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


                                                                   Exhibit 10.23

                          AMENDMENT TO PROMISSORY NOTE

         THIS AMENDMENT TO PROMISSORY NOTES (the "Amendment") is made and
entered into as of the ____ day of September 2001, by and among Glastad Capital
AS, a Norwegian corporation (the "Lender") and MediaBin, Inc., a Georgia
corporation (the "Borrower").

                              W I T N E S S E T H:
                               - - - - - - - - - -

         WHEREAS, Lender is the holder of certain Promissory Notes from
Borrower, as listed below:

     o   Note dated March 23, 2000, in the principal amount of $1,000,000;

     o   Note dated October 11, 2000, in the principal amount of $750,000; and

         WHEREAS, Lender and Borrower wish to amend the Notes as hereinafter
provided;

         NOW, THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the mutual agreements
herein contained and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and
sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, Lender and Borrower hereby agree
as follows:

         "The interest payment due upon each of the above notes on September 30,
         2001, total approximately $49,000, will be deferred until December 31,
         2001. The interest deferred will be added to the principal balance of
         each Note and will accrue interest at the same rate as the rest of the
         principal."

         All references in the Notes to this "Note" shall hereafter refer to the
Notes as hereby amended.

         Except as expressly provided herein, all terms and conditions of the
Notes remain in full force and effect. Nothing herein shall be construed to
constitute a novation of the Notes, and the intention of the parties hereto is
not to extinguish the Notes.

         This Amendment shall be construed in accordance with the laws of the
State of Georgia.

         IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Borrower and Lender have caused this Amendment to
be executed, as of the date first above written.


                                LENDER:

                                GLASTAD CAPITAL AS

                                By:    /s/ Patrick Stephansen
                                    ----------------------------------------
                                    Name:
                                         -----------------------------------

                                    Title:
                                          ----------------------------------

                                BORROWER:

                                MEDIABIN, INC.

                                By:      /s/ Haines Hargrett
                                   ----------------------------------------
                                   Name:
                                        -----------------------------------

                                   Title:
                                         ----------------------------------
#### Charles E. HALL and John Joe Turnbow, Appellants, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 70-1049.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

March 24, 1972.

Norman D. Zimmerman, Pompano Beach, for appellants.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Andrew I. Friedrich, Asst. Atty. Gen., West Palm Beach, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

On the basis of the briefs, record, and oral argument, it is the opinion of this court that the appellants have failed to make reversible error appear. The judgment appealed from is, therefore, affirmed.

Affirmed.

REED, C. J., and OWEN and MAGER, JJ., concur.
[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 164 (Thursday, August 23, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 42637-42638]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-18283]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE


Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request; Procedures for 
Submitting Request for Objections From the Section 232 National 
Security Adjustments of Imports of Aluminum and Steel

    The Department of Commerce will submit to the Office of Management 
and Budget (OMB) for clearance the following proposal for collection of 
information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 
U.S.C. Chapter 35).
    Agency: Bureau of Industry and Security.
    Title: Procedures for Submitting Request for Objections from the 
Section 232 National Security Adjustments of Imports of Aluminum and 
Steel.
    Form Number(s): N/A.
    OMB Control Number: 0694-0138.
    Type of Review: Regular submission.
    Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 96,888.
    Estimated Number of Respondents: 24,222.
    Estimated Time per Response: 4 hours.
    Needs and Uses: This collection of information supports 
Presidential Proclamations 9704, Adjusting Imports of Aluminum into the 
United States and 9705, Adjusting Imports of Steel into the United 
States. On March 8, 2018, the President issued Proclamations 9704 and 
9705 concurring with the findings of the two investigation reports 
submitted by the Secretary of Commerce pursuant to section 232 of the 
Trade Expansions Act of 1962 (19 U.S.C. 1862) and determining that 
adjusting imports through the imposition of duties on aluminum and 
steel is necessary so that imports of aluminum and steel will no longer 
threaten to impair the national security.
    Affected Public: Business or other for-profit organizations.

[[Page 42638]]

    Frequency: On Occasion.
    Respondent's Obligation: Voluntary.
    This information collection request may be viewed at reginfo.gov 
http://www.reginfo.gov/public/. Follow the instructions to view 
Department of Commerce collections currently under review by OMB.
    Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information 
collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice 
to <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#7936302b38262a0c1b14100a0a1016173916141b571c1609571e160f"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="dc93958e9d838fa9beb1b5afafb5b3b29cb3b1bef2b9b3acf2bbb3aa">[email protected]</span></a>.

Sheleen Dumas,
Departmental Lead PRA Officer, Office of the Chief Information Officer.
[FR Doc. 2018-18283 Filed 8-22-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
Affirmed in Part, Reversed and Remanded in Part, and Majority and 

Concurring Opinions filed August 27, 2015.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14-13-00989-CV

FELIX A. AUZ, Appellant

V.

MARIO CISNEROS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 165th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 2012-18908

C O N C U R R I N G O P I N I O N

I join the majority opinion’s determination that the attorney’s fees award must 

be reversed only because the supporting affidavit offers a global recitation of 

categories of tasks performed and the total number of hours expended. The affidavit 

does not allocate specific hours to specific tasks, as required under Long v. Griffin, 

442 S.W.3d 253, 254-55 (Tex. 2014) (per curiam); City of Laredo v. Montano, 414 

S.W.3d 731, 736 (Tex. 2013) (per curiam); and El Apple I, Ltd. v. Olivas, 370 S.W.3d 

757, 764 (Tex. 2012).
2

I join reluctantly because reversal here seems like an unduly formalistic result 

in a simple case involving a simple commercial dispute requiring a modest 

expenditure of 30 attorney hours to obtain a favorable judgment. By no measure is 

the requested fee disproportionate to the result. The situation here does not resemble 

the extreme and abusive scenarios presented in other cases in which attorneys seeking 

fees failed to allocate more than 600 hours of attorney time as in Long; failed to 

allocate more than 1,300 hours of attorney time as in City of Laredo; and failed to 

allocate more than 800 hours of attorney time as in El Apple I, Ltd. Having opted to 

invoke the lodestar method for computing attorney’s fees, appellee Cisneros 

nonetheless must satisfy that method’s requirements as set forth in El Apple I, Ltd.

and its progeny. See City of Laredo, 414 S.W.3d at 736. Among other things, that 

means allocating specific hours to specific tasks.

The supreme court has allowed some flexibility in requiring documentation for 

“the simplest cases,” a category that certainly captures this contract dispute between 

Auz and Cisneros. See El Apple I, Ltd., 370 S.W.3d at 763. It could be argued that 

similar flexibility is appropriate when addressing a failure to allocate not very many 

hours to not very many specific tasks in “the simplest cases.” I do not read Long, 

City of Laredo, and El Apple I, Ltd. to leave room for such a discussion. Allocation 

always is required under these decisions when the lodestar method is invoked, even in 

“the simplest cases” involving a modest number of hours.

/s/ William J. Boyce

Justice

Panel consists of Chief Justice Frost and Justices Boyce and McCally. (Frost, C. J., 

majority) (McCally, J. joins both the Majority Opinion and the Concurring opinion).
EXHIBIT 32.1  SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATION  In connection with the quarterly report of First Titan Corp. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended December 31, 2012 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”), I, Harvey Bryant, President of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. SS. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:  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 result of operations of the Company.  February 14, 2013By:/s/ Harvey BryantHarvey BryantPresident, Principal Executive Officer,
Principal Financial and Accounting officer  A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
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 this Quarterly Report of Prosalutis Holdings Inc., on Form 10-Q for the Quarter ending September 30, 2016 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Mauricio Gonzales, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify to the best of my knowledge, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Sec. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:    (1) Such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the nine months ending September 30, 2016, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and September 30, 2016 fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of Prosalutis Holdings Inc..     March 10, 2017By:/s/Mauricio GonzalesMauricio GonzalesChief Executive Officer
1

The Honorable Lawrence L. Piersol, Chief Judge, United States District Court

for the District of South Dakota, adopting the report and recommendations of the

Honorable John E. Simko, United States Magistrate Judge for the District of South

Dakota.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 04-1719

___________

Susan G. Dewerff, *

*

Appellant, *

*

v. * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the

Social Security Administration; * District of South Dakota.

Commissioner of Social Security; *

United States Attorney; Attorney * [UNPUBLISHED]

General of the United States, * 

*

Appellees. *

___________

Submitted: January 27, 2005

Filed: February 9, 2005 

___________

Before BYE, RILEY, and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Susan Dewerff appeals the district court’s1

 order and judgment affirming the

suspension of her supplemental security income (SSI) from November 1998 through

April 2000, based on a finding that Dewerff had more than $2,000 in nonexcludable
-2-

resources. See 20 C.F.R. § 416.1205 (2004) (disabled individual with no spouse is

eligible for SSI only if her nonexcludable resources do not exceed $2,000).

Having carefully reviewed the record, we conclude the administrative law

judge’s (ALJ’s) decision to deny benefits--based on the ALJ’s determination that

Dewerff failed to provide credible evidence that she had “spent down” her excess

resources below the $2,000 threshold--is supported by substantial evidence in the

record as a whole. See Zeiler v. Barnhart, 384 F.3d 932, 935 (8th Cir. 2004) (appeals

court affirms denial of benefits where substantial evidence in record as whole

supports ALJ’s decision); Gregg v. Barnhart, 354 F.3d 710, 714 (8th Cir. 2003) (if

ALJ expressly discredits claimant, and gives good reasons for doing so, court will

normally defer to credibility assessment); Hudson v. Bowen, 849 F.2d 433, 434 (9th

Cir. 1988) (in calculating whether claimant spent down excess resources for purposes

of SSI, ALJ may disregard self-serving statements that cannot be verified).

Accordingly, we affirm.

______________________________
```

[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 168 (Wednesday, August 29, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 44075-44076]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-18726]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

NUCLEAR WASTE TECHNICAL REVIEW BOARD

Senior Executive Service Performance Review Board

AGENCY: U.S. Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board.

ACTION: Notice of Performance Review Board membership.

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

SUMMARY: This notice announces the membership of the Nuclear Waste 
Technical Review Board (NWTRB) Senior Executive Service (SES) 
Performance Review Board (PRB).

DATES: August 27, 2018.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Neysa M. Slater-Chandler by telephone 
at 703-235-4480, or via email at [email protected], or via mail 
at 2300 Clarendon Blvd., Suite 1300, Arlington, VA 22201.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 5 U.S.C. 4314(c)(1) through (5) requires 
each agency to establish, in accordance with regulations prescribed by 
the Office of Personnel Management, one or more SES Performance Review 
Boards.
    The PRB shall review and evaluate the initial summary rating of a 
senior executive's performance, the executive's response, and the 
higher-level official's comments on the initial summary rating. In 
addition, the PRB will review

[[Page 44076]]

and recommend executive performance bonuses and pay increases.
    5 U.S.C. 4314(c)(4) requires the appointment of board members to be 
published in the Federal Register. The following persons comprise a 
standing roster to serve as members of the SES PRB for the U.S. Nuclear 
Waste Technical Review Board:

Laura Dudes, Deputy Regional Administrator, Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission, Region II, Atlanta, GA
Raymond Lorson, Director, Division of Reactor Projects, Nuclear 
Regulatory Commission, Region I, King of Prussia, PA
Katherine R. Herrera, Technical Director, Defense Nuclear Facilities 
Safety Board, Washington, DC
Timothy J. Dwyer, Associate Technical Director for Nuclear Materials 
Processing and Stabilization, Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board, 
Washington, DC
Richard E. Tontodonato, Associate Technical Director for Nuclear Weapon 
Programs, Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board, Washington, DC

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 10262.

    Dated: August 22, 2018.
Neysa M. Slater-Chandler,
Director of Administration, U.S. Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board.
[FR Doc. 2018-18726 Filed 8-28-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6820-AM-P
```
# \<*71*IH ELECTRONIC RECORD COA# 02-14-00180-CR OFFENSE: 22.021 Michael Wade Riddle v. The State 

## STYLE: ofTexas COUNTY: Wichita COA DISPOSITION: AFFIRM TRIAL COURT: 89th District Court 

### DATE: 10/23/2014 

### Publish: NO TC CASE #: 41,428-C



### IN THE COURTOF CRIMINALAPPEALS Michael Wade Riddle v. The State of STYLE: Texas CCA#: 

# IU11-H APP£u-AA/r'>s Petition FOR DISCRETIONARYREVIEW IN CCAIS: 

# DATE: 0*//<f/j20/r JUDGE: 

# f^Uoutp^. CCADisposition: DATE: 

### JUDGE: SIGNED: PUBLISH:

REHEARING IN CCA IS: JUDGE: PC: DNP:

MOTION FOR



### ELECTRONIC RECORD
### IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA DA 24 - 0295

_________________ NATHAN BRYCE HARDIN,

Plaintiff and Appellant, v. ST ATE OF MONTANA, ATTORNEY GENERAL, AUSTIN KNUDSEN,

Defendants and Appellees. O R D E R

_________________ The record was filed for purposes of this appeal on May 9 , 2024 . The opening brief is now overdue. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Appellant shall prepare, file , and serve the opening brief on appeal no later than July 26 , 2024 . F ailure to file the brief within that time will result in dismissal of this appeal with prejudice and without further notice. The Clerk is directed to provide copies of this Order to all parties .

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

June 26 2024

06/26/2024
Case Number: DA 24-0295
Exhibit 23.1



               CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS



The Board of Directors and Stockholders
The Great Train Store Company:

We consent to incorporation by reference in the registration  statements on Form
S-8 (Nos. 333-37705,  333-10427,  and 33-82626) of The Great Train Store Company
of our report  dated  February  19, 1999  relating to the  consolidated  balance
sheets of The Great Train Store Company and  subsidiaries  as of January 3, 1998
and January 2, 1999,  and the related  consolidated  statements  of  operations,
stockholders' equity, and cash flows for the each of the years in the three-year
period ended January 2, 1999, and the related schedule,  which report appears in
the January 2, 1999 annual report on Form 10-K of The Great Train Store Company.


                                         /s/ KPMG LLP
Dallas, Texas
March 31, 1999
#### WOODS v. BATTEY.

No. 37039.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Feb. 1968.

Certiorari denied without opinion. 204 So.2d 269.
Exhibit 32.1
 Certification required by Rule 13a-14(b) or
Rule 15d-14(b) and Section 906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
  (1)
    
    The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
 (2)
    
    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Trust.
 BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., TRUSTEE FOR
DOMINION RESOURCES BLACK WARRIOR TRUSTMarch 16, 2010
    By:
    /s/ Ron E. HooperRon E. Hooper,Senior Vice President, Royalty Management
Bank of America, N.A.
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3986 Introduced in House (IH)]

103d CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 3986

To rescind certain unauthorized supplemental appropriations for fiscal 
                   year 1994, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 9, 1994

  Mr. Fawell (for himself, Mr. Archer, Mr. Ballenger, Mr. Bartlett of 
 Maryland, Mr. Boehner, Mr. Burton of Indiana, Mr. Cox, Mr. Crane, Mr. 
Crapo, Mr. DeFazio, Mr. Doolittle, Mr. Ehlers, Mr. Ewing, Mrs. Fowler, 
 Mr. Gilchrest, Mr. Goodlatte, Mr. Goodling, Mr. Hancock, Mr. Hefley, 
    Mr. Herger, Mr. Hoekstra, Mr. King, Mr. Manzullo, Mr. Miller of 
 Florida, Mr. Nussle, Mr. Oxley, Mr. Paxon, Mr. Penny, Mr. Peterson of 
  Minnesota, Mr. Ramstad, Mr. Sensenbrenner, Mr. Smith of Texas, Mr. 
   Stearns, and Mr. Zimmer) introduced the following bill; which was 
              referred to the Committee on Appropriations

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To rescind certain unauthorized supplemental appropriations for fiscal 
                   year 1994, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Supplemental Appropriations 
Rescissions Act of 1994''.

SEC. 2. RESCISSION OF FUNDS FOR AUTOMATION OF FINGERPRINT 
              IDENTIFICATION SERVICES.

    Of the funds made available under the heading ``Federal Bureau of 
Investigation--Salaries and Expenses'' in chapter 2 of title II of 
Public Law 103-211, $20,000,000 is rescinded.

SEC. 3. REPEAL OF AUTHORITY TO USE CERTAIN PROCEEDS FOR NUCLEAR SHIP 
              SAVANNAH.

    Chapter 2 of title II of Public Law 103-211 is amended by striking 
the paragraph under the heading ``Maritime Administration--
Administrative Provision''.

SEC. 4. RESCISSION OF FUNDS FOR CONVERSION OF POST OFFICE TO TRAIN 
              STATION AND COMMERCIAL CENTER.

    Of the funds made available under the heading ``Federal Railroad 
Administration--Pennsylvania Station Redevelopment Project'' in chapter 
6 of title II of Public Law 103-211, $10,000,000 is rescinded.

SEC. 5. RESCISSION OF FUNDS FOR HILO-HAMAKUA COAST OF HAWAII.

    (a) In General.--Of the $260,000,000 earmarked for special purpose 
grants in the 14th proviso under the heading ``Department of Housing 
and Urban Development--Housing Programs--Annual Contributions for 
Assisted Housing'' in Public Law 102-389, $1,300,000 is rescinded, to 
be derived from the amount made available for continued assistance to 2 
sugarcane mills on the Hilo-Hamakua Coast of Hawaii.
    (b) Related Repeal.--Chapter 8 of title II of Public Law 103-211 is 
amended by striking the 1st paragraph under the heading ``Department of 
Housing and Urban Development--Housing Programs--Administrative 
Provisions''.

                                 <all>
```