alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 10.13


 


Daniel S. Och


10 Bank Street, Suite 1120


White Plains, New York 10606


 


 


 


March 22, 2021


 


 


This letter is to confirm the undersigned’s commitment
that, through April 1, 2021, if funds are needed by Ajax I (the “Company”) and upon request by the Company, the undersigned
will provide loans of up to an aggregate of $1,500,000.00 to the Company. These loans will be non-interest bearing, unsecured and will
be repaid upon the consummation of a business combination. The undersigned understands that if the Company does not consummate a business
combination (as described in the Company’s prospectus, dated October 27, 2020), all amounts loaned to the Company hereunder will
be forgiven except to the extent that the Company has funds available to it outside of its trust account established in connection with
the Company’s initial public offering.


 


 


	 	/s/ Daniel S. Och
	 	Daniel S. Och
<PAGE>   1

                                                                    EXHIBIT 11.1

                             PAGEMART WIRELESS, INC.
                    COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE EARNINGS (LOSS)


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                              THREE MONTHS ENDED MARCH 31, 1999
                                                        ----------------------------------------------
                                                             NUMBER         PERCENT       EQUIVALENT
                                                           OF SHARES      OUTSTANDING       SHARES
                                                           ---------      -----------       ------      
<S>                                                     <C>              <C>            <C>      
COMMON STOCK
   From Founders' Stock                                      2,300,000       100.00%        2,300,000
   Stock Options Exercised                                   1,074,725        98.73%        1,061,080
   Preferred Stock Converted to Common Stock                15,310,943       100.00%       15,310,943
   1994 Common Stock Offerings                              11,242,857       100.00%       11,242,857
   1995 Common Stock Offerings                               4,323,874       100.00%        4,323,874
   1996 Common Stock Offering                                6,000,000       100.00%        6,000,000
   Employee Stock Purchase Plan Shares Issued                  110,943       100.00%          110,943
   Warrants Exercised                                           49,450       100.00%           49,450
                                                        --------------                  -------------
                                                            40,412,792                     40,399,147

WEIGHTED AVERAGE SHARES OUTSTANDING                                                        40,399,147

NET LOSS                                                                                ($ 25,203,000)


NET LOSS PER SHARE                                                                      ($       0.62)
                                                                                        =============

</TABLE>
#### KNIGHT *v.*STATE

[No. 11,

September Term, 1962.]

*461
      *Decided October 16, 1962.*

Submitted on the brief to Bruñe, C. J., and Henderson, Hammond, Prescott, Horney, Marbury and Sybert, JJ.

Submitted by *Albert A. Levin*for appellant.

Submitted by *Thomas B. Finan, Attorney General, Robert P. Sweeney, Assistant Attorney General, Saul A. Harris, Stale’s Attorney*and *Charles P. Moylan, Jr., Assistant State’s Attorney,*for appellee.

Per Curiam.

William H. Knight was convicted by a jury of the possession and control of narcotics. On appeal, in claiming insufficiency of the evidence to support the verdict, he asserts that the failure of the State to produce “Dukey,” a special employee of the narcotics squad, as a witness was fatal. We think not.

A member of the squad searched the special employee and gave him money to make a purchase. While they were riding around together on the lookout for narcotics offenders, the employee noticed the defendant, a suspect, and got out of the automobile to contact him. The officer, watching from the parked automobile, saw the employee give the defendant money and the defendant walk away. In a few minutes the defendant returned, entered the automobile and rode away with the officer and the employee. Subsequently, the defendant got out *462of the automobile at a designated place and entered a house. When he returned, he reentered the automobile and gave the employee a glassine envelope containing narcotics. Under similar circumstances a second purchase was made from the defendant in about a month. At a later date the defendant was arrested.

As was held in *Whyte v. State,*229 Md. 459, it was not essential for the State to produce the special employee as a witness. So long as there was other sufficient evidence — and there was, as is apparent from the record — from which the jury could find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, the verdict will not be set aside. See *Whyte v. State, supra; Wright v. State, 222*Md. 242.

