alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 10.18

10
September 2002

TRM
(ATM) LIMITED
Unit 4, Brunel Centre
Newton Road
Crawley
West Sussex
RH10 2US

Dear
Sirs

NOTICE OF ASSIGNMENT

We refer to: (i) the Rental Agreement ref. TRM001 and the Supplemental Agreement thereto (together the "Agreement") made between yourselves and NCR Limited
("NCR"); and (ii) the Security Assignment dated 4 September 2002 ("TRM Assignment") by which you assigned to NCR by way of security all of your rights, title, benefit and interest in and
to the Assigned Property (as defined therein). Copies of the Agreement and the TRM Assignment are annexed hereto for identification.

We
hereby give notice that pursuant to a security assignment dated 5 September 2002 and other arrangements made in connection therewith: (i) NCR has assigned to us by way
of security all of its right, title, benefit and interest in and to the Agreement together with all of its right, title, benefit and interest in and to the Assigned Property assigned to NCR pursuant
to the TRM Assignment (together the "Assigned Rights"); and (ii) the Products (as defined in the Agreement) have been sold to us.

We
hereby give further notice that by an assignment made on 10 September 2002 and arrangements made in connection therewith: (i) all of our rights, title, benefit and
interest in and to the Assigned
Rights have been assigned to CITICAPITAL LTD of CitiCapital House, 45 Clarendon Road, Watford, Hertfordshire WD17 1SZ (the "Owner"); and (ii) the Products have been sold to the Owner.

Notwithstanding
the assignments referred to above: (i) NCR remains liable to you to perform all of its obligations assumed under the Agreement and neither we nor the Owner are to
be under any obligation of any kind whatsoever, and (ii) until you receive directions from the Owner to the contrary, you should continue to pay sums falling due under the Agreement to NCR and
you should deal solely with NCR in relation to the invoicing and payment of rental charges and other sums falling due under the Agreement.

If
you wish to vary or terminate the Agreement, you should contact NCR in the first instance. However, any variation or termination will not be binding unless agreed in writing by the
Owner.

Please
would you acknowledge receipt of this notice of assignment by countersigning and returning the enclosed copy of this letter.



/s/
Timothy Spring
For and on behalf of SUMMIT ASSET MANAGEMENT LIMITED

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

TO:CITICAPITAL LTD.

In
consideration of the payment by you to us on demand of the sum of One Pound, we hereby acknowledge receipt of the Notice of Assignment of which this is a duplicate copy and
acknowledge, confirm and agree as follows:

---

SIGNED

|/s/ P. A. Townsley
For and on behalf of TRM (ATM) LIMITED |  | Date12/9/02
|--------------------------------------------------------- |  | -----------

2

---

QuickLinks
Steve AUSTIN, Jr., Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 3D17-1182

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Opinion filed November 29, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
### Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h
Elizabeth A. Weave r

Maura D. Corriga n Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathaway,
J ustices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_______________________________________ __ Clerk June 23, 2009

l0615 

# Order

June 23, 2009

138527

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 138527 COA: 289418 Genesee CC: 07-021416-FC KORY JAMES GROSS, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application fo r leave to appeal th e February 13, 2009 order of the Court of Appeals is consider ed, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
# Jornal Oficial C 38I/2021

| | ISSN 1977-1010 |
| --- | --- |
| Jornal Oficial
  da União Europeia | C 038I |
| | |
| Edição em língua portuguesa | Comunicações e Informações | 64.° ano3 de fevereiro de 2021 |

ISSN 1977-1010

Jornal Oficial

da União Europeia

C 038I

Edição em língua portuguesa

Comunicações e Informações

64.° ano3 de fevereiro de 2021

---

| Índice | Página |
| --- | --- |
| | V   Avisos |
| | PROCEDIMENTOS ADMINISTRATIVOS |
| | Conselho |
| 2021/C 38 I/01 | Anúncio de anulação | 1 |

Índice

Página

V   Avisos

PROCEDIMENTOS ADMINISTRATIVOS

Conselho

2021/C 38 I/01

Anúncio de anulação

1

---

| PT | |
| --- | --- |

PT

---

V Avisos

PROCEDIMENTOS ADMINISTRATIVOS

Conselho

| 3.2.2021 | PT | Jornal Oficial da União Europeia | CI 38/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.2.2021

PT

Jornal Oficial da União Europeia

CI 38/1

---

ANÚNCIO DE ANULAÇÃO

(2021/C 38 I/01)

A publicação no Jornal Oficial da União Europeia (1) do anúncio de vaga CONS/AD/167/21 é anulada.

