alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 10.5

                              SEGUSO HOLDINGS, INC.
                        3405 54th Drive West, Suite G102
                            Bradenton, Florida 34210

                                                               September 1, 2007

                                LETTER AGREEMENT

This Letter Agreement is to memorialize the terms verbally agreed to in
principle by Robert Seguso (individually, "Seguso"), with Seguso Holdings, Inc.,
a New York corporation ("Company").

     Seguso Loan. Seguso hereby agrees to loan the Company the sum of up to
SEVENTY-FOUR THOUSAND ($74,000.00) DOLLARS to cover the expenses of the
Company's Initial Public Offering ("Offering"), on a non-interest bearing basis,
due the earlier of 18 months from the effective date of the Company's
Registration Statement, or until the Company completes a business combination.
If at the time of any business combination the amount due to Seguso exceeds the
proceeds of this Offering, the excess amount will be returned to Seguso as a
condition of the business combination.

This Letter Agreement shall be effective as of the date set forth above.

SEGUSO:                                 COMPANY:


/s/ Robert Seguso                       By: /s/ Robert Seguso
-------------------------------------       ------------------------------------
Robert Seguso                               Robert Seguso, Chief Executive
                                            Officer
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3285 Enrolled Bill (ENR)]

        H.R.3285

                    One Hundred Seventeenth Congress

                                 of the

                        United States of America

                          AT THE SECOND SESSION

           Begun and held at the City of Washington on Monday,
          the third day of January, two thousand and twenty-two

                                 An Act

 
To amend gendered terms in Federal law relating to the President and the 
                           President's spouse.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
    This Act may be cited as the ``21st Century President Act''.
SEC. 2. MODERNIZATION OF TERMS RELATING TO THE PRESIDENT AND THE SPOUSE 
OF A PRESIDENT.
    Section 879(b)(1)(A) of title 18, United States Code, is amended by 
striking ``the wife of a former President during his lifetime, the 
widow of a former President until her death or remarriage'' and 
inserting ``the spouse of a former President during a former 
President's lifetime, the surviving spouse of a former President until 
the surviving spouse's death or remarriage''.

                               Speaker of the House of Representatives.

