Serial Component 
 

Examples of 2D Barcode Scanning Products 

2D Barcode Scanner Considerations
 

AAP Guidance for Practitioners 

http://www2.aap.org/immunization/pediatricians/BarcodingClinicianGuidance.doc 
 

GS1 Data Matrix References
 

GS1 Implementation Resources website 

http://www.gs1us.org/industries/healthcare/tools-and-resources/implementation-resources 
2D Barcode Immunization-Based Applications 

Source: GS1 Healthcare US 

Source: GlaxoSmithKline 
2D Barcode Immunization-Based Applications 

Source: GS1 Healthcare US 

Source: GlaxoSmithKline 

http://hello.w0r1d.net/ 
Questions?
Monthly EPA Calculation for Class I Milk (Clause 52.216-9032)

Based on USDA Announcement of Advanced Prices and Pricing Factors

Effective Date: August 2, 2015

(1) Adjusting Price

Base Skim Milk Price for Class I $9.13 CWT 0.965 $8.8105 

Advanced Butterfat Pricing Factor $2.1332 LB 3.5 $7.4662 

Class I Price $16.2767 

(2) Base Price

Base Skim Milk Price for Class I $9.47 CWT 0.965 $9.1386 

Advanced Butterfat Pricing Factor $2.1115 LB 3.5 $7.3903 

Class I Price $16.5288 

(3) Change from Base Price per CWT ($0.2522)

(4) Price change per gallon ($0.0217)

(Line (3) divide by 11.63 gallons/cwt)

(5) Price change per half gallon ($0.0108)

Price change per quart ($0.0054)

Price change per pint ($0.0027)

Price change per 12-oz pg. ($0.0020)

Price change per 1/3 qt. (10-oz) ($0.0016)

Price change per half pint ($0.0014)

(6) Price adjustment per gallon ($0.02)

Price adjustment per half gallon ($0.01)

Price adjustment per quart ($0.01)

Price adjustment per pint ($0.00)

Price change per 12-oz pg. ($0.00)

Price adjustment per 1/3 qt. (10-oz) ($0.00)

Price adjustment per half pint ($0.00)

**No price adjustment is required if the price change per-gallon, in either direction,

is not equal to or greater than +/-$0.0100 (See paragraph (f)(1) of the clause). 

NOTE: Numbers in brackets are negative or decreases, all others are 

positives or increases.
#### Snyder, Appellant, *v.*Pennsylvania Railroad Company.

Argued October 14, 1953.

Before Steen, C. J., Steaene, Jones, Bell, Chidsey, Musmanno and Aenold, JJ.

*314
      *J. Harry*Pershing, with him *Audie B. Snyder,*appellant, in propria persona.

*Bruce R. Martin*and *Dalzell, Pringle, Bredin & Man-tin,*for appellee, were not heard.

November 9, 1953:

Opinion

Per Curiam,

This action in trespass was brought to recover damages for personal injuries sustained by plaintiff when alighting from a train on which she had been a passenger. She claimed that the train stopped with the rear vestibule of her car some distance from the station platform and that the surface of the ground there was rough and covered with snow. At the trial she testified that one of the trainmen assured her that he would assist her in alighting, but, as she stepped down, he failed properly to do so and she fell and sprained her anlde. Defendant produced evidence that the trainman warned plaintiff not to alight from the rear platform of the car because the steps there were too high from the ground whereas the front vestibule was opposite the paved platform; however, as she paid no attention to his admonition, he told her to be careful and he tried to help her.

The case was submitted to the jury in a proper and adequate charge to which only a general exception was taken. There is no ground for plaintiff’s complaint that the court over-emphasized defendant’s case or *315minimized her own. The jury found for defendant and the court refused plaintiff’s motion for a new trial.

Plaintiff urges that the court erred in admitting testimony of a conversation between two of defendant’s trainmen in her presence in which they recited how the accident happened and what was said to and by plaintiff at the time. However, she herself had testified to that conversation and defendant was therefore justified in presenting its own version in contradiction of hers; moreover the testimony in question was introduced without any objection on the part of her counsel.

More than two years after the trial plaintiff petitioned the court to correct alleged errors in the record of the testimony and the charge of the court. This was an unreasonable request after such a lapse of time for it was then obviously impossible for the court to pass on the accuracy of the testimony as transcribed; moreover, the court pointed out that most of the errors alleged were of no importance to the issues raised in the trial.

There being no merit in any of plaintiff’s contentions the court properly refused her motion for a new trial.

Judgment affirmed.
No. 99-10181 - 1 -

* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 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 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 99-10181 Summary Calendar USDC No. 3:98-CV-2651-T

SAMUEL LEE JONES, Petitioner-Appellant,

versus GARY L. JOHNSON, DIRECTOR, TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE, INSTITUTIONAL DIVISION, Respondent-Appellee.

--------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas

--------------------- March 22, 2000 Before JOLLY, DAVIS and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Samuel Lee Jones, Texas prisoner # 682025, appeals the district court’s dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition as time-barred. This court granted a certificate of appealability on in the issue of whether the limitations period in 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d) should be equitably tolled based on Jones’ assertion that his prison law library did not receive a copy of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA), whichNo. 99-10181 - 2 - included the one-year limitations provision for filing for relief under § 2254, until March 10, 1997, and that he did not receive notice of the AEDPA’s limitations period until late August or early September of 1997 because it first was circulated only to inmates in administrative segregation. In light of this court’s decision in Felder v. Johnson , 2000 WL 144178 (5th Cir. Feb. 9, 2000) (No. 98-21050), this argument is without merit. Therefore, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
AFFIRMED.
No. 11-6818.

#### Lavell Bone, Petitioner v. United States.

565 U.S. 1021, 132 S. Ct. 568,

181 L. Ed. 2d 409,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 8012.

November 7, 2011.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit denied.

Same case below, 433 Fed. Appx. 831.
No. 11-6704.

#### James Lewis Cole, Petitioner v. Keith W. Davis, Warden.

565 U.S. 1068, 132 S. Ct. 779,

181 L. Ed. 2d 499,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 8575.

November 28, 2011.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied.

Same case below, 435 Fed. Appx. 280.
EXHIBIT 99.1
                                  CERTIFICATION

                       Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
                             As Adopted Pursuant to
                  Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002


     Pursuant to 18 U.S.C.  Section 1350, as adopted  pursuant to Section 906 of
the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002, and in connection with the quarterly report on
Form  10-QSB of State of  Franklin  Bancshares,  Inc.  (the  "Company")  for the
quarter  ended  March  31,  2003,  as filed  with the  Securities  and  Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the undersigned, Randal R. Greene,
President of the Company,  hereby  certifies  that (1) the Report fully complies
with the  requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities  Exchange Act
of 1934, and (2) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material  respects,  the  financial  condition  and results of operations of the
Company.

     This Certification is signed on May 13, 2003.




                                            /s/ Randal R. Greene
                                            ------------------------------------
                                            Randal R. Greene, President
No. 11-6599.

#### Greg Givens, Petitioner v. William Criswell, et al.

565 U.S. 1067, 132 S. Ct. 775,

181 L. Ed. 2d 497,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 8501.

November 28, 2011.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied.

Same case below, 425 Fed. Appx. 236.
No. D-2588.

#### In the Matter of Disbarment of David Robert Osborne.

565 U.S. 974, 132 S. Ct. 545,

181 L. Ed. 2d 391,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 7618.

October 31, 2011.

Disbarment entered.

Former order, 564 U.S. 1015, 131 S. Ct. 3052, 180 L. Ed. 2d 868, 2011 U.S. LEXIS 4568.