---

(1)  JO C 29 A de 26.1.2021, p. 1.

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1995
<CASH>                                          13,644
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   17,104
<ALLOWANCES>                                       534
<INVENTORY>                                     13,553
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                47,185
<PP&E>                                          38,198
<DEPRECIATION>                                  19,961
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  80,887
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           17,556
<BONDS>                                              0
<COMMON>                                        21,506
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                      39,546
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    80,887
<SALES>                                        129,307
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               129,307
<CGS>                                           98,865
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  118,546
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   373
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    25
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 309
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 10,664
<INCOME-TAX>                                     3,799
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              6,865
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     6,865
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.03
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.03
        

</TABLE>
Victoria SAUCEDO, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D16-3120

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed October 13, 2017.

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>             5
<MULTIPLIER>          1,000
       
<S>                                        <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                           3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                 DEC-28-1997
<PERIOD-END>                      MAR-30-1997
<CASH>                                 91,345
<SECURITIES>                                0
<RECEIVABLES>                          46,772
<ALLOWANCES>                                0
<INVENTORY>                            51,658
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                      196,881
<PP&E>                                282,872
<DEPRECIATION>                        143,087
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                        341,949
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                  51,534
<BONDS>                                     0
<COMMON>                                  539
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                       0
<PREFERRED>                                 0
<OTHER-SE>                            290,415
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>          341,949
<SALES>                                88,704
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                       88,704
<CGS>                                  44,767
<TOTAL-COSTS>                          68,402
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                            0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                          0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                        21,216
<INCOME-TAX>                            6,842
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                         0
<DISCONTINUED>                              0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                             0
<CHANGES>                                   0
<NET-INCOME>                           14,374
<EPS-PRIMARY>                            0.50
<EPS-DILUTED>                               0
        


</TABLE>
Michael ALOISE, Jr. v. CAPITAL MANAGEMENT CONSULTANTS, INC., Marwan Mohey-El-Dien, E. Margriet Langenberg, and Barbara Lane Irwin

NO. 2017-C-0784

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

March 9, 2018

Denied.

HUGHES, J., would grant.
#### Karo Nazari VAHANIAN, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 02-73276.

Agency No. [ AXX-XXX-XXX ].

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted May 13, 2004.*

Decided May 18, 2004.

Lea Greenberger, Attorney at Law, Encino, CA, for Petitioner.

Regional Counsel, Western Region Immigration *&*Naturalization Service, Laguna Niguel, CA, District Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Legal Officer, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, James A. Hunolt, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.

Before McKEOWN, BYBEE, Circuit Judges, and BREYER, District Judge.

*

 This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision, without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM**

The petitioner seeks review of a final order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirming an order of deportation and denial of asylum. The BIA concluded that the petitioner has not suffered past *179persecution and is in no danger of future persecution upon his return to Armenia.

The petitioner, formerly a head architect in Armenia, alleges that he would be persecuted upon return to Armenia because of his brief involvement over a decade ago in the national army (HAB), an organization that was loosely affiliated with the Armenian Revolutionary Federation or “Dashnaks.” The record indicated that the Dashnaks are no longer at risk of persecution, and in fact, have been recognized by the Armenian government as a political party. Vahanian’s own expert could present no evidence of persecution of former HAB members since the Soviet Union fell and Armenia gained its independence. On this record, substantial evidence supports the BIA’s finding that the petitioner does not have a reasonable fear of persecution. *See INS v. Elias-Zacarias,*502 U.S. 478, 483-84, 112 S.Ct. 812, 117 L.Ed.2d 38 (1992).

Furthermore, the petitioner, who was never a member of the Dashnaks, cannot point to actual harm he suffered at the hands of the Armenian government. He conceded that for over three decades he has had “no problems” with the Armenian government. Accordingly, he has not made out a claim of past persecution. *See Lim v. INS,*224 F.3d 929, 936 (9th Cir. 2000); *cf. Ruano v. Ashcroft,*301 F.3d 1155, 1162 (9th Cir.2002).

Because substantial evidence supports the BIA’s decision to deny asylum and withholding of deportation, and Vahanian has not presented any evidence that compels a contrary finding, his petition must be denied.

PETITION DENIED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Exhibit 31.2
  1.
    
    I have reviewed this report on Form 10-Q of Veramark Technologies, Inc.
 2.
    
    Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact
or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the
circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period
covered by this report;
 3.
    
    Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in
this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of
operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this
report;
 4.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and
maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and
15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:
 a)
    
    Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure
controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material
information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made
known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which
this quarterly report is being prepared;
 b)
    
    Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internal
control over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to provide
reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the
preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally
accepted accounting principles.
 c)
    
    Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and procedures
and presented in this quarterly report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the
disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this
quarterly report based on such evaluation; and
 d)
    
    Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over
financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter
that has materially affected, or is reasonably like to materially affect, the
registrants internal control over financial reporting.
 5.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent
evaluation of the internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and
the audit committee of registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent
function):
 a)
    
    All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of
internal control over financial reporting, which are reasonably likely to adversely
affect the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial
information; and
 b)
    
    Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who
have a significant role in the registrants internal control over financial reporting.
 Date: November 12, 2010
    By:
    /s/ Ronald C. LundyRonald C. LundyVice President of Finance and CFO
COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA 

Present: Judges Willis, Bray and Overton 

Argued at Norfolk, Virginia 

WILLIAM ERIC BOLTON 

 MEMORANDUM OPINION* BY 

v. Record No. 1900-95-1 JUDGE NELSON T. OVERTON 

 OCTOBER 8, 1996 

COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA 

 FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT NEWS 

 Verbena M. Askew, Judge 

 Paul H. Wilson (Wilson & Wilson, P.C., on 

brief), for appellant. 

 Margaret Ann B. Walker, Assistant Attorney 

General (James S. Gilmore, III, Attorney 

General, on brief), for appellee. 

 William Bolton was found guilty by a jury of voluntary 

manslaughter and use of a firearm in the commission of a felony. 

 Upon motion of the defendant, the trial judge set aside the 

verdict for use of a firearm. She later reiterated and explained 

her ruling to the jury. After a recess, but before the 

sentencing phase had begun, the Commonwealth moved to reinstate 

the guilty verdict. The judge granted that motion. 

 By declaring her decision to set aside the verdict, the 

judge in effect acquitted the defendant. Rule 3A:15(c). Having 

done so, she cannot reinstate a finding of guilt. For this 

reason, we reverse the conviction of use of a firearm in the 

commission of a felony and dismiss the charge. 

 

 *Pursuant to Code § 17-116.010 this opinion is not 

designated for publication. 
- 2 - 

 Reversed and dismissed.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### National Science Foundation

The National Science Board's Committee on National Science and Engineering Policy (SEP), pursuant to NSF regulations (45 CFR part 614), the National Science Foundation Act, as amended (42 U.S.C. 1862n-5), and the Government in the Sunshine Act (5 U.S.C. 552b), hereby gives notice of the scheduling of a teleconference for the transaction of National Science Board business, as follows:

# TIME AND DATE:

Tuesday, January 2, 2018 at 4:30-5:30 p.m. EST.

# PLACE:

                        This meeting will be held by teleconference at the National Science Foundation, 2415 Eisenhower Avenue, Alexandria, VA 22314. An audio link will be available for the public. Members of the public must contact the Board Office to request the public audio link by sending an email to                         *nationalsciencebrd@nsf.gov*                         at least 24 hours prior to the teleconference.                    

# STATUS:

Open.

# MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED:

                        Discussion of Policy Companion Statement to                         *Science and Engineering Indicators 2018.*

# CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION:

                        Point of contact for this meeting is: Mateo Munoz (                        *mmunoz@nsf.gov*).                    

                        Meeting information and updates (time, place, subject matter or status of meeting) may be found at                         *http://www.nsf.gov/​nsb/​meetings/​notices/​.jsp#sunshine.*                         Please refer to the National Science Board website                         *www.nsf.gov/​nsb*                         for additional information.                    

Ann Bushmiller,

Senior Counsel to the National Science Board.

[FR Doc. 2017-28115 Filed 12-22-17; 5:10 pm]

 BILLING CODE 7555-01-P
Andre L. YOUNG, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D17-1895

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed October 18, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                           3,172
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   19,810
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,079
<INVENTORY>                                     20,520
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                48,067
<PP&E>                                          47,441
<DEPRECIATION>                                  25,571
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  81,504
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           18,159
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        17,089
<OTHER-SE>                                      44,199
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    81,504
<SALES>                                         40,616
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                40,616
<CGS>                                           33,140
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   40,224
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                    45
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   154
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  18
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    388
<INCOME-TAX>                                       131
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                257
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       257
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .04
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .04
        

</TABLE>
Marco CAPETILLO, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D16-4872

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed October 18, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Robert HARVEY, Darleen Jacobs Levy and Susan and William Laurendine v. The BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS FOR the ORLEANS LEVEE DISTRICT, PARISH OF ORLEANS

NO. 2018-C-0148

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

March 23, 2018

Denied.

HUGHES, J., would grant.