alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>   1


                                                                 Exhibit 10.1.26

                                PROMISSORY NOTE

$201,693.00                                                 Saint Paul Minnesota
                                                               November 20, 1997

     FOR VALUE RECEIVED, I hereby promise to pay to the order of Green Tree
Financial Corporation ("Green Tree"), a Delaware corporation, on demand the sum
of Two Hundred One Thousand Six Hundred Ninety-Three and 00/100 Dollars
($201,693.00), together with interest on the unpaid principal balance at the
rate of 6.00% per annum from the date above until paid in full. Accrued interest
shall be paid annually on December 31 of each year beginning in 1998. If demand
is not sooner made, the unpaid principal amount of this note, together with all
unpaid and accrued interest, shall be due and payable upon the earlier of: (i)
30 days after the date of my resignation or other termination of employment with
Green Tree or any of its subsidiaries; or (ii) November 19, 2000.

     Payments made hereunder shall be made at 1100 Landmark Towers, Saint Paul,
Minnesota, and shall be applied initially to accrued interest and, thereafter,
to reduction of principal. This note may be paid in full or in part at any time
without premium or penalty.




                                                     /s/ Bruce A. Crittenden
                                                     ---------------------------
                                                     Bruce A. Crittenden
                                                     10 Lake Court
                                                     North Oaks, Minnesota 55127
#### Interboro Wholesale Florist, Inc., et al., Appellants-Respondents, v Intercounty Wholesale Florist, Inc. et al., Respondents-Appellants.

— In a consolidated action brought pursuant to section 720 of the Business Corporation Law, the parties cross-appeal from stated portions of a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County, dated April 19, 1978, which, after a hearing before a Referee, granted, *inter alia,*judgment in favor of the plaintiffs in the principal sum of $240,000. Judgment modified, on the law, by deleting from the first decretal paragraph thereof all the words following "1974” up until and including the word "accrue” and substituting therefor the following: "to April 19, 1978 (see, also CPLR 5003).” As so modified, judgment affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements, and the action is remitted to Special Term for entry of an appropriate amended judgment. In our opinion, the Referee erred in failing to award interest on the judgment from the date of his decision until the date of the entry of the judgment. CPLR 5002 provides that "Interest shall be recovered upon the total sum awarded, including interest to * * * report or decision, in any action, from the date the * * * report or decision was made to the date of the entry of final judgment”. Similarly, the Referee erred by providing, in effect, that the judgment shall not bear interest beyond the date of its entry (see CPLR 5003). We have considered the other points raised by the parties and have found them to be without merit. Rabin, J. P., Shapiro, Cohalan and Martuscello, JJ., concur.
#### In the Matter of Sol S. H. Sabot v. City Civil Service Commission of the City of New York.

Motion for a stay dismissed, having become academic by virtue of the decision of this court in *Matter of Sabot*v. *City Civ. Serv. Comm.*(11 A D 2d 927). Concur — Botein, P. J., Rabin, Valente, Stevens and Eager, JJ.
### NUMBER 13 - 16 - 00 491 - CR 

## COURT OF APPEALS THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellant,

v. STELLA EVANS , Appellee.

On a ppeal from the 319 th District Court of Nueces County, Texas



## O R D E R
Before Justices Rodriguez, Contreras, and Longoria

Order Per Curiam Appellant, the State of Texas, by and through the District Attorney in and for Nueces County , Texas, has filed a motion to remand for withdrawal and appointment of attorney pro tem and new attorney for appellee. According to the motion, the current2

elected District Attorney, Mark Gonzalez, and First Assistant District Attorney, Matthew Manning, both previously represented appellee in this case as her defense attorneys.
Du e to the prior representation, the District Attorney and all assistant district attorneys are disqualified from representing the State in this matter. Both Mark Gonzalez and Matthew Manning are unable to continue representation of appellee and request new counsel be appointed for appellee. The Court, having considered the documents on file and the State’s motion, is of the opinion that the motion should be granted. Accordingly, this appeal is ABATED and
the cause REMANDED to the trial court. Upon remand the trial court shall determine : (1) whether Nueces County District Attorney’s Office is disqualified from prosecuting this appeal; (2) if the Nueces County District Attorney’s Office is disqualified from prosecuting this appeal, appoint a competent

