alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 10.10.275


                                 PROMISSORY NOTE
                                  (NO INTEREST)

$64,288.00                                                  Glendale, California
   June 29, 2000




     FOR VALUE RECEIVED, Vicente Tio (Payor") promises to pay in lawful money of
the  United  States of  America to  Pollution  Research  and  Control  Corp.,  a
California corporation ("Payee"), or order, at Glendale,  California, the sum of
$64,288.00  Dollars  from the date  hereof on the  unpaid  principal  payable in
installments  of principal only in the sum of $50.00 Dollars  commencing on July
15,  2000 and  payable  on the same day of each month  thereafter  until paid in
full.

     The unpaid principal may be prepaid without penalty. Each payment hereunder
shall be credited to the principal amount.

     If each  installment  under this note is not paid when due, the undersigned
shall pay all costs of collection thereof, including reasonable attorneys' fees,
whether or not suit or action is commenced to enforce  payment of this note, and
Payee may, at its option, declare the entire amount of the then unpaid principal
immediately  due and payable if such  default is not cured  within 10 days after
Payee provides the undersigned  written notice of such default.  The undersigned
hereby waives presentment, notice of dishonor and protest.

     This note is secured by shares of Payee's  common stock,  no par value (the
"Shares"),  pursuant to a certain Stock Pledge  Agreement,  dated as of June 29,
2000 (the "Pledge Agreement").

     Upon the termination of employment of Payor as an employee of Payee for any
reason,  the unpaid  balance of this note shall be  cancelled,  and the pro rata
portion  of Shares  which then not fully paid for,  shall be  returned  to Payee
pursuant to the terms of the Pledge Agreement.

                                            Payor:



                                            By:  /s/  Vicente Tio
                                               --------------------------------
                                                      Vicente Tio
0 Docket OW-2002-0049 DCN: 6-3188 National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). Marine Recreational Fisheries Statistics Survey (MRFSS), Snapshot Query



### a, 

# .- > 'c

n S 

# .- cn 

# .­ cn 

### m (d 

## 2 >; 12 

### a, 31 

## > cn L 3 S 

### cn 

## a L 

### a, 3 

## n 0 

# n .- S 

# z

n 

### 0 + W 

### m 

# s 0 0 0 

### U c\1 S (d 

# .- S

c. 0 

### m 0 (d 

### a, 

# ti
W

I t

a . a



# - a ki W 

# 9 tr U 0 c. 

# a 5 m -I 

### a, c. 

# a 2

.- (d 

### c 

# d 

# 0 m 

# - I 

## n N 

# a 0 

### CT 0 

### N 

# u 0 0IW 

### 0U 

# x

4-4 0 

# r, 

# E? c 

## m
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 The Dixie Group, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ending June 28, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Daniel K. Frierson, the Chief Executive 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, 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 Company.



/s/DANIEL K. FRIERSONDaniel K. Frierson, Chief Executive Officer
Date:    August 7, 2008



A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to The Dixie Group, Inc. and will be retained by The Dixie Group, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### § 717.13 [Reserved]
### §32509. Information and assistance from other departments, agencies, and instrumentalities

(a) General Authority.—The Secretary of Transportation may request information necessary to carry out this chapter from a department, agency, or instrumentality of the United States Government. The head of the department, agency, or instrumentality shall provide the information.

(b) Detailing Personnel.—The head of a department, agency, or instrumentality may detail, on a reimbursable basis, personnel to assist the Secretary in carrying out this chapter.

(Pub. L. 103–272, §1(e), July 5, 1994, 108 Stat. 1047.)

| Revised Section | Source (U.S. Code) | Source (Statutes at Large) |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 32509 | 15:1914(c). | Oct. 20, 1972, Pub. L. 92–513, §104(c), 86 Stat. 951. |

Section

In subsection (a), the words "he deems" and "his functions under" are omitted as surplus. The words "head of the" are added for consistency in the revised title and with other titles of the United States Code. The words "cooperate with the Secretary and" and "to the Department of Transportation upon request made by the Secretary" are omitted as surplus.
FILED IN COURT OF CRIMINALAPPEALS May 13, 2015 ABEL ACOSTA, CLERK
STATE OF TEXAS
VS.
RONNIE DABNEY NO. PD-1514-14 PD-1514-14 COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS AUSTIN, TEXAS Transmitted 5/13/2015 12:58:41 PM Accepted 5/13/2015 1:08:07 PM ABEL ACOSTA CLERK § IN THE COURT OF § § CRIMINALAPPEALS

MOTION TO EXTEND TIME TO FILE BRIEF TO THE HONORABLE JUDGES OF SAID COURT: 

### Now comes RONNIE DABNEY, appellee in the above styled and numbered cause, and moves for an extension oftime of45 days to file a briefand for good

cause shows the following: 

### 1. This Court granted Appellant's The State of Texas Petition for Discretionary Review. The briefin support ofAppellant's petition was due 30 

### days thereafter. See Tex. R. App. Proc. 70.1. On or about May 1, 2015, 

### Appellee received a notice by electronic filing that Appellant's (The State of Texas) had not been filed in a timely fashion. This caused confusion to counsel for Appellee as he believed that the State's briefhad been rejected for some reason. 

