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

115TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. RES. 20 

Recognizing the importance of nonprofit organizations to the economy of 

the United States and expressing support for designation of September 

as ‘‘Nonprofit Organization (NPO) Recognition Month’’. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 3, 2017 

Mr. HASTINGS submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the 

Committee on Oversight and Government Reform 

RESOLUTION 

Recognizing the importance of nonprofit organizations to the 

economy of the United States and expressing support 

for designation of September as ‘‘Nonprofit Organization 

(NPO) Recognition Month’’. 

Whereas more than 1,500,000 nonprofit organizations operate in the United States; 

Whereas the nonprofit sector continues to expand in size and 

scope; 

Whereas nonprofits contribute nearly $1,000,000,000,000 to 

the United States economy annually; 

Whereas nonprofits serve a vital role in facilitating charitable 

giving and social action; 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HRES 20 IH 

Whereas the combined donations and volunteer hours of individuals to nonprofit organizations are valued at hundreds 

of billions of dollars; and 

Whereas September would be an appropriate month to designate as ‘‘Nonprofit Organization (NPO) Recognition 

Month’’: Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That the House of Representatives— 

2 (1) recognizes the importance of nonprofits to 

3 the communities they serve, the issues they support, 

4 and the economy of the United States; and 

5 (2) supports the designation of ‘‘Nonprofit Or6 ganization (NPO) Recognition Month’’. 

Æ 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
#### HISAKO MANASEWITSCH v. BOARD OF REVIEW AND OGDEN FOOD SERVICES, CORP.

May 28, 1987.

Petition for certification denied.
706 A.2d 1109

#### MARY WHITE, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, v. ROBERT WHITE, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

Superior Court of New Jersey Appellate Division

Argued September 25, 1996

Decided October 8, 1996.

Before Judges PRESSLER and HUMPHREYS.

*Peter J. Laemers,*argued the cause for appellant *(Morris, Downing & Sherred,*attorneys; *Peter J. Laemers*and *Cynthia L. Gehring,*on the brief).

*Spencer A. Leeds,*argued the cause for respondent.

PER CURIAM.

The husband in this divorce action appeals the trial judge’s rulings on alimony, child support and distribution of his pension. The wife was awarded $400 a week in alimony. She is to pay the husband $75 a week for the support of their fifteen year old daughter.

The husband contends: (1) the alimony award was grossly excessive and based upon erroneous and unsupported findings of fact; (2) the child support award was insufficient because the judge used the wife’s 1994 income rather than her 1995 income; and (3) in determining the wife’s share of the husband’s pension, the judge should have offset immediately the wife’s future social security benefits.

After careful consideration of the record and the arguments of counsel, we affirm for the reasons well stated by Judge Parker in her written opinions of May 10, 1995 and August 29, 1995, a *140portion of which have been published. *White v. White,*284 *N.J.Super.*300, 664 A.2d 1297 (Ch.Div.1995).

Affirmed.
District Metals Corp.: Exhibit 4.2.3 - Filed by newsfilecorp.com


    

    June 18, 2020

    Viad Royalties AB

    c/o Nordfors Consulting AB 
S:t Eriksgatan 117, plan 4
113 43 Stockholm
Sweden

    Attention: Eric Jensen, General Manager, Exploration

    Dear Sirs:

    Re: Purchase and Sale Agreement

    We refer to the purchase and sale agreement dated February 27, 2020 and that letter agreement dated May 7, 2020 (together, the "Purchase Agreement"), each among District Metals Corp. (on its own behalf, "Buyer Guarantor" and in trust for and on behalf of a wholly-owned subsidiary to be incorporated under the laws of Sweden, "Buyer") and Viad Royalties AB (the "Seller"). All capitalized terms not otherwise defined in this letter agreement (the "Letter Agreement") shall have the meanings ascribed thereto in the Purchase and Sale Agreement.

    The parties hereby agree, for good and valuable consideration the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged as follows:

    1. That pursuant to Section 10.5 of the Purchase and Sale Agreement, both instances of "June 22, 2020" in Section 6.1 of the Purchase and Sale Agreement are deleted and replaced with "June 25, 2020".

    2. The Parties confirm that the Purchase and Sale Agreement, as amended by this Letter Agreement, remains in full force and effect.

    3. From the date hereof, the Purchase and Sale Agreement and this Letter Agreement shall be read together to the extent reasonably possible as though all of the terms of both documents were contained in one instrument.

    4. This Letter Agreement shall enure to the benefit of and be binding upon the Parties hereto and their respective successors and permitted assigns.

    5. This Letter Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the Province of British Columbia and any applicable federal laws of Canada.

    6. This Letter Agreement may be executed in counterparts and evidenced by an electronic copy thereof and all such counterparts or electronic counterparts shall constitute one document.

    If the terms of this Letter Agreement are acceptable, please communicate your acceptance by executing the duplicate copy hereof in the appropriate space below and returning such executed copy to us, prior to 5:00 pm (Vancouver time) on June 19, 2020 at the address set out in the Purchase and Sale Agreement.

    

    - 2 -

    Yours very truly,

    DISTRICT METALS CORP. (on its 
behalf  and in trust for and on behalf of 
Buyer Subco)

    	 Per:	/s/ Garrett Ainsworth	 
	 	Name: Garrett Ainsworth
Title: President, CEO & Director
	 


     

    THE TERMS OF THIS LETTER AGREEMENT are hereby accepted as of the 19th day of June, 2020.

    VIAD ROYALTIES AB

    	Per:	/s/ David M. Cole	 
	 	Name:   David M. Cole
Title: President & CEO
# Space Shuttle Projects

The STS-30 mission launched aboard the Space Shuttle Atlantis on May 4, 1989 at 2:46:59pm (EDT) carrying a crew of five. Aboard were Ronald J. Grabe, pilot; David M. Walker, commander; and mission specialists Norman E. Thagard, Mary L. Cleave, and Mark C. Lee. The primary payload for the mission was the Magellan/Venus Radar mapper spacecraft and attached Inertial Upper Stage (IUS).

                    -  Facebook PinterestX
-  LinkedIn Emailhttps://www.nasa.gov/image-detail/amf-8905788/Copy URL to clipboard>DownloadShareTakenMay 5, 1989ProducerMSFCSize1486x1920pxPIA Number8905788The National Aeronautics and Space Administration
NASA explores the unknown in air and space, innovates for the benefit of humanity, and inspires the world through discovery.
- About NASA's Mission
Join Us- Home
- News & Events
- Multimedia
- NASA+
- Missions
- Humans in Space
- Earth & Climate
- The Solar System
- The Universe
- Science
- Aeronautics
- Technology
- Learning Resources
- About NASA
- NASA en Español
Follow NASA-   
-   
-   
-   
- 
- More NASA Social Accounts
- NASA Newsletters
- Sitemap
- For Media
- Privacy Policy
- FOIA
- No FEAR Act
- Office of the IGBudget & Annual Reports
Agency Financial Reports
Contact NASA
Accessibility
-  									Page Last Updated:								  								Apr 07, 2023								 
-  									Page Editor:								   
-  								Responsible NASA Official:							  								Abigail Bowman
MANDATE

THE STATE OF TEXAS

TO THE 399TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF BEXAR COUNTY, GREETINGS:

Before our Court of Appeals for the Fourth District of Texas on November 19, 2014, the cause upon appeal to 

revise or reverse your judgment between

Ismael Cruz, Appellant(s)

V.

The State of Texas, Appellee(s)

No. 04-13-00629-CR and Tr. Ct. No. 2012CR5658

was determined, and therein our Court of Appeals made its order in these words:

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, the trial court’s 

judgment is AFFIRMED.

WHEREFORE, WE COMMAND YOU to observe the order of our said Court of Appeals for the Fourth 

District of Texas, in this behalf and in all things have the order duly recognized, obeyed, and executed.

Witness the Hon. Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice of the Court of Appeals for the Fourth District of Texas, 

with the seal of the Court affixed and the City of San Antonio on February 17, 2015.

KEITH E. HOTTLE, CLERK

____________________________

Cynthia A. Martinez

Deputy Clerk, Ext. 53853
#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. DOUGLAS E. GRIFFIN.

November 10, 1986.

Petition for certification denied.
| (logo) ncbNational Cooperative Bank   | 2011 Crystal  DriveSuite 8oo Arlington, Virginia 22202 |
|--------------------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------|

 February 26, 2016 RBS Commercial Funding, Inc. as DepositorAttn: Jim Barnard600 Washington Blvd.Stamford, CT 06901 RE: Annual Statement as to Compliance WFRBS 2014 C23 Dear Sir/Madam: In accordance with the Pooling and Servicing Agreement entered into in connection with the issuance of the Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates Series 2014-C23, as an authorized officer of National Cooperative Bank, N.A., formerly NCB, FSB (the “NCB Master Servicer”), I hereby certify pursuant to Section 11.12 thereof that: a. A review of the activities of the NCB Master Servicer during the preceding calendar year (the “Reporting Period”) and of its performance under the Pooling and Servicing Agreement has been made under my supervision. b. To the best of my knowledge, based on these reviews, the NCB Master Servicer has fulfilled all obligations under this agreement in all material respects throughout the Reporting Period. Please note that the annual financial statement will be sent under separate cover on or before March 31, 2016. Best regards,/s/ Karyn MannKaryn MannSenior Vice President, Investor Compliance National Cooperative Bank, N.A.
# U nitedStates C ou rt o f App eal s For th e Firs t C ircu it

No. 08-1048 NEW ENGLAND SURFACES, d/b/a DION DISTRIBUTORS, INC.,

Plaintiff, Appellant,

v . E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY, d/b/a DU PONT,

and PARKSITE, INC., Defendants, Appellees.

ERRATA The opinion of this Court, issued on September 23, 2008, should be amended as follows: On page 1 8 , l i n e s 8 and 9, replace Baybutt Constr. Corp. v. Commercial Union Ins. Co., 455 A.2d 914, 918 (Me. 1983), with Schroeder v. Rynel, Ltd., Inc., 720 A.2d 1164, 1166 (Me. 1998). On page 18, footnote 5, lines 5 through 8, replace "Modern Computer Sys., Inc. v. Modern Banking Sys., Inc., 858 F.2d 1339, 1 3 4 2

- 45 (8th Cir. 1988) (agreement to apply Nebraska law to franchise agreement would not a brogate franchisee's right to protection under Minnesota Franchise Act)" with "Colt Indus., Inc. v. Fidelco Pump & Compressor Corp., 700 F. Supp. 1330, 1333 (D.N.J. 1987) (agreement to apply New York law to franchise agreement did not abrogate franchisee's right to protection under Connecticut and New Jersey Franchise Acts), aff'd, 844 F.2d 117 (3d Cir. 1988)." On page 18, line 13, and on page 19, line 4, replace "forum selection" with "choice of law". On page 18, continued to first line on page 19, delete "state precedent". On page 19, line 1, replace "is" with "has been". On page 19, replace "does Delaware have "a materially greater interest" than Connecticut in whether NES may be terminated without cause?" with "does Connecticut have "a materially greater interest"than Delaware in whether NES may be terminated without cause?"

O n p a g e 1 9 , l i n e s 2 a n d3 , r e p l a c e " P e p e v . G N C F r a n c h ising, Inc., 750 A.2d 1167, 1168 (Conn. Super. Ct. 2000)" with "B & E Juices, Inc. v. Energy Brands, Inc., No. 3:07CV1321, 2007 WL 3124903, at *11 (D.Conn. Oct. 25, 2007)".
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.                  

###### International Trade Commission

          - [USITC SE-10-029]

# AGENCY HOLDING THE MEETING:

United States International Trade Commission.

# TIME AND DATE:

October 22, 2010 at 2 p.m.

# PLACE:

Room 101, 500 E Street, SW., Washington, DC 20436, Telephone: (202) 205-2000.

# STATUS:

Open to the public.

# MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED:

1. Agenda for future meetings: None.

2. Minutes.

3. Ratification List.

4. Inv. Nos. 701-TA-470-471 and 731-TA-1169-1170 (Final) (Certain Coated Paper Suitable for High-Quality Graphics Using Sheet-Fed Presses From China and Indonesia)—briefing and vote. (The Commission is currently scheduled to transmit its determinations and Commissioners' opinions to the Secretary of Commerce on or before November 10, 2010.)

5. Outstanding action jackets:

(1) Document No. GC-10-161 concerning Inv. No. 337-TA-413 (Certain Rare-Earth Magnets and Magnetic Materials and Articles Containing Same).

(2) Document No. GC-10-181 concerning Inv. No. 337-TA-703 (Certain Mobile Telephones and Wireless Communications Devices Featuring Digital Cameras, and Components Thereof).

In accordance with Commission policy, subject matter listed above, not disposed of at the scheduled meeting, may be carried over to the agenda of the following meeting.

 Issued: October 15, 2010.

By order of the Commission.

William R. Bishop,

Hearings and Meetings Coordinator.

[FR Doc. 2010-26423 Filed 10-18-10; 11:15 am]

BILLING CODE 7020-02-P
One Media Distribution Agreement - 6_ABOMP-Executed_Page_1.jpg   One Media Distribution Agreement - 6_ABOMP-Executed_Page_2.jpg   One Media Distribution Agreement - 6_ABOMP-Executed_Page_3.jpg   One Media Distribution Agreement - 6_ABOMP-Executed_Page_4.jpg   One Media Distribution Agreement - 6_ABOMP-Executed_Page_5.jpg   One Media Distribution Agreement - 6_ABOMP-Executed_Page_6.jpg   One Media Distribution Agreement - 6_ABOMP-Executed_Page_7.jpg   One Media Distribution Agreement - 6_ABOMP-Executed_Page_8.jpg   One Media Distribution Agreement - 6_ABOMP-Executed_Page_9.jpg
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 23

- 6190

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,

v. DAVID FRANCIS CLARK, a/k/a PREZ , Defendant

- Appellant

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina , at Greensboro

. Catherine C. Eagles , Chief District Judge. ( 1:19

- cr - 00152

- CCE

- 1 )

Submitted : August 29 , 2023 Decided: September 1, 2023

Before KING, AGEE, and BENJAMIN , Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.
David Francis Clark, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 23-6190 Doc: 13 Filed: 09/01/2023 Pg: 1 of 22 PER CURIAM: David Francis Clark appeals the district court’s order den ying his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A) motion for compassionate release. We review a district court’s denial of a compassionate release motion for abuse of discretion. United States v. Kibble , 992 F.3d 326, 329 (4th Cir. 2021). We have reviewed the record a nd conclude that the court did not abuse its discretion and sufficiently explained the reasons for the denial. See United
States v. High , 997 F.3d 181, 188

- 91 (4th Cir. 2021) (discussing amount of explanation required for denial of compassionate release m otion). Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED USCA4 Appeal: 23-6190 Doc: 13 Filed: 09/01/2023 Pg: 2 of 2
#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. JOSE COLON.

January 20, 1987.

Cross-petition for certification denied.
EXHIBIT 32



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 Annual Report of Pacific Land and Coffee Corporation  (the "Company") on Form  10-K for the  period  ending March 31, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof  (the "Report"),  I, Tyrus C. Young, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934; and



(2) The  information  contained in the Report fairly  presents,  in all material  respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



/s/ Tyrus C. Young

By: Tyrus C. Young

Chief Financial  Officer

July 26, 2010
----

----

**Exhibit      32.2**

**CERTIFICATION      PURSUANT TO**

**18      U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**AS      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

|   | (1) | The                Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)                of                the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;                and |
|--------|-----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | (2) | The                information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material                respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the                Company. |
|--------|-----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|                                                                                                      |   |   |   |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|--------|--------|
| /s/ Josie                Ben Rubi                                                                    |   |   |   |
| Josie                  Ben RubiChief Financial                  OfficerMay                  17, 2007 |   |   |        |
#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. JOHN CHARLES CLAYTON.

February 6, 1987.

Petition for certification denied.
To the extent discovery regulations are being addressed through the elimination 

of initial disclosures and the like, I suggest you include the requirement, similar 

to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(5), for a party to produce a privilege log when it asserts 

a privilege as the basis for withholding otherwise discoverable information. It 

will, as with the elimination of initial disclosures, cut down on needless 

discovery disputes.
Exhibit 35.2

SERVICER COMPLIANCE STATEMENT

In connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Santander Drive Auto Receivables Trust 2014-4 for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016 (the Report), the undersigned, a duly authorized officer of Santander Consumer International Puerto Rico LLC (the Subservicer), does
hereby certify and represent that:



| | 1. | A review of the activities and performance of the Subservicer under the Sale and Servicing Agreement, dated as of September 17, 2014, among Santander Drive Auto Receivables LLC, Santander Consumer USA Inc.,
Santander Drive Auto Receivables Trust 2014-4 and Wells Fargo Bank, National Association (the Agreement) during the period that is the subject of the Report has been made under my supervision.
| | -- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 2. | To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Subservicer has fulfilled all of its obligations under the Agreement in all material respects throughout the period that is the subject of the Report.
| | -- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



SANTANDER CONSUMER INTERNATIONAL
PUERTO RICO LLCBy:

/s/ Troy MillerName:

Troy MillerTitle:

PresidentDate:

March 30, 2017
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE JUNE 30,
1998 BALANCE SHEET AND THE STATEMENT OF INCOME AND RETAINED EARNINGS FOR THE SIX
MONTHS ENDED JUNE 30, 1998 INCLUDED IN THE COMPANY'S JUNE 30, 1998 10-Q AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH 10-Q.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                          99,507
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                4,173,167<F1>
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             4,272,674
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              82,772,674<F2>
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                              0
<COMMON>                                         2,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                  2,726,700
<OTHER-SE>                                  82,043,974<F3>
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                82,772,674
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             2,944,529<F4>
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  132,340
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              2,812,189
<INCOME-TAX>                                  (12,000)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          2,824,189
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 2,824,189
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.77
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.77
<FN>
<F1>Receivables are due from affiliated companies.
<F2>An investment in preferred shares of Chieftain International (U.S.) Inc., at
cost of $78,500,000 has been included in total assets.
<F3>Additional paid-in capital of $14,998,000 (attributable to common stock) and
$60,676,203 (attributable to preferred stock) has been added to retained
earnings of $4,369,771 in calculating other stockholders' equity.
<F4>Revenues are earned exclusively from transactions with parent company.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>