alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### BISCHOFF v. ENGEL.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

July, 1896.)

Action by Fritz 0. Bischoff against Jacob Engel.

No opinion. Motion denied, with leave to renew upon the next motion day if papers are not filed, printed, and served before August 20th. See 41 N. Y. Supp. 815.
GMAC Mortgage Corporation
100 Witmer Road
P.O. Box 963
Horsham, PA 19044-0963

                                                                      (logo)GMAC
                                                                        MORTGAGE

February 28, 1997







As of and for the year ended  December  31,  1996,  except as  described  in the
attached  appendix,  GMAC  Mortgage  Corporation  has  complied in all  material
respects with the minimum servicing  standards set forth in the Mortgage Bankers
Association of America's Uniform Single Attestation  Program (USAP) for Mortgage
Bankers. As of and for this same period, GMAC Mortgage Corporation had in effect
a fidelity bond and errors and omissions policy in the amount of $60,000,000.


/s/Edward D. Hughes
Edward D. Hughes
Senior Vice President
Servicing Administration




                                    APPENDIX



Management's  assertions  are modified by the following  items which are derived
from USAP to  standards  consistent  with Company  policy,  or were noted in the
audit  of   management's   assertions  by  our  independent   certified   public
accountants.



- The company  completes  the  overwhelming  majority  (although not all) of its
reconciliations  in  accordance  with USAP  procedure I.1 (subpoint  2).  During
1996,  over 95% of all  reconciliations  were  completed  within  45 days of the
related cutoff date.

- The company  modifies USAP  procedure I.1 (subpoint 4) to be consistent  with
our practice of delaying reconciling item resolution beyond ninety days of their
original  identification,  if certain prudent criteria are met. If a reconciling
item is  being  pursued  with  another  party,  and has  received  the  assigned
manager's  concurrence as a valid  outstanding  item, it is not cleared from the
reconciliation until the amount is resolved with the applicable party.



- GMAC Mortgage  contacts  delinquent  customers at various intervals during the
month.  Individual  contact with all delinquent  customers may not fall strictly
within the  timeframes  published  in  investor  guidelines,  however,  required
contacts  are  initiated  by  each  month  end  and  continued  as   appropriate
thereafter.  The  majority of contacts  and the  overall  process of  initiating
contact  with   delinquent   customers  does  generally  meet  stated   investor
timeframes.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-mos
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              Dec-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                   Dec-31-1999
<CASH>                                         1,405,675
<SECURITIES>                                   000
<RECEIVABLES>                                  50,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                   000
<INVENTORY>                                    000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               3,272,489
<PP&E>                                         000
<DEPRECIATION>                                 000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 4,728,164
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          1,931,222
<BONDS>                                        000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          000
<PREFERRED>                                    000
<COMMON>                                       000
<OTHER-SE>                                     2,796,942
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   4,728,164
<SALES>                                        000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               6,289,080
<CGS>                                          000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               4,465,612
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               000
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                1,823,468
<INCOME-TAX>                                   000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            1,823,468
<DISCONTINUED>                                 000
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                000
<CHANGES>                                      000
<NET-INCOME>                                   1,823,468
<EPS-BASIC>                                    0.19
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  0.19


</TABLE>
1 – ORDER

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

GREGORY JOHN ROJAS, 

Petitioner, No. 3:15-cv-01419-SU

v. 

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ORDER

et al.,

 Respondents.

HERNÁNDEZ, District Judge:

Magistrate Judge Sullivan issued a Findings and Recommendation [14] on April 20, 

2016, in which she recommends that this Court deny Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas 

Corpus. The matter is now before me pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Federal Rule of 

Civil Procedure 72(b).

Because no objections to the Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendation were 

timely filed, I am relieved of my obligation to review the record de novo. United States v. 

Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc); see also United States v. Bernhardt, 

840 F.2d 1441, 1444 (9th Cir. 1988) (de novo review required only for portions of Magistrate 

Case 3:15-cv-01419-SU Document 20 Filed 06/20/16 Page 1 of 2
2 – ORDER 

Judge's report to which objections have been made). Having reviewed the legal principles de 

novo, I find no error. 

CONCLUSION 

The Court adopts Magistrate Judge Sullivan’s Findings & Recommendation [14], and 

therefore, Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus [1] is denied.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED this 20th day of _________________________, 2016.

