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


                                                                    EXHIBIT 4.25

                              STEPHEN J. SCHOEPFER



October 14, 2003


JAG Media Holdings, Inc.
6965 S.W. 18th Street, Suite B13
Boca Raton, FL  33433



Re:  Promissory Note dated April 1, 2002 in the principal amount of $200,000
     between JAG Media Holdings, Inc. (f/k/a JagNotes.com Inc.), as borrower,
     and Stephen J. Schoepfer, as lender, with a maturity date of March 31, 2003
     ("Promissory Note")



Gentlemen:


This will serve to confirm that the "Maturity Date" of the Promissory Note is
hereby extended from June 30, 2003 to the earlier of (i) December 17, 2003 or
(ii) the effective date of a "Change in Control" as that term is defined in the
Company's Long-Term Incentive Plan, as amended. In addition, the principal
amount of the Promissory Note shall bear interest at the rate of nine percent
(9%) from April 1, 2002 through and including the Maturity Date.

Except for the foregoing changes, the Promissory Note remains unchanged and in
full force and effect.

Sincerely yours,

/s/ Stephen J. Schoepfer
Stephen J. Schoepfer

AGREED AND ACCEPTED:
JAG MEDIA HOLDINGS, INC.

By: /s/ Gary Valinoti
    -----------------
    Name: Gary Valinoti
    Title: President & Chief Executive Officer
###### Editorial Note on Part 1

#### Editorial Notes:

1. In Patent and Trademark Office publications and usage the part number is omitted from the numbers of §§ 1.1 to 1.352 and the numbers to the right of the decimal point correspond with the respective rule numbers.

2. For nomenclature changes to part 1, see 68 FR 14335, Mar. 25, 2003; 87 FR 68904, Nov. 17, 2022.

#### § 1.1001 Definitions related to international design applications.

(a) *Article* as used in this subpart means an article of the Hague Agreement;

(b) *Regulations* as used in this subpart, when capitalized, means the “Common Regulations Under the 1999 Act and the 1960 Act of the Hague Agreement”;

(c) *Rule* as used in this subpart, when capitalized, means one of the Regulations;

(d) *Administrative Instructions* as used in this subpart means the Administrative Instructions referred to in Rule 34;

(e) *1960 Act* as used in this subpart means the Act signed at the Hague on November 28, 1960, of the Hague Agreement;

(f) Other terms and expressions in subpart I not defined in this section are as defined in Article 1, Rule 1, and 35 U.S.C. 381.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 2 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to trademarks regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 6 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to trademarks regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 7 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to trademarks regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 1 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to patents regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 3 pertaining to both patents and trademarks is placed in the grouping pertaining to patents regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 4 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to patents regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 5 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to patents regulations.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health

                    Notice is hereby given of a change in the meeting of the Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel, September 11, 2009, 11 a.m. to September 11, 2009, 12 p.m., National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892, which was published in the                     **Federal Register**                     on August 31, 2009, 74 FR 44859.                

The meeting will be held September 14, 2009, from 1:30 p.m. to 3 p.m. The meeting location remains the same. The meeting is closed to the public.

Dated: September 3, 2009.

Jennifer Spaeth,

Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. E9-22015 Filed 9-14-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-M
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE BALANCE
SHEET AS OF, AND THE STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS FOR THE PERIOD ENDED MARCH 31, 1998
INCLUDED IN REGISTRANT'S QUARTERLY REPORT ON FORM 10-Q FOR THE QUARTER ENDED
MARCH 31, 1998, AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH BALANCE
SHEET AND STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS AND THE NOTES THERETO.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                             895
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   31,098
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     38,952
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                75,842
<PP&E>                                           4,512
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  90,733
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           20,497
<BONDS>                                         32,823
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                              303
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        19,640
<OTHER-SE>                                      15,071
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    90,733
<SALES>                                         38,364
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                38,364
<CGS>                                           31,874
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    4,696
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 724
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,070
<INCOME-TAX>                                       462
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                608
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       608
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .12
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .12
        

</TABLE>
Petition for Writ of Mandamus Denied and Memorandum Opinion filed 

August 23, 2018.

In The 

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14-18-00701-CR

IN RE RONALD SCOTT CATT, Relator 

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING 

WRIT OF MANDAMUS 

 400th District Court 

Fort Bend County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. 12-DCR-061927 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

On August 9, 2018, relator Ronald Scott Catt filed a petition for writ of 

mandamus in this court. See Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 22.221 (West Supp. 2017); see 

also Tex. R. App. P. 52. In the petition, relator asks this court to compel the 

Honorable Maggie Perez-Jaramillo, presiding judge of the 400th District Court of 

Fort Bend County, to County to rule on relator’s Motion to Release Property and 
2 

motions seeking a ruling on that motion. Relator also filed a motion asking our court 

to take judicial notice of the trial court’s record.

The Motion to Release Property asks the trial court to release property of 

relator that was seized pursuant to a search warrant, including two automobiles and 

two motorcycles. The property at issue was forfeited to the State in a civil forfeiture 

proceeding. See Catt v. DeLozier, No. 14-16-00524-CV, 2017 WL 2384636, at *1 

(Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] June 1, 2017, pet. denied). Because the property 

at issue has been forfeited relator’s Motion to Release Property and his petition for 

writ of mandamus are moot. 

The trial court is not required to rule on a motion that has become moot. See 

In re Douglas, No. 14-10-00820-CV, 2010 WL 3504760, at *1 (Tex. App.—

Houston [14th Dist.] Sept. 9, 2010, no pet.) (per curiam) (mem. op.); Davis v. West, 

433 S.W.3d 101, 109 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2014, pet. denied); Palacios 

v. Rayburn, 516 S.W.2d 292, 294 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1974, no writ). 

The court will not issue mandamus “if for any reason it would be useless or unavailing.” 

Dow Chem. Co. v. Garcia, 909 S.W.2d 503, 505 (Tex. 1995).

Accordingly, we deny relator’s petition for writ of mandamus and motion to 

take judicial notice as moot. 

PER CURIAM 

Panel consists of Justices Donovan, Wise, and Jewell. 

Do Not Publish — Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).
§ 51c.502 Definitions. ( a ) *Equipment* means nonexpendable personal property as defined in 45 CFR 75.2.
( b ) *Existing building* means a completed or substantially completed structure, and may include the realty on which it is or is to be located.
( c ) *Modernization* means the alteration, repair, remodeling and/or renovation of a building (including the initial equipment thereof and improvements to the building's site) which, when completed, will render the building suitable for use by the project for which the grant is made.
[43 FR 5352, Feb. 7, 1978, as amended at 81 FR 3007, Jan. 20, 2016]
I 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1983 

To amend title XIX of the Social Security Act to require Medicaid coverage 

of professional services of optometrists that are otherwise covered when 

furnished by a physician. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 20, 2007 

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY (for herself, Mrs. BONO, Mr. BOOZMAN, and Mr. WYNN) 

introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce 

A BILL 

To amend title XIX of the Social Security Act to require 

Medicaid coverage of professional services of optometrists 

that are otherwise covered when furnished by a physician. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Optometric Equity in 

5 Medicaid Act of 2007’’. 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with BILLS
2 

•HR 1983 IH

1 SEC. 2. REQUIRING MEDICAID COVERAGE OF PROFES2 SIONAL SERVICES OF OPTOMETRISTS THAT 

3 ARE OTHERWISE COVERED WHEN FUR4 NISHED BY A PHYSICIAN. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 1905(a)(5) of the Social 

6 Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1396d(a)(5)) is amended— 

7 (1) by striking ‘‘and’’ before ‘‘(B)’’; and 

8 (2) by inserting before the semicolon at the end 

9 the following: ‘‘, and (C) medical and surgical serv10 ices furnished by an optometrist (described in sec11 tion 1861(r)(4)) to the extent such services may be 

12 performed under State law either by a doctor of 

13 medicine or by a doctor of optometry and would be 

14 described in clause (A) if furnished by a physician 

15 (as defined in section 1861(r)(1))’’. 

16 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

17 subsection (a) shall take effect on the date of the enact18 ment of this Act. 

Æ 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with BILLS
### IN THE SUPREME COURT STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA

2022 ND 226

Chandi Melissa Buchholz, Petitioner

v. Levi Keith Mayo, Respondent and Appellant

No. 20220178

Appeal from the District Court of Cass County, East Central Judicial District, the Honorable Stephanie R. Hayden
, Judicial Referee.

AFFIRMED

.
Per Curiam

.
Levi K. Mayo, self

- represented, West Fargo, ND , respondent and appellant ; submitted on brief

.1 Buchholz v. Mayo No. 20220178

Per Curiam

. [¶1] Levi Mayo appealed from a disorderly conduct restraining order entered against him. Mayo broadly contends the district court erred and its decision is unconstitutional and should be reversed . However, Mayo ’s brief on appeal is deficient in identifying and raising a valid issue and does not contain the minimum requirements provided in N.D.R.App.P. 28. Moreover, he has failed to file a transcript of the hearing for our review , and t he lack of a transcript on appeal precludes meaningful review. See Smith v. Er ickson , 2019 ND 48, ¶ 9, 923 N.W.2d 503 (“If the record on appeal does not allow for an intelligent review of an alleged error, we will decline to review the issue.”)

.
[¶2] Under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(8), this Court may summarily affirm a judgment if the appella nt’s brief fails to comply with N.D.R.App.P. 28. We summarily affirm under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(8).

[¶3] Jon J. Jensen, C.J. Gerald W. VandeWalle Daniel J. Crothers Lisa Fair McEvers Jerod E. Tufte
**
**Exhibit 31.2**

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO RULE 13A-14(A) OR 15D-14(A) UNDER THESECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 

1934, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 

I, Anthony Georgiadis, certify that: 

 
 1.
I have reviewed this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Green ThumbIndustries Inc.; 

 
 2.
Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state amaterial fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report; 

 
 3.
Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report,fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report; 

 
 4.
The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintainingdisclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have: 

 
 a.
designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to bedesigned under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report isbeing prepared; 

 
 b.
evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in thisreport our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and 

 
 c.
disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting thatoccurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting. 

 
 5.
The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation ofinternal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions): 

 
 a.
all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control overfinancial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and 

 
 b.
any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role inthe registrant’s internal control over financial reporting. 

 
**GREEN THUMB INDUSTRIES INC.**
 

*/s/ AnthonyGeorgiadis*
By: Anthony GeorgiadisTitle: Chief Financial Officer
Date: April 15, 2020 

 
**
<PAGE>

EXHIBIT 32.2

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

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 (as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002), I, the undersigned Chief Financial Officer of
Peoples Educational Holdings, Inc. (the "Company"), hereby certify that the
Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarterly period ended
August 31, 2006 (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of section
13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information
contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
condition and results of operations of the Company.

Date: October 9, 2006


/s/ Michael L. DeMarco
------------------------------------
Michael L. DeMarco,
Chief Financial Officer
§ 438.416 Recordkeeping requirements. ( a ) The State must require MCOs, PIHPs, and PAHPs to maintain records of grievances and appeals and must review the information as part of its ongoing monitoring procedures, as well as for updates and revisions to the State quality strategy.
( b ) The record of each grievance or appeal must contain, at a minimum, all of the following information: ( 1 ) A general description of the reason for the appeal or grievance.
( 2 ) The date received.
( 3 ) The date of each review or, if applicable, review meeting.
( 4 ) Resolution at each level of the appeal or grievance, if applicable.
( 5 ) Date of resolution at each level, if applicable.
( 6 ) Name of the covered person for whom the appeal or grievance was filed.
( c ) The record must be accurately maintained in a manner accessible to the state and available upon request to CMS.
§ 65a.1 To what programs do these regulations apply? ( a ) The regulations of this part apply to the award of grants to support programs for basic research and training directed towards understanding, assessing, and attenuating the adverse effects on human health resulting from exposure to hazardous substances, as authorized under section 311(a) of the Act (42 U.S.C. 9660(a)). The purpose of these programs is to carry out coordinated, multi-component, interdisciplinary research consisting of at least three or more biomedical research projects relating to hazardous substances and at least one non-biomedical research project in the fields of ecology, hydrogeology, and/or engineering, and including the training of investigators as part of the grantee's overall program.
( b ) The regulations of this part also apply to cooperative agreements awarded to support the programs described in paragraph (a) of this section. References to “grant(s)” shall include “cooperative agreement(s).”
( c ) The regulations of this part do not apply to: ( 1 ) Research training support under the National Research Service Awards Program (see part 66 of this chapter),
( 2 ) Research, demonstration, and training support under the NIH Center Grants programs (see part 52a of this chapter),
( 3 ) Research training support under traineeship programs (see parts 63 and 64a of this chapter), or
( 4 ) Research training support under the NIH AIDS Research Loan Repayment Program authorized under section 487A of the Public Health Service Act, as amended (42 U.S.C. 288-1).
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> UT
<CIK> 0000728391
<NAME> IPALCO ENTERPRISES, INC.
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1995
<BOOK-VALUE>                                  PER-BOOK
<TOTAL-NET-UTILITY-PLANT>                    1,781,992
<OTHER-PROPERTY-AND-INVEST>                    111,818
<TOTAL-CURRENT-ASSETS>                         161,403
<TOTAL-DEFERRED-CHARGES>                       156,211
<OTHER-ASSETS>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,211,424
<COMMON>                                       384,133
<CAPITAL-SURPLUS-PAID-IN>                            0
<RETAINED-EARNINGS>                            441,406
<TOTAL-COMMON-STOCKHOLDERS-EQ>                 826,902
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                     51,898
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-NET>                           668,993
<SHORT-TERM-NOTES>                              81,000
<LONG-TERM-NOTES-PAYABLE>                            0
<COMMERCIAL-PAPER-OBLIGATIONS>                       0
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-CURRENT-PORT>                   15,150
<PREFERRED-STOCK-CURRENT>                            0
<CAPITAL-LEASE-OBLIGATIONS>                          0
<LEASES-CURRENT>                                     0
<OTHER-ITEMS-CAPITAL-AND-LIAB>                 567,481
<TOT-CAPITALIZATION-AND-LIAB>                2,211,424
<GROSS-OPERATING-REVENUE>                      535,043
<INCOME-TAX-EXPENSE>                            49,302
<OTHER-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                     366,159
<TOTAL-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                     415,461
<OPERATING-INCOME-LOSS>                        119,582
<OTHER-INCOME-NET>                                 922
<INCOME-BEFORE-INTEREST-EXPEN>                 120,504
<TOTAL-INTEREST-EXPENSE>                        37,174
<NET-INCOME>                                    83,330
<PREFERRED-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                      2,386
<EARNINGS-AVAILABLE-FOR-COMM>                   83,330
<COMMON-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                        60,853
<TOTAL-INTEREST-ON-BONDS>                            0
<CASH-FLOW-OPERATIONS>                         153,316
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     2.21
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     2.20
        

</TABLE>
#### Steven PALMER, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 80-1031.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Aug. 19, 1981.

Alan Jay Braverman, Fort Lauderdale, for appellant.

Jim Smith, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Trela J. White, Asst. Atty. Gen., West Palm Beach, for appellee.

ON REHEARING

PER CURIAM.

In an opinion filed on June 24, 1981, we held that because of the amount of evidence supporting appellant’s conviction, any error committed by the trial court in failing to instruct the jury on penalties was harmless. Subsequently, the Florida Supreme Court has ruled that the harmless error rule cannot be applied in such a manner to the error involved herein. See *Murray v. State,*403 So.2d 417 (Fla.1981) and *Tascano v. State,*393 So.2d 540 (Fla.1981).

Accordingly, our opinion of June 24,1981, is hereby withdrawn, the judgment of conviction is hereby reversed and this cause is remanded for a new trial in accordance with the Supreme Court’s decision in *Tasca-no,*supra.

ANSTEAD, HERSEY, and GLICK-STEIN, JJ., concur.