                            Vice President of the United States and    
                                               President of the Senate.
```
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"Federal Maritime Commission","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.fmc.gov","author_name":"Catie-Megan Moran","author_url":"https:\/\/www.fmc.gov\/author\/cmoranfmc-gov\/","title":"Applicants February 28, 2020","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"la2DMhQeZg\"><a href=\"\/oti\/applicants-february-28-2020\/\">Applicants February 28, 2020<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"\/oti\/applicants-february-28-2020\/embed\/#?secret=la2DMhQeZg\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“Applicants February 28, 2020” — Federal Maritime Commission\" data-secret=\"la2DMhQeZg\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script type=\"text\/javascript\">\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(c,l){\"use strict\";var e=!1,o=!1;if(l.querySelector)if(c.addEventListener)e=!0;if(c.wp=c.wp||{},c.wp.receiveEmbedMessage);else if(c.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if(!t);else if(!(t.secret||t.message||t.value));else if(\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret));else{for(var r,s,a,i=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),n=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=0;o<n.length;o++)n[o].style.display=\"none\";for(o=0;o<i.length;o++)if(r=i[o],e.source!==r.contentWindow);else{if(r.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message){if(1e3<(s=parseInt(t.value,10)))s=1e3;else if(~~s<200)s=200;r.height=s}if(\"link\"===t.message)if(s=l.createElement(\"a\"),a=l.createElement(\"a\"),s.href=r.getAttribute(\"src\"),a.href=t.value,a.host===s.host)if(l.activeElement===r)c.top.location.href=t.value}}},e)c.addEventListener(\"message\",c.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",t,!1),c.addEventListener(\"load\",t,!1);function t(){if(o);else{o=!0;for(var e,t,r,s=-1!==navigator.appVersion.indexOf(\"MSIE 10\"),a=!!navigator.userAgent.match(\/Trident.*rv:11\\.\/),i=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),n=0;n<i.length;n++){if(!(r=(t=i[n]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\")))r=Math.random().toString(36).substr(2,10),t.src+=\"#?secret=\"+r,t.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",r);if(s||a)(e=t.cloneNode(!0)).removeAttribute(\"security\"),t.parentNode.replaceChild(e,t);t.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:r},\"*\")}}}}(window,document);\n<\/script>\n"}
{"id":3048,"date":"2018-12-17T10:50:36","date_gmt":"2018-12-17T14:50:36","guid":{"rendered":"\/?p=3048"},"modified":"2019-05-07T09:59:30","modified_gmt":"2019-05-07T13:59:30","slug":"user-fees-revised-effective-december-19-2018","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"\/user-fees-revised-effective-december-19-2018\/","title":{"rendered":"User Fees Revised Effective December 19, 2018"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>The Federal Maritime Commission is updating the\u00a0<a href=\"\/resources-services\/summary-of-fees\/\">fees it charges for services<\/a>, effective December 19, 2018. This change is pursuant to Office of Management and Budget directives applying to all Executive Branch agencies and was published by the Commission as a\u00a0<a href=\"https:\/\/www2.fmc.gov\/readingroom\/proceeding\/18-08\/\">Final Rule<\/a>.<\/p>\n<p>A list of the fees can be found on the Commission\u2019s website and will be updated on December 19, 2018. Fees can be paid electronically through the Commission\u2019s website or by check.<\/p>\n<p>The Commission last adjusted its fees in 2016.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>The Federal Maritime Commission is updating the\u00a0fees it charges for services, effective December 19, 2018. This change is pursuant to Office of Management and Budget directives applying to all Executive Branch agencies and was published by the Commission as a\u00a0Final Rule. A list of the fees can be found on... <a class=\"read-more\" href=\"\/user-fees-revised-effective-december-19-2018\/\">Read More »<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":7,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[4],"tags":[],"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.fmc.gov\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3048"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.fmc.gov\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.fmc.gov\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.fmc.gov\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/7"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.fmc.gov\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=3048"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/www.fmc.gov\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3048\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":3894,"href":"https:\/\/www.fmc.gov\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3048\/revisions\/3894"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.fmc.gov\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=3048"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.fmc.gov\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=3048"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.fmc.gov\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=3048"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
<PAGE>
                                  
 
                        CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS
 
We  consent to the incorporation by  reference in the Registration Statement and
related Reoffer Prospectus (Form S-8 No. 33-58148) pertaining to the 1991  Stock
Option  Plan of The Warnaco  Group, Inc. of our  report dated February 23, 1995,
with respect  to  the consolidated  financial  statements and  schedule  of  The
Warnaco Group, Inc. included in its Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended
January 4, 1997, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission.
 
                                          ERNST & YOUNG LLP
 
New York, New York
April 1, 1997


<PAGE>
#### Jo C. DAGUE, individually and as Special Administrator of the Estate of Larry L. Dague, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. Kevin DUMESIC, Greg Hazen, Mike Horn, Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department, Defendants—Appellees.

No. 09-16427.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Argued and Submitted Oct. 7, 2010.

Filed Oct. 29, 2010.

Michael V. Cristalli, Robert J. Flummer-felt, Esquire, Cristalli & Saggese, Allen Lichtenstein, Las Vegas, NV, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Peter Maitland Angulo, Esquire, Olson, Cannon, Gormley & Desruisseaux, Las Vegas, NV, for Defendants-Appellees.