________________________________________________

MARCO A. HERNÁNDEZ 

United States District Judge

Case 3:15-cv-01419-SU Document 20 Filed 06/20/16 Page 2 of 2
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED  PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the report of Impac Mortgage Holdings, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period
ending September 30, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), each of the undersigned, in the capacities and on the dates indicated below,
hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to his knowledge:



/s/ JOSEPH R. TOMKINSON Joseph R. Tomkinson Chief Executive OfficerNovember 9, 2009/s/ TODD R. TAYLOR Todd R. Taylor Chief Financial OfficerNovember 9, 2009


A
signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Impac Mortgage Holdings, Inc. and will be retained by Impac Mortgage
Holdings, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

---



QuickLinks
TWG

FY2015‐16 BIENNIAL BUDGET DISCU

Objective: remind ourselves about the b

budget processPrepare initial input to BOR and GCMRC o

development of the 2015/16 biennial bu

and workplan
General Budget Process

• GCDAMP Budget Process paper May 6, 20

as amended March 20, 2011 (Table 1), defroles and objectives and timeline

• Follow rules for year 1 of budget process (

slide)

• Policy issues to AMWG ↔Technical issues 

for consideration and response
General Budget Process

DOI Budget Direction

JANUARY BOXAnnual reports meetdays) followed by 1‐dmeeting to review buprovide guidance to G

and BOR. TWG reviewprogress in addressinInformation Needs anresearch accomplishm
Budget Timeline – 40,000 ft lev

• Annual Reporting Meeting (January 28‐30

– Objective: initial list of budget concerns/issue

for consideration in development of budget

• April TWG: initial budget review (tables), i

person?

• AMWG April – ?• Revised draft budget & workplan provided 

• BAHG & SA review May/June• TWG review and recommendation June (in

person)
Next Steps: 2015/16

• January objective: budget ideas/concer

GCRMC/BOR (maybe via BAHG if we ru

time)

• Budget issues from SCAHG report

• Budget issues presented from ad hocs

• New issues from TWG members today
Ad Hocs

• SCAHG: develop agendas, general direction• BAHG: review budget, make recommendations 

• AHAHG: recommendations to BAHG on admin• SEAHG: recommendations to TWG on socioeco

• CRAHG: recommendations to TWG/BAHG on c

related budget and workplan issues
Ad Hocs

• CRAHG:

– Charge: The Cultural Resources Ad Hoc (CRAHG) will review t

budget recommendation on cultural program issues and mak

recommendations to the BAHG. Additionally, the CRAHG will 

treatment plan, the cultural properties monitoring program, 

recommendations to TWG.

– TWG request: ?
(logo)ERNST & YOUNG LLP       2400 Pauahi Tower         Phone: 808.531.2037
                              1001 Bishop Street
                              Honolulu, Hawaii 96813-3429



                        Independent Accountants' Report


Audit Committee
Bank of Hawaii


We have examined management's  assertion that Bank of Hawaii (the Bank) complied
with  the  minimum  servicing  standards  set  forth  in  the  Mortgage  Bankers
Association of America's UNIFORM SINGLE ATTESTATION PROGRAM FOR MORTGAGE BANKERS
(USAP)  during the year ended  December 31, 1996,  included in the  accompanying
report titled REPORT OF  MANAGEMENT.  Management is  responsible  for the Bank's
compliance with those requirements.  Our responsibility is to express an opinion
on management's assertion about the Bank's compliance based on our examination.


Our  examination  was  made in  accordance  with  standards  established  by the
American  Institute of Certified Public Accountants and,  accordingly,  included
examining,  on a test basis,  evidence  about the Bank's  compliance  with those
requirements and performing such other procedures as we considered  necessary in
the circumstances.  We believe that our examination  provides a reasonable basis
for our opinion.  Our examination does not provide a legal  determination on the
Bank's compliance with specified requirements.


In  our  opinion,  management's  assertion  that  the  Bank  complied  with  the
aforementioned  requirements  during the year ended  December 31, 1996 is fairly
stated, in all material respects.

                                                            /s/Ernst & Young LLP

February 15, 1997



      Ernst & Young LLP is a member of Ernst & Young International, Ltd.
EXHIBIT 21





SRS LABS, INC.





SUBSIDIARIES





Name

Jurisdiction of Incorporation

OwnershipSRSWOWcast.com, Inc.

Delaware

SRS Labs, Inc.  87% DirectValenceTech Limited

Bermuda

SRS Labs, Inc.  100% DirectValence Technology Limited (Valence  H.K.)

