alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
NOTE
  Borrower Borrowers BANK OF AMERICA, N.A. Lender Company Credit Agreement
 Section 2.03(h) Section 2.08(f)




---



##### 



SONIC AUTOMOTIVE, INC.By:
    /s/ DAVID P. COSPERName:
    David P. CosperTitle:
    Vice Chairman and Chief Financial OfficerFAA CONCORD H, INC.
FAA LAS VEGAS H, INC.
FAA POWAY H, INC.
FAA SANTA MONICA V, INC.
FAA SERRAMONTE H, INC.
FAA SERRAMONTE, INC.
FAA STEVENS CREEK, INC.
FRANCISCAN MOTORS, INC.
KRAMER MOTORS INCORPORATED
SAI COLUMBUS MOTORS, LLC
SAI COLUMBUS VWK, LLC
SAI FORT MYERS H, LLC
SAI FORT MYERS VW, LLC
SAI IRONDALE IMPORTS, LLC
SAI MONTGOMERY CH, LLC
SAI NASHVILLE H, LLC
SAI NASHVILLE MOTORS, LLC
SAI OKLAHOMA CITY H, LLC
SAI TULSA N, LLC
SANTA CLARA IMPORTED CARS, INC.
SONIC  2185 CHAPMAN RD., CHATTANOOGA, LLC
SONIC  HARBOR CITY H, INC.
SONIC  SHOTTENKIRK, INC.
SONIC AUTOMOTIVE  9103 E. INDEPENDENCE, NC, LLCBy:
    /s/ DAVID P. COSPERName:
    David P. CosperTitle:
    Vice President and Treasurer




---



##### 



SONIC AUTOMOTIVE 5260 PEACHTREE      INDUSTRIAL BLVD., LLC 
SONIC FREMONT, INC.
SONIC TYSONS CORNER H, INC.
SONIC TYSONS CORNER INFINITI, INC.
SONIC-BUENA PARK H, INC.
SONIC-CALABASAS A, INC.
SONIC-CAPITOL IMPORTS, INC.
SONIC-VOLVO LV, LLC
WINDWARD, INC.By:
    /s/ DAVID P. COSPERName:
    David P. CosperTitle:
    Vice President and TreasurerPHILPOTT MOTORS, LTD.
SONIC  HOUSTON V, L.P.
SONIC  LUTE RILEY, L.P.
SONIC ADVANTAGE PA, L.P.
SONIC HOUSTON JLR, LP
SONIC HOUSTON LR, L.P.
SONIC MOMENTUM JVP, L.P.
SONIC MOMENTUM VWA, L.P.
SONIC-CLEAR LAKE VOLKSWAGEN, L.P.
SONIC-JERSEY VILLAGE VOLKSWAGEN, L.P.By:
    SONIC OF TEXAS, INC.,as Sole General PartnerBy:
    /s/ DAVID P. COSPERName:
    David P. CosperTitle:
    Vice President and Treasurer




---



##### 



LOANS AND PAYMENTS WITH RESPECT THERETO
 Amount ofPrincipal or
    
    OutstandingEnd of
    
    Interest
    
    PrincipalType of
    
    Amount of
    
    Interest
    
    Paid This
    
    Balance
    
    NotationDate
    
    Loan Made
    
    Loan Made
    
    Period
    
    Date
    
    This Date
    
    Made By
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 3490 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

110th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 3490

To amend the Neotropical Migratory Bird Conservation Act to reauthorize 
                                the Act.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           September 15, 2008

 Mr. Cardin (for himself, Mr. Voinovich, Mr. Whitehouse, Mr. Menendez, 
 Mr. Lieberman, Mr. Kerry, Ms. Collins, and Mr. Leahy) introduced the 
 following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on 
                      Environment and Public Works

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend the Neotropical Migratory Bird Conservation Act to reauthorize 
                                the Act.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. REAUTHORIZATION OF NEOTROPICAL MIGRATORY BIRD CONSERVATION 
              ACT.

    Section 10 of the Neotropical Migratory Bird Conservation Act (16 
U.S.C. 6109) is amended to read as follows:

``SEC. 10. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

    ``(a) In General.--There are authorized to be appropriated to carry 
out this Act, to remain available until expended--
            ``(1) $8,000,000 for fiscal year 2010;
            ``(2) $11,000,000 for fiscal year 2011;
            ``(3) $13,000,000 for fiscal year 2012;
            ``(4) $16,000,000 for fiscal year 2013;
            ``(5) $18,000,000 for fiscal year 2014; and
            ``(6) $20,000,000 for fiscal year 2015.
    ``(b) Use of Funds.--Of the amounts made available under subsection 
(a) for each fiscal year, not less than 75 percent shall be expended 
for projects carried out at a location outside of the United States.''.
                                 <all>
```
Exhibit 32.2



CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICERS PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350



In connection with the accompanying Annual Report on Form 10-KSB of American
Access Technologies, Inc. for the year ended December 31, 2004, I, Joseph F. McGuire, Chief Financial Officer, hereby certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of
my knowledge and belief, that:



| | 1. | Such Annual Report on Form 10-KSB for the year ended December 31, 2004, 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 such Annual Report on Form 10-KSB for the year ended December 31, 2004, fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results
of operations of American Access Technologies, Inc.
| | -- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Date: March
21, 2005



|                                                                  
|------------------------------------------------------------------
|/s/ Joseph F. McGuire                                             
|Joseph F. McGuire Chief Financial Officer, Treasurer and Secretary
EXHIBIT 14.1

CODE OF ETHICS

Introduction

This Code of Ethics (the "Code of Ethics") has been adopted by the Board of Directors (the "Board") of Star Buffet, Inc. (the "Company") to promote honest
and ethical conduct, full, fair, accurate, timely and understandable disclosure of information in the Company's periodic and other public reports, and compliance with applicable laws, rules and
regulations by the Company's directors, officers and employees.

Senior Financial Officers

As used in this Code of Ethics, the term Senior Financial Officer means the Company's Chief Executive Officer, Chief Financial Officer, Controller or Principal
Accounting Officer, and any other persons performing similar functions for the Company.

Code of Ethics

In performing his or her duties, each director, officer and employee, including each of the Senior Financial Officers, must:



Waiver or Amendments

Any request for waiver of any provision of this Code of Ethics must be submitted in writing to the Company's Audit Committee. Waivers may only be granted by the
Audit Committee. This Code of Ethics may only be amended by the Board. Any waiver of this Code of Ethics with respect to Senior Financial Officers, and any amendment of this Code of Ethics, will be
promptly disclosed on a Current Report on Form 8-K or any other means approved by the Securities and Exchange Commission.

Compliance and Accountability

The Audit Committee is responsible for establishing and periodically updating the Company's Code of Ethics. It is the Audit Committee's responsibility to report
known material violations of the Code to the Board and to recommend to the Board appropriate action, which may include, but is not limited to, reprimand and/or dismissal.

---



QuickLinks
# Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1162/2013Show full title

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1162/2013 of 7 November 2013 entering a name in the register of protected designations            of origin and protected geographical indications [Puzzone di Moena/Spretz Tzaorì (PDO)]         

        - Previous
        - Next

U.K.

# Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1162/2013                     

# of 7 November 2013

# entering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications [Puzzone di Moena/Spretz                        Tzaorì (PDO)]                     

THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

Having regard to Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 November 2012 on quality                           schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs(1), and in particular Article 52(2) thereof,                        

Whereas:

(1)Pursuant to Article 50(2)(a) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012, Italy’s application to register the name ‘Puzzone di Moena’/‘Spretz                              Tzaorì’ was published in the *Official Journal of the European Union* (2).

(2)As no statement of opposition under Article 51 of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 has been received by the Commission, the name                              ‘Puzzone di Moena’/‘Spretz Tzaorì’ should therefore be entered in the register,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

# Article 1U.K.

The name contained in the Annex to this Regulation is hereby entered in the register.

# Article 2U.K.

This Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the *Official Journal of the European Union*.                  

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

Done at Brussels, 7 November 2013.

*For the Commission, On behalf of the President*,                           

Dacian Cioloș                            

*Member of the Commission*                            

## ANNEXU.K.

Agricultural products intended for human consumption listed in Annex I to the Treaty:

### **Class 1.3.****Cheeses**U.K.

#### ITALYU.K.

Puzzone di Moena/Spretz Tzaorì (PDO)

1

OJ L 343, 14.12.2012, p. 1.                           

2

OJ C 77, 15.3.2013, p. 21.
Deniece SHELTON, individually and on behalf of a class of all persons similarly situated v. DUKE UNIVERSITY HEALTH SYSTEM, INC. d/b/a Raleigh Community Hospital, d/b/a Duke Health Raleigh Hospital, d/b/a Duke University Hospital, d/b/a Duke University Medical Center and d/b/a Durham Regional Hospital.

No. 470P06.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

February 15, 2007.

Gary K. Shipman, William Wright, Wilmington, for Shelton.

John M. Simpson, Frederick Robinson, Stephen M. McNabb, Washington, DC, for Duke Univ. Health Sys., et al.

Prior report: ___ N.C.App. ___, 633 S.E.2d 113.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the conditional petition filed on the 15th day of September 2006 by Defendant in this matter for discretionary review of the decision of the North Carolina Court of Appeals pursuant to G.S. 7A-31, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

"Dismissed as moot by order of the Court in conference, this the 15th day of February 2007."
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 3352 Engrossed in Senate (ES)]

  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
110th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 3352

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
 To temporarily extend the programs under the Higher Education Act of 
                                 1965.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF HIGHER EDUCATION PROGRAMS.

    (a) Extension of Programs.--Section 2(a) of the Higher Education 
Extension Act of 2005 (Public Law 109-81; 20 U.S.C. 1001 note) is 
amended by striking ``July 31, 2008'' and inserting ``August 15, 
2008''.
    (b) Rule of Construction.--Nothing in this section, or in the 
Higher Education Extension Act of 2005 as amended by this Act, shall be 
construed to limit or otherwise alter the authorizations of 
appropriations for, or the durations of, programs contained in the 
amendments made by the Higher Education Reconciliation Act of 2005 
(Public Law 109-171), by the College Cost Reduction and Access Act 
(Public Law 110-84), or by the Ensuring Continued Access to Student 
Loans Act of 2008 (Public Law 110-227) to the provisions of the Higher 
Education Act of 1965 and the Taxpayer-Teacher Protection Act of 2004.
    (c) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) shall 
take effect as if enacted on July 31, 2008.

            Passed the Senate July 28, 2008.

            Attest:

                                                             Secretary.
110th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                                S. 3352

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 To temporarily extend the programs under the Higher Education Act of 
                                 1965.
```
STATE v. JORDAN.

No. COA07-399.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed December 4, 2007.

Certification Date December 27, 2007.

Appeal from Guilford (02CRS103161).

Case reported without published opinion. Vacated.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

 v.

ISRRAEL MILLAN III,

 Defendant - Appellant.

No. 23-615

D.C. No.

2:20-cr-00713-ROS-1

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Arizona

Roslyn O. Silver, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted April 22, 2024**

Before: CALLAHAN, LEE, and FORREST, Circuit Judges.

Isrrael Millan III appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges 

his jury-trial conviction and 87-month sentence for conspiracy, mail and wire 

fraud, and transactional money laundering, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2, 371, 

1341, 1343, and 1957. Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), 

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision 

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

FILED

MAY 1 2024

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 23-615

Millan’s counsel has filed a brief stating that there are no grounds for relief, along 

with a motion to withdraw as counsel of record. We have provided Millan the 

opportunity to file a pro se supplemental brief. No pro se supplemental brief or 

answering brief has been filed. 

Our independent review of the record pursuant to Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 

75, 80 (1988), discloses no arguable grounds for relief on direct appeal. 

However, in light of United States v. Montoya, 82 F.4th 640 (9th Cir. 2023) 

(en banc), which was decided after Millan was sentenced, we vacate the 13

standard conditions of supervised release included in the written judgment and 

remand for the limited purpose of permitting the district court to orally pronounce 

any standard conditions it wishes to impose after giving Millan an opportunity to 

object. See id. at 656. On remand, the district court is further instructed to 

consider Millan’s eligibility for a sentence reduction under Amendment 821 to the 

Guidelines. See U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(a)(1), (d).

Counsel’s motion to withdraw is denied without prejudice to renewal in the 

district court.

AFFIRMED in part; VACATED in part; and REMANDED.
labor and heavy lifting and presented the testimony of another doctor, who

testified that Gomez had pre-existing complaints about pain in her neck, back, arms and legs. This doctor, however, also testified that Gomez's disc injuries were caused by the accident. After considering the evidence, the jury awarded Gomez $0 for damages.

Gomez moved for a new trial based on the jury's manifest disregard of the jury instructions and misconduct by Barrera-Mejia's counsel. The district court found that the jury had disregarded the jury instructions because the jurors could not have found an absence of damages when all three doctors testified that Gomez's disc injuries were caused by the accident. The district court also found that defense counsel improperly challenged Gomez's medical expenses through arguments that appealed solely to the emotions of the jury, and that the objections and admonishments given were insufficient to cure the effect of the improper arguments. The district court granted a new trial, and this appeal followed. The district court may grant a new trial when, among other things, there is Imlisconduct of the jury or prevailing party . . . [or] [m]anifest disregard by the jury of the instructions of the court." NRCP 59(a). We review a district court's decision to grant a motion for a new trial for an abuse of discretion. 

### Edwards Indus., Inc. v. DTE/BTE, Inc., 112 Nev. 1025, 1036, 923 P.2d 569, 576 (1996). In this case, the three doctors who testified unequivocally stated that, based upon their examination of Gomez and review of her pre- and post-accident medical records, Gomez's disc injuries and treatment were caused by the accident. On this record, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its

SUPREME COURT

OF NEVADA 2 (0) 1947A

# Picky? 

# d Pickering Saitta discretion in granting a new trial.' Taylor v Silva, 96 Nev. 738, 740-41, 615 P.2d 970, 971-72 (1980); Shere v. Davis, 95 Nev. 491, 493, 596 P.2d 499, 500 (1979). Accordingly, we affirm the district court's order granting a new trial. It is so ORDERED. 2

cc: Eighth Judicial District Court Dept. 20 Eva Garcia-Mendoza, Settlement Judge Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP/Las Vegas Law Offices of R.S. & Associates Vannah & Vannah Eighth District Court Clerk

iBarrera-Mejia also argued that Gomez was required to prove causation by providing a biomechanical expert's opinion that Gomez's injuries were caused by the accident. A plaintiff in a personal injury action is not required to present a biomechanical expert to prove causation. Rather, causation issues, including the severity of an accident and whether injuries stemmed from the accident are proper factual issues for a jury, Nehls v. Leonard, 97 Nev. 325, 328, 630 P.2d 258, 260 (1981), and a medical doctor may offer an opinion regarding how certain injuries were caused if a proper foundation is laid. See Santos v. Nicolos, 879 N.Y.S.2d 701, 704 (Sup. Ct. 2009); Streight v. Conroy, 566 P.2d 1198, 1200 (Or. 1977).

2 We have considered Barrera-Mejia's other arguments on appeal and conclude that they lack merit.

SUPREME COUFF1

OF NEVADA 3 (0) 1.9.0A
STATE v. Christopher Don STYLES.

No. 442A07.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

November 21, 2007.

William Crumpler, Assistant Attorney General, Michael Bonfoey, District Attorney, for State of NC.

*717The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 21st day of November 2007 by Defendant to Continue oral argument:

"Motion Denied by order of the Court in conference this the 21st day of November 2007."
Billy R. BRITT v. MAY DAVIS GROUP, INC. and Michael Jacobs.

No. 164P07.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

August 23, 2007.

Michael W. Patrick, Chapel Hill, for May Davis Group & Jacobs.

J. William Blue, Jr., Chapel Hill, for Britt.

*599*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 9th day of April 2007 by Defendants in this matter for discretionary review of the decision of the North Carolina Court of Appeals pursuant to G.S. 7A-31, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

"Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 23rd day of August 2007."
# Political and Security Committee Decision EUMM Georgia/1/2014Show full title

Political and Security Committee Decision EUMM Georgia/1/2014 of 19 December 2014 on the appointment of the Head of the European            Union Monitoring Mission in Georgia (EUMM Georgia) (2014/952/EU)         

        - Previous
        - Next

U.K.

# Political and Security Committee Decision EUMM Georgia/1/2014                     

# of 19 December 2014

# on the appointment of the Head of the European Union Monitoring Mission in Georgia (EUMM Georgia)

# (2014/952/EU)

THE POLITICAL AND SECURITY COMMITTEE,

Having regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in particular the third paragraph of Article 38 thereof,

Having regard to Council Decision 2010/452/CFSP of 12 August 2010 on the European Union Monitoring Mission in Georgia, EUMM                           Georgia(1), and in particular Article 10(1) thereof,                        

Whereas:

(1)Pursuant to Decision 2010/452/CFSP, the Political and Security Committee (PSC) is authorised, in accordance with Article 38                              of the Treaty, to take the relevant decisions for the purpose of exercising political control and strategic direction of the                              European Union Monitoring Mission in Georgia (EUMM Georgia), including the decision to appoint a Head of Mission.

(2)On 13 September 2013, the PSC adopted Decision EUMM GEORGIA/1/2013(2) appointing Mr Toivo KLAAR as Head of EUMM Georgia until 14 December 2014.

(3)On 16 December 2014, the Council adopted Decision 2014/915/CFSP(3) extending the mandate of EUMM Georgia from 15 December 2014 until 14 December 2016.

(4)On 16 December 2014, the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy proposed the appointment                              of Mr Kęstutis JANKAUSKAS as Head of EUMM Georgia from 15 December 2014 to 14 December 2015,

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

# Article 1U.K.

Mr Kęstutis JANKAUSKAS is hereby appointed as Head of the European Union Monitoring Mission in Georgia (EUMM Georgia) from 15 December 2014                     to 14 December 2015.                  

# Article 2U.K.

This Decision shall enter into force on the date of its adoption.

It shall apply from 15 December 2014.

Done at Brussels, 19 December 2014.

*For the Political and Security Committee*                            

*The Chairperson*                            

W. Stevens                            

1

OJ L 213, 13.8.2010, p. 43.                           

2

OJ L 251, 21.9.2013, p.12.                           

3

Council Decision 2014/915/CFSP of 16 December 2014 amending Decision 2010/452/CFSP on the European Union Monitoring Mission                              in Georgia, EUMM Georgia (OJ L 360, 17.12.2014, p. 56).
COUNTY OF DURHAM v. AREC 3, LLC, et al.

No. 427P07.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

September 5, 2007.

Curtis Massey, for Worth L. Hill, Sheriff.

Richard Bydee, for AREC 3, LLC.

Marie Inserra, for County of Durham.

Richard Weintraub, for City of Durham.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 4th day of September 2007 by Defendant (AREC 3, LLC) for Extension of Time to Respond to Petition for Writ of Prohibition, Petition for Writ of Certiorari and Petition for Writ of Supersedeas:

> "Motion Allowed. By order of the Court in conference this the 5th day of September 2007."
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA

F OURTH D ISTRICT

DERRICK DEWON THOMAS
, Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA
, Appellee

.

No. 4D 16

- 2985

[ January 31 , 2018 ]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County ; Ernest A. Kollra , Judge; L.T. Case No. 15007763CF10A

.

Carey Haughwout, Public Defender, and Tom Wm. Odom, Assistant Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Mitchell A. Egber, Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

P ER C URIAM

.

Affirmed. See State v. Born

- Suniaga , 219 So. 3d 74 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017).

G ERBER
, C.J., T AYLOR and C ONNER

, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.