*Judgment affirmed.*
‘ Page No, oo 29/
| SCHEDULE 1—Free Inhabitants i in_li2 4
of -Zzeyde—. enumerated by me, on the 26. ‘day of
Post Office Be Candia Pa

spain, or Teed of "ace of Binh, H
cath pron male andere, o¥er | vyas | ain Naitetv ae, Terry,

IS yee gee od Bite, | Peon
rane Ena

rT!
SS RS NDS HR

ee Ss

f Geka +o
2 :

"FLERE

‘ epee Mia

Levin La
| Davie ber |
Lr Mba
jee Me

| ny, |

census records are maintained and released by the National Archives and Records Administration, not the U.S. Census Bureau.

Visit http://www.archives.gov for more information about publicly available records like the one shown here.

ae |

ag aenta, 28 iden > Ra brintom—-— Nea] | &
‘Rey whi fe, Hod gly oda, _ Na an — | AN ~
<TABLE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 11.1

                            COMPUTRON SOFTWARE, INC.
             Statement re: computation of earnings (loss) per share

<CAPTION>
                                                                                  Three Months Ended           Nine Months Ended
                                                                                     September 30,                September 30,
                                                                                -----------------------      ----------------------
                                                                                   1995          1996          1995          1996
                                                                                 --------      --------      --------      --------
<S>                                                                              <C>           <C>           <C>           <C>

Net income (loss) (in thousands)                                                 $  1,336      $ (8,196)     $  2,930      $(21,333)
                                                                                 ========      ========      ========      ========
Weighted average common and common equivalent shares outstanding:
  Shares outstanding at the beginning of the period                                17,829        20,797        17,829        20,744
  Weighted average shares issued during the period                                  1,007             4           339            57
  Dilutive effect of common stock equivalents                                       1,016          --             957          --
  Weighted average treasury shares required using the treasury stock method          (167)         --            (167)         --
                                                                                 --------      --------      --------      --------

Weighted average common and common equivalent shares outstanding:                  19,685        20,801        18,958        20,801
                                                                                 ========      ========      ========      ========

Net income (loss) per share                                                      $   0.07      $  (0.39)     $   0.15      $  (1.03)
                                                                                 ========      ========      ========      ========
</TABLE>

-----------------
(1) All share information contained in the per share calculation has been
adjusted to reflect the conversion of all series of Redeemable Convertible
Preferred Stock and Class A and Class B Common Stock into Common Stock as of the
original issuance dates. These equities were converted into Common Stock upon
the closing of the initial public offering on August 29, 1995.
**Exhibit 31.2**

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 15 U.S.C. SECTION 10A,**

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE**

**SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

I, Jack D. Hood, certify that: 

 

I have reviewed this report on Form 10-QSB of Harrodsburg First FinancialBancorp, Inc.; 

 

Based on my knowledge, this report does notcontain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material 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 thisreport; 

 

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

 

The small business issuer’s other certifying officer and I areresponsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the small business issuer and have: 

 

(a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures tobe designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the small business issuer, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which thisreport is being prepared; 

 

(b) [omitted inaccordance with SEC Release Nos. 33-8238 and 34-47986]; 

 

(c) evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuer’s disclosure controls and procedures and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls andprocedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and 

 

(d) disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during theregistrant’s most recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and ****

The small business issuer’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control, to the small business issuer’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors: 

 

(a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control which are reasonably likely toadversely 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 in the small businessissuer’s internal controls. 

 

Date: May 13, 2004

/s/ Jack D. Hood

Jack D. Hood

Treasurer (Chief Accounting Officer)

 

2
#### In re ESTATE of Morris FELDSTEIN, Deceased.

No. 73-943.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

April 2, 1974.

Pelzner & Schwedock, Miami, for appellant.

Harold Tannen, Miami, for appellees.

Before BARKDULL, C. J., and HEN-DRY and HAVERFIELD, JJ.

HENDRY, Judge.

This is an appeal by the executrix and trustee under the will from an order surcharging her $8,225 for failure to rent the decedent’s condominium for four years. We affirm.

Appellant argues that the testator intended to absolve her of any honest errors of judgment as his personal representative particularly emphasizing paragraph Seventh of the will.

However, this paragraph only relieves appellant from liability for postponing the sale of any of the decedent’s real property. It does not pertain to rental of the property while it is held.

