alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
January 9, 2015 

Donna M. Connolly, Esq. 

Rothstein, Donatelli, Hughes, Dahlstrom, 

Schoenburg & Bienvenu, LLP 

1215 Paseo De Peralto 

P.O. Box 8180 

Santa Fe, NM 87504-8180 

Fax: (505) 982-0307 

Re: Review of loan documents for the Nambe Pueblo Gaming Enterprise 

Dear Ms. Connolly: 

This letter responds to your request of December 18, 2014, on behalf of the First 

National Bank of Santa Fe (Lender) for the National Indian Gaming Commission's 

Office of General Counsel to review a loan agreement between the Lender and the 

Nambe Pueblo Gaming Enterprise. Specifically, you have asked for my opinion whether 

the revised loan agreement affects my October 2, 2014 opinion letter concluding that an 

earlier version of the loan agreement, and other related documents, did not constitute a 

management contract requiring the NlGC Chair's approval under the Indian Gaming 

Regulatory Act The October 2°d letter also found that the agreeements did not violate 

IGRA's requirement that a Tribe have the sole proprietary interest in its gaming 

operation. 

In my review, I considered the following submission (Loan Agreement), which is 

unexecuted, but was represented to be in substantially final form: 

• Construction Loan Agreement, marked at top right as "NPGE Doc. #3, 

Constr Loan, 1-5-15 final". 

The Loan Agreement was revised to correct a provision that erroneously indicated 

that the Guarantor must maintain a specified debt coverage ratio rather than the borrower, 

as the parties understood and intended. The Loan Agreement submitted for review here 

does not change the nature of the original documents identified in my October 2, 2014 

letter, and my opinion stands. 

It is my Wlderstanding that the Loan Agreement is represented to be in 

substantially final fonn with respect to terms affecting this opinion. If the Loan 

Agreement changes in any material way prior to closing, this opinion shall not apply. 

Further, this opinion is limited to the Loan Agreement listed above and does not include 

or extend to any other agreements or documents not submitted for review. 

NEW MAILING ADDRESS: NIGC/ DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 1849 C Slrset NW, Moil Stop # 1621 Washington, DC 20240 Tel: 202.632.7003 Fox: 202 632 7066 

REGIONAl OFFICES Portland, OR; Socromenfo, CA; Phoenix, AZ; St Poul, MN; Tulso O K; kloh io City, OK 

WWW.NIGC.OOV 
Donna M. Connolly 

Re: Review of loan documents for the Nambe Pueblo 

January 9, 2015 

Page2 of2 

I anticipate that this letter will be posted to the NIGC's website. Prior to posting, 

the NIGC will notify you and give you an opportunity to identify and request that 

information subject to the exemptions under FOIA be redacted or withheld. A list of the 

FOIA exemptions may be found at 25 U.S.C. § 552(b). 

If you have any questions, please contact NIGC Staff Attorney Esther Dittler at 

(202) 420-9229. 

Eric Shepard 

Acting General Counsel
Promaras & Ogas, LLP

Kathryn Ogas Kogas@mtowlaw.com
Brenda Tomaras Btomaras@mtowlaw.com

July 9, 2018

Via Electronic Mail

National Indian Gaming Commission
1849 C St. NW

Mailstop #1621

Washington, DC 20240

Re: Comments on Proposed Changes to the Minimum Control Standards,
25 CFR Part 543

Dear Commissioners:

On behalf of the Lytton Rancheria of California (Tribe), we submit these comments
regarding the National Indian Gaming Commission's (NIGC) proposed changes to 25 CFR Part
543, Minimum Internal Control Standards (MICS). The Tribe has no objection to the majority of
the NIGC’s proposed amendments. However, the Tribe is concerned about the proposed
revisions to Section 543.10(e), as discussed below:

Section 543.10(e) - Standards for Reconciliations of Card Room Bank - The NIGC
proposes to amend paragraph (e) to require a supervisory agent independently count both the
main card room bank and table inventory at the end of each shift.

Although the current Section 543.10(e) contains a reference to table inventory, the Tribe
has interpreted this as a reference to the count of the main card room bank. The Tribe agrees that
the main card room bank should be independently counted by a supervisory agent at the end of
each shift; however, requiring the table inventory count also be conducted in this manner is
overly burdensome and unnecessary.

Counting each table inventory is a time consuming process. If a supervisor is required to
conduct this count at the end of every each shift, it will take the supervisor away from his/her
normal duties and oversight functions for an extended period of time. The Tribe believes this
presents an undue burden on the operations of its Casino, particularly when there are equally
effectual methods to mitigate risk. Thus, the Tribe urges the NIGC to change the requirement to
allow for the table inventory count to be conducted by an individual from a separate department.
Such a requirement will achieve the same goal without placing an undue burden on gaming
establishment operations.

“10755-F Scripps Poway Parkway #281@San Diego, Califomia 92131 ——=—=—S*Telephone (858) 554-0550 * Facsimile (858) 777-5765


July 9, 2018
Page 2

The Tribe appreciates the opportunity to submit these comments on the proposed
amendments to the MICS and urges you to consider the Tribe’s concerns.

Sincerely,

Path A. Of

Attorney for the Lytton Rancheria
of California
COURT OF APPEALS

	SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

	FORT WORTH 

	NO. 2-07-387-CV

IN RE PHILIP BYRD	RELATOR

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

	ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

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

	MEMORANDUM OPINION1

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

	The court has considered relator’s petition for writ of habeas corpus and motion for emergency relief and is of the opinion that relief should be denied.  Accordingly, relator’s petition for writ of habeas corpus and motion for emergency relief are both denied.

	Relator shall pay all costs incurred in this proceeding, for which let execution issue.

							PER CURIAM

PANEL B:  LIVINGSTON, WALKER, and MCCOY, JJ.

DELIVERED:  November 12, 2007
Exhibit 10.3
​
Amendment to Appendix 1 – Scope of Employment
​
This document serves as an amendment to the vacation paragraph within your most recent employment agreement appendix. The below paragraph replaces the paragraph related to vacation in its entirety. This amendment does not constitute a new employment agreement or alter any other terms of your employment with Enfusion.
​
In accordance with Enfusion’s Flexible Time Off policy effective July 1, 2022, which may be amended from time to time, Employee is entitled to flexible time off as needed each calendar year. Flexible Time Off will not accrue or vest and therefore will not be paid out at the time of separation of employment. Any unused and unexpired accrued vacation days that Employee earned under the previous policy will expire on December 31, 2022 if unused by the Employee. If the Employee’s Termination Date is on or before December 31, 2022, the Employee will receive a final payment for all vested paid vacation time through their Termination Date. If the Employee’s Termination Date is on or after January 1, 2023, in accordance with Enfusion’s vacation policy, Employee will not be paid out for any expired accrued vacation days. Any employee beginning employment after July 1, 2022 will not accrue vacation days.
​
​
/s/ Bronwen Bastone
​
Bronwen Bastone 
Chief People Officer 
July 01, 2022
​
​
/s/ Bronwen Bastone
​
Bronwen Bastone
EXHIBIT - 99
                                  ------------


                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 Quarterly Report of Realmark Property Investors
Limited Partnership - VI B (the "Partnership") on Form 10-Q for the period
ending March 31, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Joseph M. Jayson, Individual General Partner
and Principal Financial Officer, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the
best of my knowledge:

         (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 results of
               operations of the Partnership.


              May 15, 2003                      /s/ Joseph M. Jayson
              ------------                      ------------------------------
                  Date                          Joseph M. Jayson,
                                                Individual General Partner and
                                                Principal Financial Officer
. . . .

:

-...:.o

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS
AUSTINHomreblo Oanptoa White, Pa@ 

### 3

All moh $*piid tram th8 

### a

s

### prom6 olafa an4 l eeeunto l



### ball frloorr* Salerr Fund unlrrr abhorwise protldea boroln.” 

### Ordlnarlly

bond prmiuu l

### e mwdloard 

### in tb fongoin l

tatute, lr a P

### aid In adranoo eorering 0 period Bi one

r The

l t at at a 

### +z%080be* 3, 1941. Art1010 3699) aa l 

### mn6e6 boouo erreetrhea the 

### CountyTMaouru, 

### County Auditor, 

### County Corioolonrrr ad tbr Gouaty School Suporlabmdent -a0 their orrlalal bond0 ia tie 

### year 19U, arid oktot l

aMorlr;lsig

thr l be** nrwd ofrlola # l 

### to aiarge neoeooory bond prmdaa8 to the oounty rs&$ teotire. Then

### fore, it lo 

### our oplnloat&t 

### tbr oounty 

### oannot logalltreirburoo

the 

### rouat~ottlolrla heretorore

untIened tar bond **pmipru** 

### p0ia**br th**  

### rar **th4 f-0~**  19u.



### The l t a t u t e 

### (Art1010 3699) use l 

### rtarblro w&n ~$4 

### orrioialr ma0 tti0wir orrioirl

bona0 ror tbo yw 19u. Bare l f o rí, 

### them are 

### no root0 berore uo thot 

### *da lndloate 

### t&t 00id l 

### 0wf otrloialo 

### 00hipiiaa dth th6 

### p~otf~i~no

0r eaid otatute ii3 pnaentiry their l pplloatiwo to tk Coml.80io~rot Wart l OaOTO@a by the 

### CountyAobltor 08 80 

### whether fwdr 

### were availablein ths oirlo8rat **Selary** Irand ror paw& ol ouch l

xpenoea, l

trtind; **tbr** kfnd, 

### prob8blol **amnt** 

### or oxpond18~0 l A d 

### th0 AO t I a OO it~

f or l X p e~Oe0

r O r 

### bOAdprdw 

### 80 k paare on, praaoktinrb ma 

### allomd by tha 

### Commlooi~~~era* CouPt. **It will**  **ba aokd**  that **the** l 

### tatutomakar ao prwlnlon for 

### a reiund or relaburoamnt ier bond psw&mo paid by 

### said 00kwt 0rri0m0. 

### Unleomor;& 

### oountx ortioidr oo~plloa 

### ritb the protlrlonr

ot the 8tatutr ao 

### herototorr aentlenti, lb I# our oplanion t&t t&o 

### oountyaamot 

### l*gallrrelmbuxwe tb, 

### oounty orrielalr ror 

### hod pnmlm paid br thorn.. 

### In the r& lo n a oor lY 

### faoto to the mntrer'f, wo l

### ooam tbrt the l owty 

### orrlolalo d d not 

### oemplr with 

### the protlolono of Artiolr 3699, l u p r e .

### If we ore oarroot in thim 

### l mmptloa, pu am reopaot

### fully a&lad **bbat** the 

### $oPint nl~buroo the 

### ooentfoiflela i 

### *arUM now lo&ally NlUIad or l 

### for bond predw paid bl tboa 

### for the year 19c4.
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 Ashland Inc.  (the  "Company") on
Form  10-K/A  for the period  ended  September  30,  2004 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),  each
of the  undersigned,  James J.  O'Brien,  Chief  Executive  Officer  of the
Company,  and J.  Marvin  Quin,  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, to the best of his knowledge, that:

(1)      The Report  fully  complies,  in all material  respects,  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  results  of
         operations  of the Company as of and for the periods  presented in
         the report.

The foregoing  certification  is provided  solely for purposes of complying
with the provisions of Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and is
not intended to be used or relied upon for any other purpose.

 /s/ James J. O'Brien
-----------------------
James J. O'Brien
Chief Executive Officer
March 15, 2005

 /s/ J. Marvin Quin
-----------------------
J. Marvin Quin
Chief Financial Officer
March 15, 2005


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

<PAGE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                           3,394
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  131,809
<ALLOWANCES>                                   (5,798)
<INVENTORY>                                    188,348
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               335,570
<PP&E>                                         151,071
<DEPRECIATION>                                (84,480)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 452,995
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          127,138
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        17,191
<OTHER-SE>                                     184,928
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   452,995
<SALES>                                        574,510
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               574,746
<CGS>                                          418,950
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  418,950
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               137,138
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 1,672
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              12,163
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  4,823
<INCOME-TAX>                                       955
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              3,868
<DISCONTINUED>                                     975
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     4,843
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .29
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .29
        

</TABLE>
Thi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by 9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

The pane lunani m ous l y f i nds thi s c a s e s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on w i thout ** o r a l a r g u m e n t. See F ed . R . A p p . P . 3 4 (a) (2). R A /R es ear ch 07- 70185 NOT F OR P UB L I CA T I ON UN I TE D STATE S COURT OF APPE ALS FOR THE NINTH CI RCUI T S E R AF IN T INO C O- GA R I B AY , P et i t i o n er, v. E R IC H . H O L D E RJ r., A tto rn e y G e n e ra l, R e s p o n d e n t. N o. 07- 70185 A ge nc y N o. A 044- 544- 620 M E M OR AN DU M *

O n Pet i t i on f

orR e vi e w of

an O r de rof

the B o ardo f I m m ig ra tio n A p p e a ls Subm i tt e d N ove m be r17, 2009 ** B efore: A L A R C Ó N , T R O T T , an dT A S H IM A , C i rcuitJu d g es. S er af i n T i no co- G ar i bay, a nat i ve and ci t i ze n o f M exi co, pet i t i on s f

or r evi ew of the B oar d o f

I m m i grat i on A pp ea l s’ ( “B I A ”) orderdeny i ng hi s m ot i on t o re op en ba s e d on i ne f

f e c t i ve a s s i s t anc e of

c ouns e l . O urj ur i s di c t i on i s gove rne d by



# FI L ED NOV 30 2009 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLER K U . S. C O U R T O F AP PE ALSR A /R es ear ch 07- 70185 2 8 U . S. C . § 1252. W e r e vi e w the de ni a lof am ot i on t o r e ope n f

orabus e of d is c r e ti o n . I

tu rr i b a rr i a v . I

NS , 3 2 1 F . 3 d8 8 9 , 8 9 4 (9th C i r. 2 0 0 3 ). W e d en y i n p art an dd is m is s in p art th e p e ti ti o n f o rr e v ie w . T h e B IA d idn o t ab u s e its d is c re tio n in d e n y in g T in o c o -G arib ay ’s m o tio n to r eopen as unt i m el y b ec ause i tw as f i l ed m ore than tw o y ear s a f t erthe B I A ’ s f

i nal o r d e r , se e 8 C . F. R . § 1003. 2( c ) ( 1) , and he f a i l e d t o pr e s e nte vi de nc e tha the e x e r c is e dd il ig e n c e in d is c o v e r in g h is p r io ra tt o rn e y ’ s e rr o r s , s e e i d. a t897 ( e qui t abl e t ol l i ng i s ava i l abl e t o ape t i t i one rw ho e s t abl i s he s de c e pt i on, f r aud, or err o r, an dex erci seddu e d i l i g en ce i n d i sco v eri n g su ch ci rcum st an ces). W e l a c k j ur i s di c t i on t o c ons i de rTi noc o- G ar i bay’ s c ont e nt i ons r e gar di ng the B IA ’s M arc h 2 3 , 2 0 0 4 o rd e r, b e c au s e th is p e titio n fo r r e v ie w is n o t tim e ly a s to th a t o r d e r . Se e Si n gh v . I NS , 3 1 5 F . 3 d1 1 8 6 , 1 1 8 8 (9th C i r. 2 0 0 3 ). P E T IT IO N F O R R E V IE W D E N IE D i n p a rt; D IS M IS S E D i n p a rt.
#### Marc Joseph ARENS, Appellant, v. Robert FLETCHER, Appellee.

No. 05-2170.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted: June 14, 2006.

Filed: June 27, 2006.

Marc Joseph Arens, St. Cloud, MN, pro se.

*707Before MURPHY, BEAM, and C0LL0T0N, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Minnesota inmate Marc Joseph Arens brought a 42 U.S.C. § 1988 action against Ramsey County Sheriff Robert Fletcher, alleging civil rights violations by county jail staff. The district court1 dismissed the action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, and Arens appeals. Having reviewed the record de novo, *see Cooper v. Schriro,*189 F.3d 781, 783 (8th Cir.1999) (per curiam), we conclude dismissal was proper. *See Vaughn v. Greene County, Ark.,*438 F.3d 845, 851 (8th Cir.2006) (“[I]t is well settled the doctrine of *respondeat superior*is inapplicable to section 1983 claims”).

Accordingly, we affirm.

1

. The Honorable Richard H. Kyle, United States District Judge for the District of Minnesota, adopting the report and recommendations of the Honorable Arthur J. Boylan, United States Magistrate Judge for the District of Minnesota.
#### Victor Alvarez TEAL v. KING FARMS COMPANY, a Corporation.

Civ. A. No. 19276.

United States District Court E. D. Pennsylvania.

Oct. 26, 1955.

Howard I. Rubin, Techner & Rubin, Philadelphia, Pa., for plaintiff.

Peirce A. Hammond, Jr., Philadelphia, Pa., for defendant.

KIRKPATRICK, Chief Judge.

The plaintiff instituted this action for personal injuries on July 15, 1955. The summons was served on July 28. On September 2, or about two weeks after answer and appearance were due, a default was entered, on the plaintiff’s motion, against the defendant for failure to appear, plead or otherwise defend. On September 14, the defendant moved to set aside the default.

A default, but no judgment, having been entered, the defendant’s motion is governed by the first clause of Fed. Rules Civ.Proc. rule 55(c), 28 U.S.C. which is “For good cause shown the court may set aside an entry of default * The rules evidently make a distinction between what is required to make a good case for setting aside a default and what is required to set aside a judgment. The latter specifies “mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect”. This has been construed to mean that the mistake, inadvertence, or surprise, as well as neglect, must be excusable in order to give the Court the power to set aside the judgment.

 To set aside a default all that need be shown is good cause. There would be no reason for the distinction unless Rule 55(c) intended to commit the matter entirely to the discretion of the Court, to be exercised, of course, within the usual discretionary limits. Thus, I think that inadvertence, even if not strictly “excusable”, may constitute *448good cause, particularly in a case like the present where the plaintiff can suffer no harm from the short delay involved in the default and grave injustice may be done to the defendant.

I am satisfied from the statements of counsel in this case that the defendant’s failure to appear and plead was the result of his counsel’s mistaken impression that he had completed dictating and had mailed a letter in the dictation of which, as a matter of fact, he was interrupted and failed to complete it. I accept his statements as made in entire good faith and will grant the motion to strike off the default.
l?"* ,u.*o$

Miccosukee Tribe of Indians

of Florida

Tribal Gaming Agency

Members

Colley Billie, Chairman

Jasper Nelson, Ass't. Charman

Max Billie, Treasurer

Andrew Bert Sr., Secretary

William M. Osceola, Lawmaker

February 4, 20ll

Ms. Tracie Stevens, Chairwoman

National fndian Gaming Commission

t44t L St. N.W., Suite 9100

Washington, DC 20005

Re: Comments on the Revision of Existing Gaming Regulations

Dear Chairwoman Stevens,

Thank you very much for your efforts to consult with Tribes and

discuss our thoughts and priorities for revising existing gaming

regulations and promulgating new regulations. As you are aware,

it is very important that both tribes and the National Indj-an

Gaming Commission have good working relationships.

The Miccosukee Tribe of Indians of Florida believes that the

National Indian Gaming Commission should strive to ensure that

its rules are fair, realistic, reasonable, and consist.ent with

the goals and purposes of IGRA.

Please find below our suggestions with respect to NIGC's

comprehensive review of gaming regulations.

We believe that updating Part 543 is a priority. A revj-ew of

the regulation demonstrates that it is incomplete, confusing,

and poses serious compliance issues.

The NIGC should reconsider scrapping Part 543, and redrafting

the Class II MICS in a manner more consistent with Part 542,

where paper bingo is separate from the video bingo machines.

P.O. Box 440021, Tamiami Station, Miami, Florida 33144, (305) 223-8380, fax (305) 559-6653

Constitution Approved by the Secretary of the Interior, January 11,1962
Page 2

Continuation:

The NIGC should consider whether this regulation in Part 559

regarding facility license notifications, renewals, and

submissions, is necessary given that tribal governments have

their own process and procedures that are more than sufficient

to meet the concerns underlying facility licensing on their

reservation.

Tribes already have to adhere to EPA regulations and building

codes in their facilities. So not only do we have to conform to

those standards, but now we have to submit these to the NIGC,

for facility licensing?

In conclusion the Miccosukee Tribe of fndians of Florida and the

Miccosukee Tribal Gaming Agency would like to thank you for this

opportunity to provide input into the regulatory review process.

Thank you again for the opportunity, and if you have any

questions, feel free to contact us.

Sincerely,

'ffi

Dennis J. DavJ-s,

Miccosukee Tribal

Director

Gaming Agency