alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 10.8





Exhibit 10.8



Exhibit 4.1




RELEASE, CANCELLATION AND DISCHARGE

OF

LIMITED RECOURSE GUARANTY

OF

FRANKLIN CREDIT MANAGEMENT CORPORATION




KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS:




WHEREAS, FRANKLIN CREDIT MANAGEMENT CORPORATION (“FCMC”), entered into a Limited Recourse
Guaranty dated March 31, 2009 (the “Guaranty”), with THE HUNTINGTON NATIONAL BANK, as
administrative agent (in such capacity, the “Administrative Agent”) for the Lenders (as defined
below), to guarantee the payment of the obligations of Franklin Credit Asset Corporation, Tribeca
Lending Corp. and their Subsidiaries as borrowers (collectively the “Borrowers”, pursuant to (a) a
certain Amended and Restated Credit Agreement by and among the Borrowers, the financial
institutions party thereto from time to time as lenders (each, a “Lender”, and, collectively, the
“Lenders”), and the Administrative Agent, dated as of March 31, 2009, and all amendments,
modifications, and supplements thereto from time to time, and (b) various promissory notes
executed by the Borrowers dated various dates; and




WHEREAS, the Administrative Agent wishes to release, cancel and discharge the Guaranty.



NOW, THEREFORE, for good and valuable consideration, the receipt of which is hereby
acknowledged, the Administrative Agent does hereby release, cancel and discharge Franklin Credit
Management Corporation from all of its duties and obligations to the Administrative Agent and the
Lenders under the Guaranty, and the Guaranty is hereby released, cancelled and discharged.



 


 









 







IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Administrative Agent has caused this instrument to be executed in its
corporate name, by its duly authorized officer as of the 22nd day of September, 2010.



	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	THE HUNTINGTON NATIONAL BANK,

as Administrative Agent	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 

	 	By: 	/s/ David L. Abshier 	 	 
	 

	 	 	Its:	  Authorized Signer	 	 
	 

	 	 	 	 

	 	 






AGREED AND CONSENTED:



FRANKLIN CREDIT HOLDING CORPORATION




	 	 	 	 	 
	By:
	 	/s/ Thomas J. Axon	 	 
	 

	 	/s/  

Thomas J. Axon, President
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-6184

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

DANNY L. BLACKMON,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of North Carolina, at Wilmington. James C. Fox, Senior

District Judge. (7:03-cr-00077-F-1; 7:07-cv-00126-F)

Submitted: April 18, 2008 Decided: April 24, 2008

Before WILKINSON and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Danny L. Blackmon, Appellant Pro Se. George Edward Bell Holding,

United States Attorney. Anne Margaret Hayes, Assistant United

States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina; Alan Fitzgerald Williams,

Major, OFFICE OF THE STAFF JUDGE ADVOCATE, Camp Lejeune, North

Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Danny L. Blackmon seeks to appeal the district court’s

judgment denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion. The

judgment is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues

a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A

certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial

showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C.

§ 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by

demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that any

assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is

debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by

the district court is likewise debatable. Miller-El v. Cockrell,

537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484

(2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have

independently reviewed the record and conclude Blackmon has not

made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of

appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and dismiss

the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and

legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before

the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
exv4w6






Exhibit 4.6




CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS



We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in this Registration Statement on Form F-8 of
our report dated February 24, 2010 (except as to notes 3(d) and 23 which are as of August 27,
2010), relating to the consolidated financial statements of Boralex Inc. (the “Corporation”) as at
and for each of the years ended December 31, 2009 and 2008, which is incorporated by reference in
the Notice of Special Meeting of Unitholders and the Proxy Circular of Boralex Power Income Fund
dated September 27, 2010 (the “Circular”) which forms part of this Registration Statement on Form
F-8. We also consent to the reference to us under the heading “Experts” in the Circular, which
forms part of this Registration Statement on Form F-8. We also consent to the reference to us
under the heading “Interests of Experts” in the Annual Information Form incorporated by reference
in the Circular which forms part of this Registration Statement on Form F-8.




/s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP




Chartered Accountants

Montréal, Québec

September 27 2010
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 104 (Wednesday, May 30, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Page 29337]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-13539]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Cancer Institute; Notice of Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following 
meeting.
    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 
U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Cancer Institute Special Emphasis 
Panel, Improving DNA, RNA and Protein availability in Fixed Tissue.
    Date: June 15, 2001.
    Time: 8 a.m. to 2 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: National Cancer Institute, 6130 Executive Boulevard, 
Conference Room F, Rockville, MD 20852.
    Contact Person: Gerald G. Lovinger, Scientific Review 
Administrator, Grants Review Branch, Division of Extramural 
Activities, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of 
Health, 6116 Executive Boulevard, Room 8101, Rockville, MD 20892-
7405, 301/496-7987.
    Any interested person may file written comments with the 
committee by forwarding the statement to the Contact Person listed 
on this notice. The statement should include the name, address, 
telephone number and when applicable, the business or professional 
affiliation of the interested person.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.392, 
Cancer Construction; 93.393, Cancer Cause and Prevention Research; 
93.394, Cancer Detection and Diagnosis Research; 93.395, Cancer 
Treatment Research; 93.396, Cancer Biology Research; 93.397, Cancer 
Centers Support; 93.398, Cancer Research Manpower; 93.399, Cancer 
Control, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

    Dated: May 23, 2001.
LaVerne Y. Stringfield,
Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 01-13539 Filed 5-29-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-M
EXHIBIT 99.6

CONSENT OF EXPERT

Reference is made to the Annual Report
on Form 40-F (the 40-F) of Ivanhoe Mines Ltd. (the Company) to be filed with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission pursuant to the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

I hereby consent to the use of and reference to my name as a qualified person for the IDOP Technical Report dated
March 29, 2012, under the headings Description of the Business  Qualified Persons and Description of the Business  Oyu Tolgoi Project, and to the use of and reference to my name in Interests of
Experts, (i) in the Companys Annual Information Form for the year ended December 31, 2011, dated March 30, 2012, (ii) in the 40-F and (iii) to the incorporation by reference of such information in the
Companys Form S-8 (333-113048, 333-128205, 333-135595, 333-143550 and 333-160783).



|                       
|-----------------------
|Sincerely,             
|                       
|/s/ Dean David         
|Title: Process Director
|Company: AMEC Limited  

Date: March 30, 2012
#### SCHIMMECK v. CITY OF WINSTON-SALEM

No. 431P98

Case below: 130 N.C.App. 471

Petition by plaintiffs for discretionary review pursuant to G.S. 7A-31 denied 30 December 1998. Justice Wynn recused.
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 11 (Wednesday, January 17, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Page 4039]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-1355]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Land Management

[MT-029-1610-DH CBMP]


Extension of Scoping Period, Montana

AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, Miles City and Billings Field 
Offices, Interior.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The BLM issued a Notice of Intent to Plan in a December 19, 
2000 Federal Register notice. This notice is to inform the public that 
the scoping period has been extended to January 31, 2001.
    BLM is preparing an Oil and Gas Resource Management Plan (RMP) 
Amendment and Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) jointly with the 
State of Montana (State). The planning area for the BLM will be the 
BLM-administered oil and gas estate within the Powder River and 
Billings RMP areas. The planning area for the State will be potential 
coal bed methane development areas around the state. The RMP Amendment 
will be based on the existing statutory requirements and will meet the 
requirements of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA) of 
1976. The RMP Amendment will guide BLM's oil and gas decisions within 
the Powder River and Billings RMP areas and help the State evaluate 
effects of further oil and gas permit applications. The Draft EIS and 
RMP Amendment is scheduled for completion by September 2001. The Final 
EIS and Proposed RMP Amendment is scheduled for March 2002.
    The public has been asked to help BLM and the State identify 
issues, concerns and alternatives. Draft Planning Criteria to help 
guide the effort have also been developed for public comment.

DATES: Any issues, concerns, or alternatives should be submitted to BLM 
on or before January 31, 2001.

ADDRESSES: All submissions should be sent to the following address: 
BLM, Mary Bloom, BLM Project Leader, 111 Garryowen Road, Miles City, 
Montana, 59301.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mary Bloom, BLM Project Leader, (406) 
233-3649.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Supplementary information is described in 
Federal Register Notice of Intent to Plan dated December 19, 2000, 
Volume 65, Number 244, pages 79422-79423.
    The BLM and the State are seeking information from individuals, 
organizations, and agencies that may be affected by the plan. 
Specifically, we request any issues, concerns or alternatives that 
should be addressed in the plan amendment.
    This notice meets the requirements of 40 CFR 1501.7 and 43 CFR 
1610.2(c).

    Dated: January 3, 2001.
Aden L. Seidlitz,
Associate Field Manager.
[FR Doc. 01-1355 Filed 1-16-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-DN-P
#### Roy L. PEARSON, Jr., Appellant v. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, et al., Appellees.

No. 09-7089.

United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit.

May 27, 2010.

Roy L. Pearson, Jr., Washington, DC, pro se.

Holly Michelle Johnson, Assistant, Donna M. Murasky, Esquire, Deputy Solicitor, Todd Sunhwae Kim, Solicitor General, Office of the Attorney General for the District of Columbia, Office of the Solicitor General, Washington, DC, for Appellees.