Appellant as executrix and trustee is bound by Fla.Stat. §§ 518.10 and 518.11, F.S.A., the “prudent man rule.” In our view, the probate judge was justified in imposing a surcharge where appellant has neglected her duty to obtain income for the estate, which in this case would have benefited beneficiaries under the testamentary trust created by the decedent’s will.

We also see little merit to appellant’s contention that the trust beneficiaries had no standing to bring the instant proceeding. See Rule 5.140, Probate and Guardian Rules. Even if the beneficiaries lacked standing the court on its own motion may require an accounting or evidence concerning the estate assets from the personal representative. Fla.Stat. §§ 733.50 and 733.51, F.S.A.

Therefore, for the reasons stated, the order appealed is affirmed.

Affirmed.
Exhibit 32.2

Certification of CFO 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 Annual Report on Form 10-K of SkyTerra
Communications, Inc. (the Company) for the period ended December 31, 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), Scott Macleod, as Chief Financial Officer of the Company,
hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of his 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/ Scott MacleodName:

Scott MacleodTitle:

Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer


March 16, 2007



1
Order entered October 27, 2022

In The 

### Court of Appeals **Fifth District of Texas at Dallas**

No. 05-22-01127-CV No. 05-22-01128-CV No. 05-22-01129-CV No. 05-22-01130-CV No. 05-22-01131-CV

IN RE KENZIE NELSON, Relator

Original Proceedings from the Criminal District Court No. 5 Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause Nos. F1133360, F1133384, F11333 85, F1133386, & F1133387

ORDER Before Chief Justice Burn s, Justice Partida-Kipness, and Justice Smith

Based on the Court’s opinion of today’s date, we DISMISS relator’s petition

for want of jurisdiction to the extent the petition seeks relief against the Dallas

County District Clerk Felicia Pitre, Dallas County District Attorney John Creuzot,

and the Dallas County District Attorney’s Office.We DENY relator’s petition to the exte nt the petition seeks a writ of

mandamus against the trial court.

/s/ CRAIG SMITH JUSTICE
#### Robert ARD v. STATE.

No. 36250.

Supreme Court of Florida.

March 1967.

Habeas corpus denied without opinion.
SECOND AMENDMENT TO JANSEN AGREEMENT
                              
                              
     This second amendment (the "Second Amendment") to that
certain Agreement (the "Agreement") dated December 22, 1997
between Mirage Resorts, Incorporated, a Nevada corporation
("Parent"), and Avis P. Jansen, a Nevada resident,
individually, as executrix of the Estate of Norbert W.
Jansen, and as Trustee for the Jansen Family Trust (the
"Trust") under an Agreement dated July 14, 1993 (in all such
capacities, "Seller"), as first amended in January, 1998, is
entered into as of this 13th day of March, 1998 between
Parent and Seller with reference to the following fact:

     A.   The definition of "Gift Shop Lease" contained in
Recital E of the Agreement inadvertently describes the wrong
lease.

     In consideration of the foregoing premise, Parent and
Seller hereby amend the Agreement as follows:

          1.   Clause (iv) in Recital E of the Agreement is
hereby deleted in its entirety and shall be replaced by the
following:

          "to amend the term of that certain lease agreement
          between Boardwalk Casino, Inc. as Landlord, and
          Holiday Gifts, Inc., as Tenant, dated September 1,
          1996, which permits Holiday Gifts, Inc. to operate
          a gift shop upon the Company's premises (the "Gift
          Shop Lease"), to a month-to-month arrangement and
          to make certain other modifications thereto."
          
          2.   The third sentence of Section 3 of the
Agreement is hereby amended by the deletion of the phrase
"to the Seller" therein and the substitution of the phrase
"to the Lessee" in lieu thereof.

          3.   Except as expressly amended hereby, the
Agreement and First Amendment thereto remain in full force
and effect, as by their terms set forth.

     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have duly
executed this Amendment as of the date first above set
forth.