Hong Kong

ValenceTech Limited  100% DirectValence Semiconductor Design Limited

Hong Kong

Valence H.K.  100% DirectASP Microelectronics Limited (ASP)

Hong Kong

Valence H.K.  100% DirectLEC Electronic Components Limited (LEC)

Hong Kong

Valence H.K.  100% DirectVSD Electronics Limited

Hong Kong

Valence H.K.  100% DirectLEC Microelectronics Limited

Hong Kong

ASP  100% DirectLEC Electronics Limited

Hong Kong

LEC  100% Direct
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.
 Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation
 *Notice is hereby given*
                     that the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC or Receiver), as Receiver for the institutions listed below, intends to terminate its receivership for said institutions. Notice of Intent To Terminate Receiverships
Fund
Receivership name
City
State
Date of
                             appointment 
                             of receiver10023
Downey Savings and Loan, FA
Newport Beach
CA
11/21/200810024
PFF Bank and Trust
Pomona
CA
11/21/200810181
Florida Community Bank
Immokalee
FL
01/29/2010( print page 49533)10217
Tamalpais Bank
San Rafael
CA
04/16/201010312
Darby Bank and Trust Company
Vidalia
GA
11/12/201010524
Seaway Bank and Trust
Chicago
IL
01/27/201710532
Louisa Community Bank
Louisa
KY
10/25/201910537
First City Bank of Florida
Fort Walton Beach
FL
10/16/2020
 The liquidation of the assets for each receivership has been completed. To the extent permitted by available funds and in accordance with law, the Receiver will be making a final dividend payment to proven creditors. Based upon the foregoing, the Receiver has determined that the continued existence of the receiverships will serve no useful purpose. Consequently, notice is given that the receiverships shall be terminated, to be effective no sooner than thirty days after the date of this notice. If any person wishes to comment concerning the termination of any of the receiverships, such comment must be made in writing, identify the receivership to which the comment pertains, and be sent within thirty days of the date of this notice to: Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, Division of Resolutions and Receiverships, Attention: Receivership Oversight Department 34.6, 1601 Bryan Street, Dallas, TX 75201. No comments concerning the termination of the above-mentioned receiverships will be considered which are not sent within this time frame. (Authority: 12 U.S.C. 1819) Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. Dated at Washington, DC, on August 31, 2021. James P. Sheesley, Assistant Executive Secretary.


[FR Doc. 2021-19118 Filed 9-2-21; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6714-01-P
#### Arnot *et al.,*Respondents, v. Bingham *et al.,*Appellants.

*(Supreme Court, General Term, Fourth Department.*

May 2, 1890.)

No opinion. Motion for leave to appeal to the court of appeals denied. See 9 N. Y. Supp. 68.
(17 Misc. Rep. 274)

#### HARRAL v. STERNBERGER et al.

(City Court of New York, General Term.

June 30, 1896.)

Negotiable Instruments—Actions on—Proof of Demand and Notice.

Proof.of an indorser’s promise to pay the note after maturity shows prima facie that notice of nonpayment was given to him.

Appeal from trial term.

Action by William W. Harral, Jr., against Clarence S. Sternberger and others, on a promissory note. From a judgment entered on a verdict in favor of plaintiff, defendant Sternberger appeals. Affirmed.

Argued before VAN WYCE, C. J., and CONLAN and O’DWYER, JJ.

Edwin M. Wight, for appellant.

William Stone, for respondent.

VAN WYCK, C. J.

The appellant was sued as the payee indorser of a promissory note, and the complaint alleged due demand of payment, refusal, and notice thereof to this defendant (appellant). At trial, plaintiff was allowed, against appellant’s objection, to prove an oral promise, made after maturity by appellant, to pay this note; and appellant himself, although denying that he had so promised, stated that, at the time of the conversation which plaintiff con tended made the promise, he was informed by plaintiff that the note had not been presented for payment, nor had it been protested. The appellant, at close of plaintiff’s case, and also after he (defendant) had rested, moved to dismiss, on the ground that there had been no presentment and demand, and no notice of presentment and nonpayment or notice of protest given to appellant. This motion was properly denied, and the case was submitted to the jury, to determine whether appellant had promised to. pay the note after maturity, *354with knowledge that the note had not been presented for payment at maturity, and was then dishonored. The jury, disbelieving the appellant, found for plaintiff, and their -verdict should not be disturbed. The rule is that, as against an indorser, plaintiff must prove demand and notice; but, by proving the indorser’s promise to pay after maturity, this proof is prima facie supplied; and, if the indorser rebuts this proof by showing laches in respect to demand and notice, then the plaintiff makes sufficient rejoinder by showing that the indorser had knowledge of the laches when he promised to pay. The proofs and the jury’s finding bring this case within that rule, Clark v. Tryon (Com. PL) 23 N. Y. Supp. 780.

The judgment and order must be affirmed, with costs. All concur.
Exhibit 4.10


 


NanoVibronix,
Inc.


525
Executive Boulevard


Elmsford,
New York 10523


 


January
29, 2019


 


Investors
listed on signature page hereto


 


Re:
Amendment to Warrant


 


Ladies
and Gentlemen:


 


Reference
is made to (i) those certain Series A Warrants (the “Series A Warrants”) of NanoVibronix, Inc. (the
“Company”) and (ii) those certain Series B Warrants of the Company (the “Series B Warrants”
and together with the Series A Warrants, the “Warrants”).