attor ney to perform the duties of the Nueces County District Attorney’s Office in this appeal for a period to last until this Court’s mandate issues; (3) determine whether apppellee’s court appointed attorney should remain as appellee’s counsel, and if not,
whe ther appellee is entitled to new appointed counsel; and (4) i f the trial court determines that new counsel should be appointed, the name, address, telephone number, email address, and state bar number of newly appointed counsel shall be included in the ord er appointing counsel. The trial court shall further cause its findings and any order s to be included in a supplemental clerk's record to be filed with the Clerk of this Court on or before the expiration of thirty days from the date of this order.3

It is so ordered. PER CURIAM
Do Not Publish. T EX

. R. A PP

. P

. 47.2(b).
D elivered and filed this 24 th day of February, 2017

.
#### McGOWAN et al., Respondents, v. MUTUAL LIFE INS. CO. OF NEW YORK, Appellant.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.

November 25, 1903.)

Action by Fannie McGowan and Thomas McGowan, executrix and executor of Bridget Butler, deceased, against the Mutual Life Insurance Company of New York.

No opinion. Judgment and order affirmed, with costs.
Dismiss and Opinion Filed July 25, 2013 

# S

In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05-12-01578-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF S.B., A MINOR CHILD, Appellant

On Appeal from the 380th Judicial District Court Collin County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 380-30023-2012

MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Chief Justice Wright and Justices Lang-Miers and Lewis Opinion by Chief Justice Wright Before the Court is appellant’s July 5, 2013 motion for non-suit which we construe as

appellant’s motion to dismiss. We GRANT appellant’s motion and dismiss this appeal. See

T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 42.1(a)(1).

121578F.P05 /Carolyn Wright/ CAROLYN WRIGHT CHIEF JUSTICE121578.dis.op.docx –2– 

# S

Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

JUDGMENT

IN THE INTEREST OF S.B., A MINOR CHILD, Appellant

No. 05-12-01578-CV On Appeal from the 380th Judicial District Court, Collin County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 380-30023-2012. Opinion delivered by Chief Justice Wright. Justices Lang-Miers a nd Lewis participating.

In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, this appeal is DISMISSED

. It is ORDERED that appellee JUSTIN BARTO recove r his costs of this appeal from appellant JULIE HARKINS.

Judgment entered July 25, 2013

/Carolyn Wright/ CAROLYN WRIGHT CHIEF JUSTICE
On December 5, 2012, OCR resolved a Title VI compliance review of Metropolitan School District of Pike Township****(District).  The review examined whether African American students are provided equal access to rigorous college preparatory courses, specifically the International Baccalaureate, Advanced Placement and honors courses at Pike High School, the District’s only high school.  Prior to the conclusion of OCR’s investigation, the District entered into a Settlement Agreement with OCR.  Under the agreement, by December 17, 2012, the District will create a College Preparatory Course Committee that will include teachers, parents, students, administrators, and others to review, assess and make recommendations relating to access to and enrollment in the high school’s rigorous college preparatory courses to ensure all students have an equal opportunity to participate in such courses at the high school.  By February 1, 2013, the Committee will recommend  actions for the District to implement to increase student participation in  rigorous college preparatory courses and, by March 1, 2013, the District will consider and, as appropriate, take action with respect to the Committee  recommendations, with all changes to take effect no later than the  registrations for courses for the 2013-2014 school year.  Under the Agreement, the District will also  develop a monitoring program to assess the effectiveness of its efforts to  increase participation in rigorous college preparatory courses, ensure that it effectively and widely disseminates to students and parents detailed information regarding its rigorous college preparatory course offerings, notify  in writing parents regarding the benefits of taking rigorous college preparatory courses, evaluate its academic counseling services at the middle school and high school level and make appropriate changes, review and, if applicable, revise the enrollment criteria for the elementary and middle school “high ability” program and middle school honors, foreign language, and algebra courses, and ensure that each of its middle schools and its high school have a peer support program.***Read    the Resolution Letter***PDF (286K)    | ***Read    the Resolution Agreement***PDF (195K)    