Before: GINSBURG, HENDERSON and GARLAND, Circuit Judges.

*JUDGMENT*

PER CURIAM.

This appeal was considered upon the briefs and the appendices filed by the parties. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2); D.C.Cir. Rule 34(j). It is

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the order of the district court be affirmed.

The district court correctly concluded Pearson’s testimony before the D.C. Council and private communication with the Council’s staff were not protected by the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. *See Pearson v. District of Columbia,*644 F.Supp.2d 23, 38 (2009). A “public employee speaks without First Amendment protection when he reports conduct that interferes with his job responsibilities.” *Winder v.*Erste, 566 F.3d 209, 215 (D.C.Cir.2009). Pearson did just that. As an Administrative Law Judge, he had a responsibility to “[djecide all cases in an impartial manner,” D.C.Code § 2-1831.09(a)(8), and he reported to the Council that the peer review system was interfering with that responsibility, *see, e.g.,*Compl. ¶ 222 (alleging Pearson told Council his “[d]ecisional independence” was “chilled and frustrated by a secret ... ‘peer review system”).

Nor was Pearson’s lawsuit against his dry cleaner protected speech. That suit did not involve a matter of public concern; as the district court stated, it is more properly “characterized as a personal vendetta against a dry cleaners over a pair of pants.” *Pearson,*644 F.Supp.2d. at 45.

Pearson’s procedural due process claim fails because he was “afforded adequate process.” *Id.*at 47. His substantive due process claim fails because the “threshold for [establishing] a substantive due process violation has not been met.” *Id.*at 49.

Having dismissed Pearson’s federal claims, the district court did not abuse its *35discretion in declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over his claims arising under D.C. law. *See United Mine Workers of Am. v. Gibbs,*383 U.S. 715, 726, 86 S.Ct. 1130, 16 L.Ed.2d 218 (1966). Finally, with regard to Pearson’s argument that on remand the district court judge should re-cuse herself or we should reassign the case, it is clear that “one fully apprised of the surrounding circumstances,” *Cobell v. Norton,*334 F.3d 1128, 1143 (D.C.Cir.2003), could not reasonably question that judge’s impartiality. *See*28 U.S.C. § 455(a).

Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published. The Clerk is directed to withhold issuance of the mandate herein until seven days after resolution of any timely petition for rehearing or petition for rehearing en banc. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 41(b); D.C.Cir. Rule 41.
N OTE : This order is nonprecedential. 

# United States **Court of Appeals**  **for the Federal Circuit**

______________________ DAVID A. TROPP,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v. CONAIR CORPORATION, L.C. INDUSTRIES, LLC , MASTER LOCK COMPANY LLC, SAMSONITE CORPORATION, TRAVELP RO INTERNATIONAL INC., AND TRG ACCESSORIES, LLC , Defendants

- Appellants,

AND BRIGGS & RILEY TRAVELWARE LLC, Defendant

- Appellant,

AND EAGLE CREEK, A DIVIS ION OF VF OUTDOOR, INC., BROOKSTONE COMPANY, INC. , AND BROOKSTONE STORES, I NC., Defendants

- Appellants,

AND DELSEY LUGGAGE INC., Defendant

- Appellant,

AND EBAGS, INC., Defendant

- Appellant,

AND Case: 12-1337 Document: 48 Page: 1 Filed: 07/18/2013DAVID TROPP v. CONAIR CORPORATION 2

MAGELLAN’S INTERNATIONAL TRAVEL CORPORATION, Defendant

- Appellant,

AND TUMI, INC., Defendant

- Appellant,

AND WORDLOCK, INC., Defendant

- Appellant,

AND OUTPAC DESIGNS INC., HP MARKETING CORP. LTD., AND TITAN LUGGAGE USA, Defendants.

______________________

2012

- 1337

______________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York in N o. 08

- CV

- 4446, Judge Eric N. Vitaliano.

______________________

ON MOTION

______________________

Before D YK , P ROST and O’M ALLEY , Circuit Judges

. P ROST , Circuit Judge

. O R D E R
The parties jointly submit a letter, which this court construes as a motion to vacate the district court’s denial of the appellants’ motion for attorneys’ fees. Case: 12-1337 Document: 48 Page: 2 Filed: 07/18/2013DAVID TROPP v. CONAIR CORPORATION 3
This appeal of a denial of attorneys’ fees, along with the underlying merits appeal, Davi d Tropp v. Conair C

orp. , N o. 2011

- 1583, (“Merits Appeal”)

, was stayed pending this court’s decision in Travel Sentry, Inc. v. David Tropp , N os. 2011

- 1023,

- 1367. Shortly after this court’s decision in Travel Sentry , the court decided the Merits Appeal , vacating and remand ing the district court’s judgment. Accordingly, vacatur of the district court’s denial of attorneys’ fees is also warranted

. See Raytheon C o. v. Indigo Systems Corp. , 688 F.3d 1311, 1313 n.1 (Fed. Cir. 2012).
Upon consideration thereof,

I T I S O RDERED T HAT : (1) The motion to vacate is granted.
(2) All parties sh all bear their own costs.

F OR THE C OURT

/s/ Daniel E. O’Toole Daniel E. O’Toole Clerk s25 Case: 12-1337 Document: 48 Page: 3 Filed: 07/18/2013
Case 1:07-cv-05831-WHP Document 5 Filed 08/31/07 Page 1 of 2
Case 1:07-cv-05831-WHP Document 5 Filed 08/31/07 Page 2 of 2
Electronically FiledIntermediate Court of Appeals2960502-DEC-201102:52 PM
**EXHIBIT31.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION**

**PURSUANTTO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT**

 

I, David J. Meyer, Chief Executive Officer of TitanMachinery Inc., certify that:

 

1.                                       I have reviewed this report on Form 10-Qof Titan Machinery Inc.;

 

2                                          Based on my knowledge, this report doesnot contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a materialfact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances underwhich such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period coveredby this report;

 

3.                                       Based on my knowledge, the financialstatements, and other financial information included in this report, fairlypresent in all material respects the financial condition, results of operationsand cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisreport;

 

4.                                       The registrant’s other certifying officerand I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls andprocedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e))for the registrant and have:

 

(a) Designed suchdisclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries,is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during theperiod in which this report is being prepared;

 

(b) Evaluated theeffectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by thisreport based on such evaluation; and

 

(c) Disclosed inthis report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (theregistrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and

 

5.                                       The registrant’s other certifying officerand I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal controlover financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committeeof the registrant’s board of directors:

 

(a) All significantdeficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internalcontrol over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adverselyaffect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and reportfinancial information; and

 

(b) Any fraud,whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have asignificant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.

 

 

Date: September 15, 2008

 

 
|   | /s/ David J. Meyer      |
|--------|-------------------------|
|   | David J. Meyer          |
|   | Chief Executive Officer |

 

----
#### KOONTZ v. DAVIDSON COUNTY BD. OF ADJUST.

No. 401P98

Case below: 130 N.C.App. 479

Motion by respondent (Davidson County Board of Adjustment) for temporary stay allowed 17 September 1998.
AEGIS SEF | 2829 Technology Forest Boulevard, Suite 260 | The Woodlands, Texas 77381

Chapter 1036

Natural Gas Basis Swap - Sonat - Platts Inside FERC

DESCRIPTION

A monthly cash settled swap based upon the mathematical result of subtracting the price of the 

NYMEX Henry Hub Natural Gas futures contract, as defined in Floating Price B, from the monthly 

price published by Platts Inside FERC for the location specified in Floating Price A.

FLOATING PRICE A

The Floating Price for each contract month will be equal to the Platts Inside FERC Sonat

published price for the corresponding contract month.

FLOATING PRICE B

The Floating Price for each contract month will be equal to the NYMEX Henry Hub Natural Gas 

futures contract final settlement price for the corresponding contract month on the last trading 

day for that contract month.

CONTRACT UNIT AND VALUE

The contract unit shall be MMBtus (million British thermal units). Each shall be valued as the

contract quantity multiplied by the settlement price.

LISTING CYCLE

Up to 120 consecutive monthly contract periods.

PRICES AND FLUCTUATIONS

Prices shall be quoted in U.S. dollars and cents per MMBtu. The minimum price fluctuation shall 

be $0.001 per MMBtu. The minimum price increment will be $0.0001. There shall be no 

maximum price fluctuation.

TERMINATION OF TRADING

Posting of transactions shall cease on the last business day prior to the contract month.

FINAL SETTLEMENT

Delivery under the contract shall be by cash settlement. Final settlement, following termination 

of posting for a contract month, will be based on the Floating Price. The final settlement price 

will be the Floating Price calculated for each contract month.
#### Alice Kramer, Respondent, v Phoenix Life Insurance Co. et al., Defendants. Lifemark S.A., Intervenor-Appellant.

Decided April 29, 2010

Certification of a question by the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, pursuant to section 500.27 of the Rules of Practice of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.27), *834accepted and the issues presented are to be considered after briefing and argument.

Concur: Chief Judge Lippman and Judges Ciparick, Graffeo, Read, Smith, Pigott and Jones.