### Accordingly, Appellee's counsel was waiting for Appellant to submit another brief before responding and filing Appellee's brief. 

### 2. Additionally, Counsel has been unable to complete the brieffor the following reasons:1. From March 23, 2015 to April 21,2015, counsel with the 

### assistance of the Texas Lawyer's Assistance Program entered into an alcohol rehabilitation facility in Austin, Texas. Counsel was out ofthe office until April 

### 22,2015. After being gone for a month, counsel was way behind. Counsel has had trial settings and contested hearings since his release from rehab. Counsel is 

### specially set on a medical malpractice trial in the 78th District Court of Wichita County, Texas on 5/18/15. The case is going to take 6-8 days to try and requires a great deal ofpreparation 3. Counsel filed the brief in the Court of Appeals in Fort Worth and 

### accordingly, has done a great deal of research on the issues before the Court. Counsel is requesting until June 15,2015to file the brief onbehalfofAppellee. WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, appellant respectfully 

### requests an extension of 45 days, i.e. until June 15, 2015, to file a brief in support ofPetition for Discretionary Review.Respectfully submitted, Mark Barber, Attorney at Law 900 8th Street, Suite 116 WichitaFalls, TX 76301 Tel: (940) 761-3009 Fax:(940)761-4060
By:A/MarkH. Barber Mark H. Barber State Bar No. 01708050 Mbarberlaw@aol.com Attorney for RONNIE DABNEY

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

### This is to certify that on May 12,2015, a true and correct copy of the above and foregoing document was served on the District Attorney's Office, Wichita County, Texas, by electronic service through the Electronic Filing Manager.

MarkH. Barber Mark H. Barber CERTIFICATE OF CONFERENCE 

### This is to certify that on May 12, 2015, I conferred with the Assistant 

### District Attorney who is handling the appeal for the State of Texas and he advised that he is unopposedto this motion. /s/MarkH. Barber
#### In the Matter of Lopez Capo, etc. v. Florence Kelley.

Motion for an enlargement of time granted on condition that the appellant procures the record on appeal and appellant’s points to be served and filed on or before May 1, 1962, with notice of argument for the June 1962 Term of this court, said appeal to be argued or submitted when reached. If the appellant fails to comply with the conditions imposed, respondents may enter an order dismissing the appeal without notice to the appellant. Concur — Breitel, J. P., McNally, Stevens, Eager and Steuer, JJ.
#### DRESS et al. v. ROSEN.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Term.

June 22, 1903.)

1. Payment—Prior Transactions—Evidence.

Where defendant, to prove payment, offers checks for a larger amount than plaintiff’s bill, plaintiff may show that the checks were in payment of prior transactions, over objection that the evidence was not within the pleadings.

Appeal from Municipal Court,-Borough of Manhattan, Fourth District.

Action by Henry Druss and another against Max Rosen. From a judgment for plaintiffs, defendant appeals. Affirmed.

Argued before FREEDMAN, P. J., and GILDERSLEEVE and MacLEAN, JJ.

Jacob Rabinowitz, for appellant.

Louis B. Boudin, for respondents.

MacLEAN, J.

In an action for goods sold and delivered, the defendant set up two defenses—a general denial and payment. To prove the latter, he offered in evidence checks for a larger amount than the whole bill of the plaintiffs, who, in rebuttal, showed prior transactions, and claimed that the checks of the defendant were given in payment of them. The defendant appeals upon his objections, taken with exceptions, that it was improper to receive evidence of sales not within the pleadings, to amend which accordingly no motion was made. The propriety of the testimony given as to anterior transactions is apparent upon inspection of the checks put in evidence by the defendant himself. The judgment should be affirmed.

Judgment affirmed, with costs to the respondents. All concur.
**Exhibit 15**

 

 

November 14, 2002

 

The Board of Directors

Credit Suisse First Boston(USA), Inc.

New York, New York

 

Re:  Registration statement No. 333-86720

 

 

With respect to the subjectregistration statement, we acknowledge our awareness of the use therein of ourreport dated November 14, 2002 related to our review of interim financialinformation.

 

Pursuant to Rule 436 under theSecurities Act of 1933 (the “Act”), such report is not considered part of aregistration statement prepared or certified by an accountant, or a reportprepared or certified by an accountant within the meaning of Sections 7and 11 of the Act.