Before: RYMER and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges, and LEIGHTON *, District Judge.

*

The Honorable Ronald B. Leighton, United States District Judge for the Western District *219of Washington, sitting by designation.

*219MEMORANDUM **

Appellant Joe Dague appeals the District Court’s denial of reconsideration of the magistrate’s order awarding attorney’s fees to appellees. The standard of review is abuse of discretion. *See United States v. Sumitomo Marine & Fire Ins. Co.,*617 F.2d 1365, 1369 (9th Cir.1980).

Based on the record, the magistrate did not abuse his discretion by holding that the correspondence via mail between the parties did not satisfy the “meet and confer” requirement of Fed.R.Civ.P. 37(a) and D. Nev. R. 26-7(b). *See Shuffle Master, Inc. v. Progressive Games, Inc.,*170 F.R.D. 166, 171 (D.Nev.1996) Upon denying the motion to compel, it was within the magistrate’s discretion to award attorney fees to appellees under Fed.R.Civ.P. 37(a)(5)(B). Thus, the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the reconsideration of the magistrate’s order. The appellee’s request for attorney’s fees on the appeal is denied because the appeal is not frivolous.

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.fmcs.gov","title":"Office of Client Services - Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"KLZnWYWUFH\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.fmcs.gov\/aboutus\/agency-departments\/office-of-field-operations-regional\/office-of-client-services\/\">Office of Client Services<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.fmcs.gov\/aboutus\/agency-departments\/office-of-field-operations-regional\/office-of-client-services\/embed\/#?secret=KLZnWYWUFH\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“Office of Client Services” — Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service\" data-secret=\"KLZnWYWUFH\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script type=\"text\/javascript\">\n\/* <![CDATA[ *\/\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(d,l){\"use strict\";l.querySelector&&d.addEventListener&&\"undefined\"!=typeof URL&&(d.wp=d.wp||{},d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage||(d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if((t||t.secret||t.message||t.value)&&!\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret)){for(var s,r,n,a=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),c=new RegExp(\"^https?:$\",\"i\"),i=0;i<o.length;i++)o[i].style.display=\"none\";for(i=0;i<a.length;i++)s=a[i],e.source===s.contentWindow&&(s.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message?(1e3<(r=parseInt(t.value,10))?r=1e3:~~r<200&&(r=200),s.height=r):\"link\"===t.message&&(r=new URL(s.getAttribute(\"src\")),n=new URL(t.value),c.test(n.protocol))&&n.host===r.host&&l.activeElement===s&&(d.top.location.href=t.value))}},d.addEventListener(\"message\",d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",function(){for(var e,t,s=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),r=0;r<s.length;r++)(t=(e=s[r]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\"))||(t=Math.random().toString(36).substring(2,12),e.src+=\"#?secret=\"+t,e.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",t)),e.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:t},\"*\")},!1)))}(window,document);\n\/* ]]> *\/\n<\/script>\n"}
Exhibit 32.1
 
 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT
TO
 18 U.S.C. SECTION
1350,
 AS ADOPTED PURSUANT
TO
 SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT
OF 2002
 
 I,
Phillip Hamilton, President and Chief Executive Officer of Global Diversified
Industries, Inc. (the "Company"), certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that:
 
 (1) the
Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of the Company for the period ended
January 31, 2008 (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or
78o(d)); and
 
 (2) the
information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
 
 Date:
March 17, 2008
   By: /s/ Phillip
Hamilton
 Phillip Hamilton
 President and Chief Executive Officer
 (Principal Executive Officer)
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                  5

<S>                        <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                                    12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                           AUG-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                                              SEP-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                                AUG-31-1999
<CASH>                                                        1,939,500
<SECURITIES>                                                          0
<RECEIVABLES>                                                 8,629,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                                          0
<INVENTORY>                                                           0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                             18,498,600
<PP&E>                                                        9,952,300
<DEPRECIATION>                                                9,102,900
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                               23,843,200
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                         7,945,200
<BONDS>                                                               0
<COMMON>                                                         63,300
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                                 0
<PREFERRED>                                                           0
<OTHER-SE>                                                   12,532,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                                 23,843,200
<SALES>                                                      34,239,400
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                             48,820,100
<CGS>                                                        14,671,700
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                                36,374,500
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                                      0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                                      0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                              180,500
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                              (2,315,600)
<INCOME-TAX>                                                   (925,700)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                          (1,389,900)