Top
Disclaimer

### State Department of Education

Connecticut Department of Education450 Columbus BoulevardHartford, CT 06103Phone: (860) 713-6543Website: http://www.sde.ct.gov/

### State Higher Education Agency

Office of Higher Education450 Columbus Boulevard, Suite 707Hartford, CT  06103-1841Phone:  (860) 947-1800Website: https://www.ctohe.org/

### Special Education Agency

Connecticut Department of EducationBureau of Special EducationP.O. Box 2219Hartford, CT  06145-2219Phone (860) 713-6910Fax (860) 713-7051Website: https://portal.ct.gov/SDE/Special-Education/Bureau-of-Special-Education

### State Adult Education Agency

Adult Education450 Columbus BoulevardHartford, CT 06103 Phone: (860) 713-6543Website: https://portal.ct.gov/SDE/Services/Adult-Education

Back to state map
# Federal Aviation Administration

RGL Home **Advisory Circular****Advisory Circular Information****Advisory Circular Information**** ****AC Number:**AC 00-57**Date:**09/10/1997** ****Change Description:**** ****Subject:**Hazardous Mountain Winds and Their Visual Indicators** ****Related Regulation(s):**Unknown Part**Section Number(s):**Unknown Section** ****Cancels:****Initiating Office:**AND-720** ****Advisory Circular in PDF Format:**** ****Comments****Comments**
Comments:
FAA.gov Home |			Privacy Policy |			Web Policies & Notices |			Contact Us |			Help

**Readers & Viewers:**PDF Reader | MS Word Viewer | MS PowerPoint Viewer | MS Excel Viewer | Zip
#### 1314.409 Information to bidders.
# Publicatieblad C 345/2015

| | ISSN 1977-0995 |
| --- | --- |
| Publicatieblad
  van de Europese Unie | C 345 |
| | |
| Uitgave in de Nederlandse taal | Mededelingen en bekendmakingen | 58e jaargang18 oktober 2015 |

ISSN 1977-0995

Publicatieblad

van de Europese Unie

C 345

Uitgave in de Nederlandse taal

Mededelingen en bekendmakingen

58e jaargang18 oktober 2015

---

| Nummer | Inhoud | Bladzijde |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | IV   Informatie |
| | INFORMATIE AFKOMSTIG VAN DE INSTELLINGEN, ORGANEN EN INSTANTIES VAN DE EUROPESE UNIE |
| | Raad |
| 2015/C 345/01 | Verklaring van de Raad | 1 |

Nummer

Inhoud

Bladzijde

IV   Informatie

INFORMATIE AFKOMSTIG VAN DE INSTELLINGEN, ORGANEN EN INSTANTIES VAN DE EUROPESE UNIE

Raad

2015/C 345/01

Verklaring van de Raad

1

---

| NL | |
| --- | --- |

NL

---

IV Informatie

INFORMATIE AFKOMSTIG VAN DE INSTELLINGEN, ORGANEN EN INSTANTIES VAN DE EUROPESE UNIE

Raad

| 18.10.2015 | NL | Publicatieblad van de Europese Unie | C 345/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.10.2015

NL

Publicatieblad van de Europese Unie

C 345/1

---

VERKLARING VAN DE RAAD

(2015/C 345/01)

De Raad merkt op dat de verplichting tot opheffing van alle EU-sancties in verband met nucleaire vraagstukken overeenkomstig het gezamenlijk alomvattend actieplan (JCPOA) geen afbreuk doet aan het in het JCPOA gespecificeerde geschillenbeslechtingsmechanisme en aan de herinvoering van de EU-sancties in geval van significante niet-nakoming door Iran van zijn verplichtingen in het kader van het JCPOA.

De Raad neemt zich voor om, in geval van significante niet-nakoming door Iran van zijn verplichtingen in het kader van het JCPOA, alle geschorste en/of beëindigde nucleair-gerelateerde sancties van de EU onverwijld opnieuw in te voeren op gezamenlijke aanbeveling aan de Raad van de hoge vertegenwoordiger van de Europese Unie voor buitenlandse zaken en veiligheidsbeleid, Frankrijk, Duitsland en het Verenigd Koninkrijk.