 

 
| /s/ KPMG            |   |
|---------------------|--------|
|                |
| New York,  New York |

 

----
§ 57.6501 Nonelectric initiation systems. ( a ) When the nonelectric initiation system uses shock tube— ( 1 ) Connections with other initiation devices shall be secured in a manner which provides for uninterrupted propagation;
( 2 ) Factory-made units shall be used as assembled and shall not be cut except that a single splice is permitted on the lead-in trunkline during dry conditions; and
( 3 ) Connections between blastholes shall not be made until immediately prior to clearing the blast site when surface delay detonators are used.
( b ) When the nonelectric initiation system uses detonating cord— ( 1 ) The line of detonating cord extending out of a blasthole shall be cut from the supply spool immediately after the attached explosive is correctly positioned in the hole;
( 2 ) In multiple row blasts, the trunkline layout shall be designed so that the detonation can reach each blasthole from at least two directions;
( 3 ) Connections shall be tight and kept at right angles to the trunkline;
( 4 ) Detonators shall be attached securely to the side of the detonating cord and pointed in the direction in which detonation is to proceed;
( 5 ) Connections between blastholes shall not be made until immediately prior to clearing the blast site when surface delay detonators are used; and
( 6 ) Lead-in lines shall be manually unreeled if connected to the trunklines at the blast site.
( c ) When nonelectric initiation systems use gas tube, continuity of the circuit shall be tested prior to blasting.
In The

Court of Appeals

Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana

______________________________

No. 06-11-00138-CV

______________________________

DERRON MACKLIN, Appellant

V.

SAIA MOTOR FREIGHT LINES, INC., Appellee

 

On Appeal from the 276th Judicial District Court

Marion County, Texas

Trial Court No. 09-00015

 

Before Morriss, C.J., Carter and Moseley, JJ.

Memorandum Opinion by Justice Carter
2

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant, Derron Macklin, filed a notice of appeal from the trial court’s order denying 

Macklin’s motion to set aside judgment. This portion of the suit had been severed from other 

proceedings involving Macklin. Later, he filed a motion to set aside the judgment, and if the 

appellate timetable is calculated from the date on which that motion was denied, the notice of 

appeal would be timely. 

However, the trial court’s order is not a final, appealable judgment. We have jurisdiction 

to hear an appeal from a final judgment or from interlocutory orders as expressly authorized by 

statute. See TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. §§ 51.012, 51.014 (West Supp. 2011). An 

order denying a motion for reconsideration or motion for new trial is not a judgment, and is not 

independently appealable. See TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. 51.014; State Office of Risk 

Mgmt. v. Berdan, 335 S.W.3d 421, 428 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 2011, pet. filed). 

In accordance with TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3, we provided notice to Macklin, requesting that he 

show this Court how we had jurisdiction over this appeal. We have received Macklin’s response, 

and considered it. We do not find it to be persuasive.

We dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction.
3

Jack Carter

Justice

Date Submitted: March 1, 2012

Date Decided: March 2, 2012
§ 585.409 How do I request approval of a lease or grant assignment? ( a ) You must request approval of each assignment on a form approved by BOEM and submit originals of each instrument that creates or transfers ownership of record title or certified copies thereof within 90 days after the last party executes the transfer agreement.
( b ) Any assignee will be subject to all the terms and conditions of your original lease or grant, including the requirement to furnish financial assurance in the amount required in §§ 585.516 through 585.537.
( c ) The assignee must submit proof of eligibility and other qualifications specified in §§ 585.107 and 585.108.
( d ) Persons executing on behalf of the assignor and assignee must furnish evidence of authority to execute the assignment.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 21

- 0383 STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee,

v. TYLOR THOMAS BUTTOLPH,

Defendant and Appellant
. **ORDER SUPPLEMENTING THE RECORD AND AMENDING THE CAPTION TO**  **STATE OF MONTANA v. TYLOR THOMAS BUTTOLPH**  Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion, and good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the motion to supplement the record is granted. Upon receipt from Court Reporter, Anne Perron, the transcript of the district court’s November 25, 2020 hearing shall be filed in this cause. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the caption in this matter is amended to State of Montana v. Tylor Thomas Buttolph
. The Clerk shall serve a copy of this Order upon the court reporter.

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

October 20 2022

10/20/2022

Case Number: DA 21-0383
### §2591. Public statement of environmental liabilities

Each year, at the same time that the Department of Energy submits its annual financial report under section 3516 of title 31, the Secretary of Energy shall make available to the public a statement of environmental liabilities, as calculated for the most recent audited financial statement of the Department under section 3515 of that title, for each defense nuclear facility at which defense environmental cleanup activities are occurring.

(Pub. L. 107–314, div. D, title XLIV, §4410, as added Pub. L. 116–283, div. C, title XXXI, §3121(a), Jan. 1, 2021, 134 Stat. 4381.)
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                           1,127
<SECURITIES>                                     1,924
<RECEIVABLES>                                   30,577
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,711
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               511,084
<PP&E>                                       1,756,461
<DEPRECIATION>                               1,337,202
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,000,414
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          434,675
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       206,713
<OTHER-SE>                                      25,652
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,000,414
<SALES>                                         17,804
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                19,752
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   10,739
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               6,750
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  2,263
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              2,263
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     2,263
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 9478 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 9478

 To amend title 38, United States Code, to include adaptive prostheses 
 and terminal devices for sports and other recreational activities in 
the medical services furnished to eligible veterans by the Secretary of 
                           Veterans Affairs.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           September 6, 2024

Mrs. Miller-Meeks introduced the following bill; which was referred to 
                   the Committee on Veterans' Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend title 38, United States Code, to include adaptive prostheses 
 and terminal devices for sports and other recreational activities in 
the medical services furnished to eligible veterans by the Secretary of 
                           Veterans Affairs.

    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 ``Veterans Supporting Prosthetics 
Opportunities and Recreational Therapy Act'' or the ``Veterans SPORT 
Act''.

SEC. 2. INCLUSION OF ADAPTIVE PROSTHESES AND TERMINAL DEVICES FOR 
              SPORTS AND OTHER RECREATIONAL ACTIVITIES IN MEDICAL 
              SERVICES FURNISHED TO ELIGIBLE VETERANS BY THE SECRETARY 
              OF VETERANS AFFAIRS.

    Section 1701 of title 38, United States Code, is amended, in 
paragraph (6)(F)(i), by inserting ``(including adaptive prostheses and 
terminal devices for sports and other recreational activities)'' after 
``artificial limbs''.
                                 <all>
```
### §60107. Payment of fees on departing vessel

A departing vessel may be cleared only when all legal fees that have accrued on the vessel are paid and proof of payment is presented to the individual granting the clearance.

(Pub. L. 109–304, §9(b), Oct. 6, 2006, 120 Stat. 1676.)

| Revised Section | Source (U.S. Code) | Source (Statutes at Large) |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 60107 | 46 App.:100. | R.S. §4206. |

Section

This section is substituted for the source provision to eliminate unnecessary words.
#### In the Matter of the Dissolution of Clemente Bros., Inc., Appellant. Salvatore P. Clemente, Respondent; Maria Clemente et al., Appellants.

This is an appeal from an order to show cause issued by the Supreme Court pursuant to section 106 of the General Corporation Law. The petitioner is the owner of 50% of the stock of Clemente Bros., Inc., and initiated this proceeding seeking to bring about the dissolution of the corporation under article 9 of the General Corporation Law on the ground of deadlock in stockholders’ votes. Maria Clemente owns the other 50% of the stock. The petition alleges that “ the votes of the said holders of .the common stock of Clemente Bros., Inc., have been and are so divided that they cannot elect a board of directors.” (General Corporation Law, § 103.) Although at this stage of the proceeding notice to appellants was not required or given, both the corporation and the individual appellants appeared, were permitted to intervene, and moved to dismiss the petition for insufficiency. After numerous hearings the motion was denied, and the court, in the exercise of its discretion, granted the order to show cause and appointed a Referee to hear, after proper notice to all interested parties, the allegations and proofs of the parties. On its face the petition pictures a hopelessly deadlocked corporation, being managed solely by a group representing only 50% of the stockholders, with bitterness and reprisals between factions, inability to elect directors, and the existence of irreconcilable differences. On its face we think the petition is adequate to meet the technical requirements of article 9 of the General Corporation Law and give the court jurisdiction of the proceeding. Of course the order appealed from does not, dissolve the corporation nor mean that it should be dissolved. It merely directs, an inquiry into all the facts, and, before the corporation can be dissolved, the. requirements of the statute and those set forth in *Matter of Seamerlin Operating Co.*[Bearing-Merlino] (307 N. Y. 407) and *Matter of Radom & Neidorff*(307 N. Y. 1), must be met by proof. The court at Special Term had the power to grant the order directing a complete inquiry, and the exercise of its discretion in so doing should not be disturbed. Order unanimously affirmed, with $10 costs.
§ 57.19027 End attachment retermination. Damaged or deteriorated wire rope shall be removed by cutoff and the rope reterminated where there is— ( a ) More than one broken wire at an attachment;
( b ) Improper installation of an attachment;
( c ) Slippage at an attachment; or
( d ) Evidence of deterioration from corrosion at an attachment.