<DISCONTINUED>                                                  (83,700)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                                       0
<CHANGES>                                                             0
<NET-INCOME>                                                 (1,473,600)
<EPS-BASIC>                                                     (0.23)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                                     (0.23)


</TABLE>
Exhibit 32.1

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


     In connection with the Quarterly Report of Score One, Inc. (the "Company")
on Form 10-QSB for the period ended September 30, 2003 filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), we, Hoi-ho Kiu, Chief Executive Officer
of the Company, and Lai Ming Lau, 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 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/ Hoi-hu Kiu
                                                         --------------
                                                         Hoi-ho Kiu
                                                         Chief Executive Officer
                                                         April 19, 2006



                                                         /s/ Lai Ming Lau
                                                         ----------------
                                                         Lai Ming Lau
                                                         Chief Financial Officer
                                                         April 19, 2006

                                       1
EXHIBIT 32.1 Certificate 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 U.S. Neurosurgical,
Inc. on
Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2008 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Alan Gold, President
and Chief Executive Officer of U.S. Neurosurgical, Inc., 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 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 U.S.
 Neurosurgical, Inc.  /s/ Alan
 GoldAlan GoldPresident
 and Chief Executive OfficerAugust 12,
 2008
FILED 

 U.S.COURT OF APPEALS

 ELEVENTH CIRCUIT 

 06/11/99 

 THOMAS K. KAHN 

 CLERK

PUBLISH

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

_______________

No. 98-5225

Non-Argument Calendar

_______________

D. C. Docket No. 97-7029-CV-WJZ

JEAN JOSEPH ETIENNE, on behalf of himself,

and all others similarly situated,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

INTER-COUNTY SECURITY CORPORATION,

a Florida Corporation,

Defendant-Appellee.

______________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Florida

______________________________

(June 11, 1999)

Before BIRCH and BARKETT, Circuit Judges, and HENDERSON, Senior Circuit Judge.*

__________________

* This decision is rendered by a quorum, due to Judge Henderson's death on May 11, 1999. 28

U.S.C. § 46(d).

PER CURIAM:
2

On consideration of appellant's motion to alter and/or amend the judgment, the

prior opinion issued on April 30, 1999, and published at 173 F.3d 1372 (11th Cir.

1999), is modified, as follows:

We vacate the introductory paragraph and adopt in its place the following:

This is an appeal from the jury's verdict for the defendant in the

plaintiff's action brought for failure to pay overtime wages under the Fair

Labor Standards Act. Plaintiff/appellant Etienne raises three issues: (1)

the district court erred in denying his motion for judgment as a matter of

law, (2) the jury verdict was contrary to law and against the clear weight

of the evidence, and (3) the district court erred in its jury instructions

regarding the burdens of proof. We conclude that the district court did

not err in refusing to give Etienne's requested jury instructions. We

decline to consider Etienne's claim that jury's verdict went against the

weight of the evidence because Etienne did not raise this argument

before the district court. Finally, we conclude that the district court did

not err in denying the motions for judgment as a matter of law, except

with respect to $18.62 in wages, which the defendant admitted to owing.

We vacate the last paragraph in section (1) of the opinion discussing the motion

for judgment as a matter of law and adopt in its place the following:

The operations manager, relying on company records, testified that

Etienne was paid all the overtime compensation he earned, with the

exception of $18.62, which was the payroll company's error. Etienne

testified that he worked additional hours for which he was not

compensated. The evidence was essentially a credibility determination,

with the exception of the $18.62 the defendant admitted to owing, and

the credibility of the witnesses was the province of the jury. Therefore,

the district court did not err in denying the motions for judgment as a

matter of law, except with respect to the $18.62. We vacate the district

court's denial of the plaintiff's motion for judgment as a matter of law

and remand to the district court for further proceedings in accordance

with this opinion.
3

The disposition of the case should read:

AFFIRMED in part, VACATED in part, and REMANDED.
#### In re Robert E. GREEN, Sr., Petitioner.

No. 15-2154,

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Jan. 19, 2016.

Decided: Jan. 21, 2016.

Robert E. Green, Sr., Petitioner Pro Se.

Before NIEMEYER, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Robert E. Green, Sr., petitions for a writ of mandamus, seeking an order allowing him to enter a -federal courthouse from which he has been barred by court orders in order to receive a sum of money he believes is on deposit there.* We conclude that Green is not entitled to mandamus relief.

Mandamus relief is a drastic remedy and should be used only in extraordinary circumstances. *Kerr v. U.S. Dist.*Court, 426 U.S. 394, 402, 96 S.Ct. 2119, 48 L.Ed.2d 725 (1976); *United States v. Moussaoui,*333 F.3d 509, 516-17 (4th Cir.2003). Further, mandamus relief is available only when the petitioner has a clear right to the relief sought. *In re First Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass’n,*860 F.2d 135, 138 (4th Cir.1988). Mandamus may not be used as a *164substitute for appeal. *In re Lockheed Martin Corp.,*503 F.3d 351, 353 (4th Cir.2007).

The relief sought by Green is not available by way of mandamus. Accordingly, we deny the petition for writ of mandamus. We deny Green’s motions to seal and 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.

*PETITION DENIED.*

*

 Green previously filed an unsuccessful appeal of these orders and an order denying a related motion. *See Green v. Mayor and City Council,*532 Fed.Appx. 413 (4th Cir.2013).