---
CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS


  EXHIBIT
   10(i)

  

 CONSENT OF
   INDEPENDENT AUDITORS’

  

 To the Board of
   Directors of

 Massachusetts Mutual
   Life Insurance Company

  

 We consent to the
   inclusion in this Post-Effective Amendment No. 1 to Registration Statement
   No. 333-81015 on Form N-4 of our report dated February 14, 2000 on our audit
   of the Panorama Passage Segment of Massachusetts Mutual Variable Annuity
   Separate Account 4 as of December 31, 1999 and for the year then ended, and
   of our report dated February 1, 2000, on our audit of the statutory
   financial statements of Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance Company as of
   December 31, 1999 and for the year then ended, which includes explanatory
   paragraphs relating to the use of statutory accounting practices, which
   differ from generally accepted accounting principles. We also consent to the
   reference to our Firm under the caption “Experts” appearing in the
   Statement of Additional Information.

  

 Deloitte & Touche
   LLP

  

 Hartford,
   Connecticut

 April 24,
   2000
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v John Hymes, Appellant.

[833 NYS2d 421]

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Frank Torres, J., at plea and sentence; John Byrne, J., at resentence), rendered on or about October 19, 2005, unanimously affirmed. No opinion. Order filed. Concur—Andrias, J.E, Friedman, Marlow, Williams and Catterson, JJ.
215.404-4 Profit. ( b ) *Policy.* ( 1 ) Contracting officers shall use a structured approach for developing a prenegotiation profit or fee objective on any negotiated contract action when certified cost or pricing data is obtained, except for cost-plus-award-fee contracts (see 215.404-74, 216.405-2, and FAR 16.405-2) or contracts with Federally Funded Research and Development Centers (FFRDCs) (see 215.404-75). There are three structured approaches— ( A ) The weighted guidelines method;
( B ) The modified weighted guidelines method; and
( C ) An alternate structured approach.
( c ) *Contracting officer responsibilities.* ( 1 ) Also, do not perform a profit analysis when assessing cost realism in competitive acquisitions.
( 2 ) When using a structured approach, the contracting officer— ( A ) Shall use the weighted guidelines method (see 215.404-71), except as provided in paragraphs (c)(2)(B) and (c)(2)(C) of this subsection.
( B ) Shall use the modified weighted guidelines method (see 215.404-72) on contract actions with nonprofit organizations other than FFRDCs.
( C ) May use an alternate structured approach (see 215.404-73) when— (*1*) The contract action is— (*i*) At or below the certified cost or pricing data threshold (see FAR 15.403-4(a)(1)); (*ii*) For architect-engineer or construction work; (*iii*) Primarily for delivery of material from subcontractors; or (*iv*) A termination settlement; or (*2*) The weighted guidelines method does not produce a reasonable overall profit objective and the head of the contracting activity approves use of the alternate approach in writing.
( D ) Shall use the weighted guidelines method to establish a basic profit rate under a formula-type pricing agreement, and may then use the basic rate on all actions under the agreement, provided that conditions affecting profit do not change.
( E ) Shall document the profit analysis in the contract file.
( 5 ) Although specific agreement on the applied weights or values for individual profit factors shall not be attempted, the contracting officer may encourage the contractor to— ( A ) Present the details of its proposed profit amounts in the weighted guidelines format or similar structured approached; and
( B ) Use the weighted guidelines method in developing profit objectives for negotiated subcontracts.
( 6 ) The contracting officer must also verify that relevant variables have not materially changed (e.g., performance risk, interest rates, progress payment rates, distribution of facilities capital).
( d ) *Profit-analysis factors* —(1) *Common factors.* The common factors are embodied in the DoD structured approaches and need not be further considered by the contracting officer.
[63 FR 55040, Oct. 14, 1998, as amended at 63 FR 63799, Nov. 17, 1998; 65 FR 77829, Dec. 13, 2000; 66 FR 49863, Oct. 1, 2001; 71 FR 69494, Dec. 1, 2006; 77 FR 76940, Dec. 31, 2012]
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

OF TEXAS

NO. WR-93,973-02

EX PARTE JULIO DOMINGUEZ, Applicant

ON APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

CAUSE NO. C-396-W012164-1338175-B IN THE 396TH DISTRICT COURT

FROM TARRANT COUNTY 

Per curiam.

O R D E R

Applicant pleaded guilty to prohibited substance in a correctional facility and was sentenced

to fifteen years’ imprisonment. Applicant did not appeal his conviction. Applicant filed this

application for a writ of habeas corpus in the county of conviction, and the district clerk forwarded

it to this Court. See TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. art. 11.07. 

Applicant alleges that his sentence in this case is illegal. Specifically, he alleges that the

punishment range in this case was improperly enhanced under TEX. PENAL CODE § 12.42(d). 

Applicant has alleged facts that, if true, might entitle him to relief. Samaripas v. State, 454 S.W.3d

1 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014). Accordingly, the record should be developed. The trial court is the

appropriate forum for findings of fact. In developing the record, the trial court may use any means
set out in TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. art. 11.07 § 3(d).

It appears that Applicant is represented by counsel. If the trial court elects to hold a hearing,

it shall determine if Applicant is represented by counsel, and if not, whether Applicant is indigent. 

If Applicant is indigent and wants to be represented by counsel, the trial court shall appoint counsel

to represent him at the hearing. See TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. art. 26.04. If counsel is appointed or

retained, the trial court shall immediately notify this Court of counsel’s name. 

The trial court shall make findings of fact and conclusions of law regarding whether the

enhancement was improper under Samaripas. The trial court shall also make findings of fact and

conclusions of law regarding whether Applicant had any other prior felony convictions that could

have been used by the State for enhancement purposes in this case. See Ex parte Parrott, 396

S.W.3d 531 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013). The trial court shall also make any other findings of fact and

conclusions of law that it deems relevant and appropriate to the disposition of Applicant’s claim for

habeas corpus relief. 

The trial court shall make findings of fact and conclusions of law within ninety days from

the date of this order. The district clerk shall then immediately forward to this Court the trial court’s

findings and conclusions and the record developed on remand, including, among other things,

affidavits, motions, objections, proposed findings and conclusions, orders, and transcripts from

hearings and depositions. See TEX.R.APP.P. 73.4(b)(4). Any extensions of time must be requested

by the trial court and obtained from this Court. 

Filed: August 24, 2022

Do not publish
Alabama  State Department of Education (AL): In September 2016, OCR resolved a complaint  alleging that the Department denied the complainant’s daughter a reader  accommodation for the ACT Aspire examination because her reading level was not  at least two grade levels below the fifth grade level. OCR determined that the  Department’s policy created a bright-line rule that eliminates the  individualized assessment by the student’s Section 504 team or IEP team as to  whether a student with a disability requires the reader accommodation for the  ACT Aspire exam. By eviscerating the student’s Section 504/IEP team’s  responsibility to make the accommodation decision on an individualized basis,  OCR determined that the policy failed to comply with Section 504 and Title II.  The Department entered into a resolution agreement in which it agreed to revise  its ACT Aspire reader accommodation policy to comply with the requirements of  Section 504 and Title II as it relates to individualized educational decisions,  and to implement, publish, and notify all necessary parties of the revised  policy once it has been approved by OCR.

Read the Resolution Letter PDF (204.51K) | Read the Resolution Agreement PDF (233.24K)
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except

under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

June 3, 2005

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 04-41114

Summary Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

RODERIC CAIN,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 5:03-CR-667-2

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

Before DAVIS, SMITH, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Roderic Cain appeals his 151-month sentence on a conviction

for possession with intent to distribute in excess of 1,000

kilograms of marijuana. 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A). For

the first time on appeal, Cain argues the district court’s

determination of Cain’s base offense level based upon an

estimated drug quantity of 4,000 kilograms of marijuana was

unconstitutional under United States v. Booker, 125 S. Ct. 738,

764 (2004). 
No. 04-41114

-2-

Because Cain raises this argument for the first time on

appeal, it is reviewed for plain error. See United States v.

Mares, 402 F.3d 511, 520 (5th Cir. 2005), petition for cert.

filed, No. 04-9517 (U.S. Mar. 31, 2005). Cain fails to

demonstrate that the district court would have reached a

significantly different result under an advisory guidelines

scheme. See Mares, 402 F.3d at 521-22. Accordingly, Cain cannot

establish plain error with respect to the district court’s base

offense level. See id. The sentence of the district court is

AFFIRMED.