PARENT:                          SELLER:

MIRAGE RESORTS, INCORPORATED
a Nevada corporation
                                 AVIS P. JANSEN
By:  DANIEL R. LEE               Avis P. Jansen, a Nevada resident,
     Daniel R. Lee               Individually, as executrix of the
     Chief Financial Officer     Estate of Norbert W. Jansen, and as
                                 Trustee for the Jansen Family Trust
                                 under an Agreement dated July 14,
                                 1993

                           EXHIBIT 10.1
Exhibit 32.1

Certification of CEO 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 Annual Report on Form 10-K/A of SkyTerra
Communications, Inc. (the Company) for the period ended December 31, 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), Alexander H. Good, as Chief Executive Officer of the
Company, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of his 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/ Alexander H. GoodName:

Alexander H. GoodTitle:

Chief Executive Officer and President


April 27, 2007
#### John Paul McNAMARA, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Nos. 72-1453, 72-1504.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Oct. 16, 1973.

Rehearing Denied Nov. 9, 1973.

*450Phillip A. Hubbart, Public Defender, and Martin Blitstein, Special Asst. Public Defender, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., and William L. Rogers, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appel-lee.

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

PER CURIAM.

By information appellant was charged with grand larceny, of which offense he was found guilty by a jury. On May 21, 1971 he was so adjudged, and sentenced to imprisonment for one year. The place of confinement was not stated in the sentence.

A motion for relief from the conviction and sentence was denied by the trial court on March 8, 1972. An appeal therefrom was dismissed by this court on November 1, 1972.

Thereafter, on November 13, 1972, the appellant filed a motion under Rule 3.850 CrPR, 33 F.S.A., for relief from the judgment and sentence. On November 20, 1972, the trial court denied the motion, and by a separate order specified that the confinement to which the defendant was sentenced was in the state penitentiary.

The defendant filed an appeal from the latter ruling (No. 72-1504) and filed a separate appeal (No. 72-1453) from the order denying his motion for relief under Rule 3.850 CrPR. The appeals were consolidated by order of this court. In the brief filed on behalf of the appellant, no point is stated or argued with reference to the order above referred to relating to the confinement or place of confinement. On the appeal from the order denying the motion for relief filed under Rule 3.850 CrPR, the appellant makes two contentions. First, that he was incompetently represented at the trial by his privately employed attorney. That contention is without merit. See Everett v. State, Fla.App.1964, 161 So.2d 714. Secondly, that he was deprived of a fair trial, because of such improper or ineffective representation by his counsel at trial. We find no merit in the latter contention. See Parks v. State, Fla.App.1972, 256 So.2d 40.

The judgments are affirmed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
COMPANY'S JUNE 30, 1997 CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                           6,867
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   55,114
<ALLOWANCES>                                     8,893
<INVENTORY>                                      7,490
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                63,978
<PP&E>                                         169,155
<DEPRECIATION>                                  61,529
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 315,155
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           64,932
<BONDS>                                        262,548
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             4
<OTHER-SE>                                    (12,329)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   315,155
<SALES>                                         31,144
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               127,625
<CGS>                                           38,382
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   38,382
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                92,882
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              18,335
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (23,160)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (23,160)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (23,160)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.58)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.58)
        

</TABLE>
### Record of Discussion Docket No . FAA- 2015-4207 

### Directorate Identifier: -AD 20 15-NM- 123-AD



### With whom outside the FAA has this AD action been discussed (i.e., Design Approval Holder, manufacturer, AT A, NBAA, RAA, AOPA, ALPA, GAMA, etc)?

O RGAN IZ ATION PERSON CONTACTED DATE TOPICS DISCUSSED JAL Atsushi Tabata 8112/2015 Parag ra ph (j)( l )(ii i) error
**Lu~l:l i,..**  

### F'o.h(\ t.e... 

### lll!. **~4..-** 

## a '10f**"l_l)\~** f.b.t6 ('r ....



### J.,( \ Y I )(iii) t.rtot' 

# ,.h> **'~;'"'(' ('-~~~**  

# _.. **~** 

## ..... R>blt..tt 9 IC\ "'l.C)\S **c:.~ 1-~'+~1.\-1\bS**  Q.1.. 

### d.f'f .

**~Q.oC:.** u '"' 

### 'Etl\ **~\\o.ro** 

### C:..\GJ"ti

**~** \'\ **1..0\~ ~**  **~ll-11,\lt..S** Cl"l.- o.,p 1 • • X;o........ A i.r\\NZ.S. 

## f::..A,o,.. \v... 

# e rt& 1()\S $to "':l;'"t-'l.I-1\"'S' Ct."l.. **ft..t·~ ~I**  

### Other/Additiona l Inf orma tio n: