alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**Exhibit 10.56**

 

**BANKNORTH, N.A.**

 

**REVOLVING LINE OF CREDIT NOTE**

 
| $1,000,000.00 |   | Boston, Massachusetts |
|---------------|--------|-----------------------|
|          |   | March                 | , 2004 |

 

For value received, the undersigned, MFIC Corporation and MicrofluidicsCorporation, both Delaware corporations (each and together the **“Borrower”**), hereby jointly and severallypromise to pay ON DEMAND, and if demand is not sooner made, then as provided inthe Loan Agreement (defined below), to the order of Banknorth, N.A., a nationalbanking association organized and existing under the laws of the United Statesof America (the **“Bank”**), at itsmain office in Burlington, Massachusetts, or at any other place designated atany time by the holder hereof, in lawful money of the United States of Americaand in immediately available funds, the principal sum of One Million($1,000,000.00) Dollars or, if less, the aggregate unpaid principal amount ofall Revolving Loans made by Bank to Borrower under the Loan Agreement, togetherwith interest on the principal amount hereunder remaining unpaid from time totime, computed on the basis of the actual number of days elapsed and a 360-dayyear, from the date hereof until this Note is fully paid at the rates from timeto time in effect under the Loan and Security Agreement (All Assets) of evendate herewith (the **“Loan Agreement”**)by and between Bank and Borrower. The principal hereof and interest accruingthereon shall be due and payable as provided in the Loan Agreement.

 

This Note may be prepaid at any time without premium or penalty.

 

This Note is issued pursuant, and is subject, to the Loan Agreement,which provides, among other things, for acceleration hereof. This Note is the“Revolving Line of Credit Note” referred to in the Loan Agreement.

 

This Note is secured, among other things, pursuant to the Loan Agreement,and may now or hereafter be secured by one or more other security agreements,mortgages, deeds of trust, assignments or other instruments or agreements.

 

Borrower hereby agrees to pay all costs of collection, includingattorneys’ fees and legal expenses in the event this Note is not paid when due,whether or not legal proceedings are commenced.

 

Presentment or other demand for payment, notice of dishonor and protestare expressly waived.

 

All rights and obligations hereunder shall be governed by the laws ofthe Commonwealth of Massachusetts and this Note shall be deemed to be underseal.

 
| Witness: | MFIC CORPORATION          |
|----------|---------------------------|
|     |                      |
|     |                      |
|     |                      | By: |   |   |
|     |                      | Irwin J. Gruverman, Chief Executive Officer |
|     |                      |
|     |                      |
|     | MICROFLUIDICS CORPORATION |
|     |                      |
|     |                      |
|     |                      | By: |   |   |
|     |                      | Irwin J. Gruverman, Chief Executive Officer |
|          |                           |  |  |  |  |

 

 

----
# Aspiring artist on the rise

/ Published Aug. 3, 2018
RED RIVER, Texas, 
The artistic works of Michelangelo di Lodovico Buonarroti Simoni are known throughout the world. However, on the horizon a bright young artist by the name of Lillian E. Allen arises.  

Allen is the daughter of DLA Distribution Red River, Texas distribution process worker, Timothy Allen.

Affectionately known as “Lilly” by her family and friends, she emerges on the scene as a bashful twelve year old.  However, her artistry on the contraire portrays a different story.  

Her rise to stardom came when she was approached by George Smith, executive director of the Southwest Arkansas Arts Council.  Impressed with photos he had been shown of her drawings, Smith asked Allen to take on a special project.  

Over a three week period working only on the weekends, Allen faced conditions that most young girls her age would not have.  With the support of her parents she completed the task, deemed by some as an artistic challenge.   

Skillfully crafted on a 10 foot by 12 foot concrete sidewalk within Hope’s one-of-a-kind ARTpark, “Gertrude the Owl” came alive.  Allen’s artistic gift is truly an inspiration to both young and old.

Many stand in awe at the works of Michelangelo at the Sistine Chapel in Rome.  However, as the paths of the Hope’s one-of-a-kind ARTpark are walked, there is no doubt that the same will be said of Allen’s works.
#### Benton BELLE, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 69-603.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Feb. 27, 1970.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
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 TREATY ENERGY CORPORATION (the Company) on Form 10-Q as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Randall Newton, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 USC section 1350, as adopted pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge and belief:

(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/ Randall Newton                      | 
|                        | Randall Newton, Chief Executive Officer | 
|Date: November 12, 2009 |                                         |
<PAGE>
 
                                                                      EXHIBIT 21

                                  SUBSIDIARIES
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                          Jurisdiction in
          Name                                          which Incorporated
          ----                                          ------------------
<S>                                                     <C>
HARTMARX CORPORATION (Registrant)............................ Delaware
     Coppley Apparel Group Limited .......................... Ontario, Canada
     Direct Route Marketing Corporation...................... New Hampshire
     Hart Schaffner & Marx................................... New York
          American Apparel Brands, Inc....................... New York
          National Clothing Company, Inc..................... New York
          Winchester Clothing Company........................ Kentucky
     Hickey-Freeman Co., Inc................................. New York
     International Women's Apparel, Inc...................... Texas
     Jaymar-Ruby, Inc. (d/b/a Trans-Apparel Group)........... Indiana
          Anniston Sportswear Corporation.................... Indiana
               E-Town Sportswear Corporation................. Kentucky
               Rector Sportswear Corporation................. Arkansas
          Biltwell Company, Inc.............................. Missouri
     Men's Quality Brands, Inc............................... New York
     M. Wile & Company, Inc. (d/b/a Intercontinental
       Branded Apparel)...................................... New York
          Intercontinental Apparel, Inc...................... Delaware
     Novapparel, Inc......................................... Delaware
     Plaid Clothing Company, Inc............................. Delaware
     Pusser's of the West Indies Apparel Company............. Delaware
     Universal Design Group, Ltd............................. New York
     -----------------------------------------------------------------
</TABLE>
     The names of 32 subsidiaries are omitted, as such subsidiaries, considered
in the aggregate as a single subsidiary, would not constitute a significant
subsidiary.  The Registrant owns, directly or indirectly, 100% of the voting
securities of both the named and unnamed subsidiaries, except for one of the
unnamed subsidiaries, which is owned 50.1% by a wholly-owned subsidiary of the
Registrant.  All of the above subsidiaries (including unnamed subsidiaries) are
included in the consolidated financial statements of the Registrant and its
subsidiaries.
DISMISS and Opinion Filed May 20, 2014 

S 

In The 

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-14-00350-CV 

LINQ PARTNERS, LLC, Appellant 

V. 

GCU TRUCKING, INC., ROSALIO ARCOS, SR., SERGIO ARCOS, 

RENE ARCOS, ROSALIO ARCOS, JR., LOS ARCOS LEASING, INC. 

AND VALLEY TIN MANAGEMENT, Appellees 

On Appeal from the 192nd Judicial District Court 

Dallas County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. DC-13-02262-K 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

Before Chief Justice Wright and Justices Lang-Miers and Brown 

Opinion by Chief Justice Wright 

Before the Court is appellant’s motion to dismiss the appeal. Appellant has informed the 

Court that it no longer wishes to pursue this appeal. Accordingly, we grant appellant’s motion 

and dismiss the appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.1(a)(1). 

140350F.P05 

 

/Carolyn Wright/ 

CAROLYN WRIGHT 

CHIEF JUSTICE 
 –2– 

S 

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

JUDGMENT 

LINQ PARTNERS, LLC, Appellant 

No. 05-14-00350-CV V. 

GCU TRUCKING, INC., ROSALIO 

ARCOS, SR., SERGIO ARCOS, 

RENE ARCOS, ROSALIO ARCOS, JR., 

LOS ARCOS LEASING, INC., AND 

VALLEY TIN MANAGEMENT, Appellees 

 On Appeal from the 192nd Judicial District 

Court, Dallas County, Texas. 

Trial Court Cause No. DC-13-02262-K. 

Opinion delivered by Chief Justice Wright. 

Justices Lang-Miers and Brown, 

participating. 

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

 It is ORDERED that appellees, GCU TRUCKING, INC., ROSALIO ARCOS, SR., 

SERGIO ARCOS, RENE ARCOS, ROSALIO ARCOS, JR., LOS ARCOS LEASING, INC., 

AND VALLEY TIN MANAGEMENT, recover their costs of this appeal from appellant, LINQ 

PARTNERS, LLC. 

Judgment entered May 20, 2014 

/Carolyn Wright/ 

CAROLYN WRIGHT 

CHIEF JUSTICE
#### TEAMSTERS LOCAL UNION NUMBER 769, Appellant, v. FONTAINEBLEAU HOTEL CORP., a Florida corporation, Appellee.

No. 68-974.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Third District.

April 8, 1969.

Rehearing Denied May 19, 1969.

Kastenbaum, Mamber, Gopman, Epstein & Miles, Miami Beach, for appellant.

Sibley, Giblin, Levenson & Ward, Miami Beach, for appellee.

Before CHARLES CARROLL, C. J., and PEARSON and HENDRY, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

The appellant seeks reversal of an interlocutory injunction which restrained certain picketing activity at the appellee’s business premises. Appellants contend that the matter involved was such as to have required the circuit court to cede jurisdiction to the National Labor Relations Board, and therefore that the trial court acted without jurisdiction. We hold otherwise. The circumstances presented did not reveal a labor dispute, or facts upon which to arguably conclude, with reason, that one existed. See Sheetmetal Workers’ International Ass’n, Local Union No. 223 v. Florida Heat & Power, Inc., Fla.App.1968, 214 So.2d 783.

 The office of an interlocutory or “preliminary” injunction is not to determine the merits of the cause. The granting of a temporary injunction here served the usual purpose of such orders to maintain the status quo pending final hearing. *55Unless some compelling reason favoring the defendant is shown for its disallowance, a restraining order is proper where it is made to appear that without in-junctive relief pendente lite substantial or irreparable injury will occur to the party seeking the protection, if the latter should prevail on final hearing.

On consideration of the circumstances of this case, the trial judge properly could conclude that the balance of interests was in favor of the plaintiff, upon its showing that a refusal to enjoin the picketing activity pendente lite would result in material injury to the plaintiff’s business, whereas an injunction pendente lite would only postpone the restrained activity and not unduly inconvenience the defendant, if the litigation ended in its favor.

Affirmed.
**-  Northern Plains  
-  Laramie, Wyoming 
Printable VersionE-mail this pageThis site onlyAll ARS Advanced Search UBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/loose.dtd">	You are here: 						Research / 								**Research Project:**VECTOR COMPETENCE OF NORTH AMERICAN MOSQUITOES FOR RIFT VALLEY FEVER VIRUS
**Location: Laramie, Wyoming**
												Project Number: 5410-32000-014-13Project Type:																				Nonfunded Cooperative Agreement

Start Date: Jan 01, 2007End Date: Dec 31, 2011

**Objective:**Assess and determine epidemiological and entomological factors to facilitate/develop effective Rift Valley fever virus (RVFV) control methods.
**Approach:**We will determine the vector competence of North American mosquito species for RVFV. This project will focus on key mosquito species that feed on RVFV susceptible livestock and will enhance ongoing genetic studies of mosquito vector competence for RVFV that are being conducted on a companion NP-104 CRIS. Differences in vector competence among populations of the same species throughout the USA will be examined. This project will provide a preliminary risk assessment for the ability of virus to spread via endemic mosquito species if introduced into the U.S. Real time PCR will be used to quantify virus in the salivary glands. The ability of mosquito species to vertically transmit RVFV and the effects of environment on virus transmission may also be evaluated.
    Project TeamBennett, Kristine Wilson, William Drolet, Barbara Mecham, James  - *Jim* 
Project Annual Reports FY 2008 FY 2007 
Related National Programs Animal Health(103) Veterinary, Medical and Urban Entomology(104)  							Last Modified: 11/07/2008 		ARS Home |USDA.gov |Site Map |Policies and Links FOIA |Accessibility Statement |Privacy Policy |Nondiscrimination Statement |Information Quality |USA.gov |White House

**
Using CMAQ to Evaluate the 

Impact of the Washington DC 

Area on the Baltimore Area

A Series of Sensitivity Runs to look at 

Contribution and Culpability

Additional Information for EPA

MDE and the UMCP

April 7, 2012
Background

• Based upon OTC Level 2 2007 Emissions Screening 

Platform

• EPA Regional Offices participate as partners in the OTC 

Modeling Committee and assist OTC in the development 

of the OTC modeling

• Built from the same 2007 inventory and base case used 

for the “Scenario 4” sensitivity runs

• These are sensitivity runs intended to provide basic 

information on basic issues

– The exact ppb projections are much less important than the 

relative (small, medium, large) size and directions of the ozone 

benefit or disbenefit. 

• A short episode to model was selected by MDE and 

UMD, and included both local and transport driven 

events. 
Zero-Out Baltimore’s Emissions

• These two slides show the 2007 Base Case on the left and the sensitivity run 

(on the right) that simply looked at how the model responds when all of 

Baltimore’s anthropogenic emissions are eliminated

• There appears to be very little difference in the two slides

• Even with all of Baltimore’s emissions eliminated, the area sees widespread 

nonattainment of the 75 ppb standard
Zero-Out Maryland’s Emissions

• These two slides show the 2007 Base Case on the left and the sensitivity run 

(on the right) that zeroed-out all of Maryland’s anthropogenic emissions are 

eliminated

• There appears to more benefit compared to the Baltimore zero-out run, but 

clearly nowhere near enough to provide for attainment

• Even with all of Maryland’s emissions eliminated, the area sees widespread 

nonattainment of the 75 ppb standard
Just Washington, DC Emissions

• These two slides show the 2007 Base Case on the left and the sensitivity run 

(on the right) that looked at the contribution from just the Washington 

nonattainment area emissions.

– Only the emissions from DC and all of the MD and VA counties in the Washington 

nonattainment area were included in this run. All other emissions were zeroed out.

• The Washington area emissions have a clear and very large impact on the 

Baltimore area
Additional Information

• The additional days included 

in the sensitivity runs are 

attached

• For additional information 

contact Tad Aburn or Mike 

Woodman at MDE

– 410.537.3255
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 169 (Tuesday, September 2, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 46385-46386]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-23223]


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

OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT


The National Partnership Council

AGENCY: Office of Personnel Management.

ACTION: Notice of meeting.

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

    Time and Date: 2:00 p.m., September 10, 1997.
    Place: U.S. Office of Personnel Management Auditorium, Theodore 
Roosevelt Building, 1900 E Street, NW., Washington, DC 20415-0001.
    Status: This meeting will be open to the public. Seating will be 
available on a first-come, first-served basis. Individuals with

[[Page 46386]]

special access needs wishing to attend should contact OPM at the 
number shown below to obtain appropriate accommodations.
    Matters to be Considered: This meeting will consist of an awards 
ceremony. The winners of the 1997 National Partnership Award will be 
announced; and the winners will receive their awards. The National 
Partnership Award is given in recognition of outstanding labor-
management partnership activities.
    Contact Person for More Information: Michael Cushing, Director, 
Center for Partnership and Labor-Management Relations, Office of 
Personnel Management, Theodore Roosevelt Building, 1900 E Street, 
NW., Room 7H28, Washington, DC 20415-0001, (202) 606-2930.

Office of Personnel Management.
James B. King,
Director.
[FR Doc. 97-23223 Filed 8-29-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6325-01-P
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 162 (Thursday, August 21, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 44488-44489]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-22129]


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

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Antitrust Division


Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and 
Production Act of 1993--National Center for Manufacturing Sciences, 
Inc. (Spindles Project)

    Notice is hereby given that, on July 8, 1997, pursuant to Section 
6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 
15 U.S.C. Sec. 4301 et seq. (``the Act''), the National Center for 
Manufacturing Sciences, Inc. (``NCMS'') has filed written notifications 
simultaneously with the Attorney General and the Federal Trade 
Commission disclosing changes in its

[[Page 44489]]

membership status. The notifications were filed for the purpose of 
extending the Act's provisions limiting the recovery of antitrust 
plaintiffs to actual damages under specified circumstances. 
Specifically, the following company, ORSCO, Inc., Madison Heights, MI, 
is no longer a participant in the ``Spindles Project.''
    No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned 
activity of the group research project. Membership in this group 
research project remains open, and NCMS intends to file additional 
written notification disclosing all changes in membership.
    On February 20, 1987, NCMS filed its original notification pursuant 
to Section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice published a 
notice in the Federal Register pursuant to Section 6(b) of the Act on 
March 17, 1987 (52 FR 8375).
    On June 6, 1994, NCMS filed its original (``Spindle Project'') 
notification pursuant to Section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of 
Justice published a notice in the Federal Register pursuant to Section 
6(b) of the Act on July 15, 1994 (59 FR 36218).
Constance K. Robinson,
Director of Operations, Antitrust Division.
[FR Doc. 97-22129 Filed 8-20-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-11-M
**Exhibit 32.1**

** **

**CERTIFICATION**

** **

**I,Ronald J. Turner, President and Chief Executive Officer of TC PipeLines GP, Inc.,the general partner of TC PipeLines, LP (the Partnership), in compliance with18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 hereby certify,**to the best of my knowledge, in connection with the Partnership’s QuarterlyReport on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2005 as filed withthe Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report) on the date hereof, that:

** **

•      theReport fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

•      theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Partnership.

 

 
| Dated: August 8, 2005 | /s/ Ronald J. Turner                               |   |
|----------------------------|----------------------------------------------------|--------|
|                       | Ronald J. Turner                                   |
|                       | President  and Chief Executive Officer             |
|                       | TC  PipeLines GP, Inc., as general partner of |
|                       | TC PipeLines, LP                                   |

 

----
No. 00-7227.

#### Izquierdo-Salas *v.*United States.

C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.
Exhibit 99.1

PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
(SUBSECTIONS (a) AND (b) OF SECTION 1350, CHAPTER 63 OF TITLE 18,
UNITED STATES CODE)

Pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of section 1350, chapter 63 of Title 18, United
States Code), each of the undersigned officers of NeoPharm, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the "Company"), does hereby certify with respect to the Annual Report of the Company on
Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2002 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "10-K Report") that:



|Dated: March 31, 2003 |  |  | /s/JAMES M. HUSSEYJames M. Hussey,
Chief Executive Officer      
|--------------------- |  |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------
|Dated: March 31, 2003 |  |  | /s/LAWRENCE A. KENYONLawrence A. Kenyon,
Chief Financial Officer

---

QuickLinks
EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATE OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

This Certificate is being delivered pursuant to the
requirements of Section 1350 of Chapter 63 (Mail Fraud) of Title 18 (Crimes and Criminal Procedures) of the United States Code and shall not be relied on by any person for any other purpose.

The undersigned, who is the Chief Executive Officer of CCF Holding Company (the issuer), hereby certifies as follows:

The Annual Report on Form 10-K of the issuer (the Report), which accompanies this Certificate, fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and all information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the issuer.

Dated this 29th day of March, 2007.



/s/ David B. TurnerDavid B. Turner, Chief Executive Officer


A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
has been provided to the issuer and will be retained by the issuer and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.