 


The
Company and the holders of the Warrants desire to (i) extend the expiration date of the Warrants and (ii) amend the exercise price
with respect to Series A Warrants from $3.00 per share to $3.35 per share. Amendments may be made to the Warrants with the consent
of the Company and each holder of the Warrants. By signature and countersignature below, for good and valuable consideration,
the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, the Company and each holder of the Warrants agree to the following:


 


		1)	The
                                         year in the expiration date, “2019,” in the preamble of the Warrants is hereby
                                         amended by deleting the said year and substituting in lieu thereof “2021.”
	 	 	 
		2)	The
                                         exercise price, “$3.00,” in Section 1(b) of the Series A Warrants is hereby
                                         amended by deleting “$3.00” and substituting in lieu thereof “$3.35.”



 


Except
as modified pursuant hereto, no other changes or modifications to the Warrants are intended or implied and in all other respects
the Warrants are hereby specifically ratified, restated and confirmed by all parties hereto as of the effective date hereof. To
the extent of a conflict between the terms of this Letter Agreement and the Warrants, the terms of this Letter Agreement shall
control. The Warrants and this Letter Agreement shall be read and construed as one agreement.


 


Please
return an executed, counter-signed copy of this Letter Agreement to NanoVibronix, Inc., by e-mail to Stephen Brown at stevebrowncpa@gmail.com,
by 11:59 p.m. New York time, on February 3, 2019.


 


[Signature
Page Follows]


 




    	 



    	 



    

 


[Signature
Page to Letter Agreement]


 


	 	Very truly yours, 
	 	 	 
	 	NanoVibronix, Inc.
	 	 	 
	 	By: 	 
	 	Name:	Stephen Brown
	 	Title:	Chief Financial Officer


 


Acknowledged
and Agreed:


 


	Name of Investor:	 	Names of Investors (if held jointly, as tenants in common, or as community property):
	 	 	 	 	 
	By: 	              	 	By: 	             
	Name: 	 	 	Name:	 
	Title: 	 	 	Title:	 


 


	 	By: 	             
	 	Name:	 
	 	Title:
Exhibit
10.44


 








 


March
16, 2020


 


Dr.
WilliamV. Williams


CEO


 


BriaCell
Therapeutics Corporation


Suite
300


BellevueCentre,
235 – 15th Street


West
Vancouver, BC V7T 2X1


 


RE:
Second Extension of Loan Maturity Date


 


Dear
Dr. Williams,


 


Regarding
the Loan Agreements between ClearIt LLC and BriaCell Therapeutics Corporation, dated December 3, 2019, January 27, 2020 and February
20, 2020, ClearIt LLC, without penalty, hereby further extends the maturity dates of each loan from March 20, 2020 to March 26,
2020.


 


Sincerely,


 


/s/
Martin E. Schmieg


 






Martin
E. Schmeig


Chief
Executive Officer


 


11
Togan Way, Marblehead, MA01945 *1 (215) 300-9400 • Email: clearittattoo@gmail.com
# L_2009073EN.01000401.xml

| 19.3.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 73/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.3.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 73/4

---

COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 212/2009

of 18 March 2009

on the issuing of import licences for applications lodged during the first seven days of March 2009 under the tariff quota opened by Regulation (EC) No 1382/2007 for pigmeat

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),

Having regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1382/2007 of 26 November 2007 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 774/94 concerning the import arrangements for pigmeat (2), and in particular Article 5(6) thereof,

Whereas:

| (1) | Regulation (EC) No 1382/2007 opened a tariff quota for imports of pigmeat products. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

Regulation (EC) No 1382/2007 opened a tariff quota for imports of pigmeat products.

| (2) | The applications for import licences lodged during the first seven days of March 2009 for the subperiod 1 April to 30 June 2009 do not cover the total quantity available. The quantities for which applications have not been lodged should therefore be determined and these should be added to the quantity fixed for the following quota subperiod, |
| --- | --- |

(2)

The applications for import licences lodged during the first seven days of March 2009 for the subperiod 1 April to 30 June 2009 do not cover the total quantity available. The quantities for which applications have not been lodged should therefore be determined and these should be added to the quantity fixed for the following quota subperiod,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

The quantities for which import licence applications covered by the quota bearing the serial number 09.4046 have not been lodged under Regulation (EC) No 1382/2007, to be added to the subperiod from 1 July to 30 September 2009, shall be 3 094 000 kg.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on 19 March 2009.

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

Done at Brussels, 18 March 2009.

For the Commission

Jean-Luc DEMARTY

Director-General for Agriculture and Rural Development

---

(1)  
  OJ L 299, 16.11.2007, p. 1

1

(2)  
  OJ L 309, 27.11.2007, p. 28.

2

---