alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 10. FORM OF PROMISSORY NOTE

August 10, 2005
Salt Lake City, Utah

$2,500.00

PROMISSORY NOTE

        FOR VALUE RECEIVED, receipt of which the undersigned hereby
acknowledges, the undersigned, WEST COAST CAR COMPANY, INC. ("Borrower"),
hereby promises to pay to Jeff Jenson ("Lender"), the
principal sum of five thousand dollars ($2,500.00), according to the
following terms and conditions:

1.	Interest.  The principal sum of this Note shall bear simple
      interest at the rate of eight percent (8%) per annum.

2.	Payment.  All payments of principal and interest shall be in
      lawful money of the United States of America.  The entire outstanding
      principal and interest balance shall become due and payable on demand
      of the Lender.  This Note is full recourse.

3.	Application of Payments.  All payments shall be applied first to
      accrued interest and thereafter to outstanding principal.

4.	Prepayment. This Note may be prepaid without penalty, in full or
      in part, at any time.

5.	Governing Law.  This Note shall be governed by and construed
      under the laws of the State of Utah as applied to agreements between
      Utah residents entered into and to be performed entirely within Utah.

6.	Enforcement.  Borrower shall be liable for any and all costs of
      the Lender in enforcing payment of this Note, including attorney's
       fees.

7.	Waiver.  Borrower hereby waives demand, protest, dishonor,
      presentment and notice of non-payment.

BORROWER
WEST COAST CAR COMPANY, INC.

/s/ Daniel Drummond
--------------------------
Daniel Drummond
West Coast Car Company, Inc.
### T E X A S C O U R T O F A P P E A L S , T H I R D D I S T R I C T , A T A U S T I N

NO. 03-13-00770- CV
Wanda McDonald, Ap pellant

v. F ederal Nat ional Mortgage A ssociation, App ellee

F ROM TH E CO UNTY COURT AT LAW NO . 4 O F WI LLIAM SO N COUNTY NO. 13- 1456 -CC4, HO NORAB LE JO HN Mc MASTER, J UDGE P RESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N Appellant Wanda McDona ld appea ls the trial court’s judgme nt in a forc ible detainer suit that awa

rded possession of cer

tain rea l proper

ty to appellee Fe dera l National Mortg ag e As s o ci ati on (F NMA). As a preliminary matter, FNMA argues that this appea l has become moo t beca use McDona ld failed to superse de the judgme nt and beca us e FN M A o b tained a writ of possession and has had possession of the proper ty since the writ was executed. See Tex. Prop. Code § 24.007 (re quiringsuperse deas bond f or stay of county

court’s judgment in eviction suit). The purpose of a forc ible detainer action is to obtain immedi at e p o ssession of proper ty
. See Scott v. Hewitt , 90 S.W .2d 816, 818-19 (1936). J udg ment of possession in a forc ible detainer action does not de termine whether an eviction is wrong ful but doe s deter mine the rig ht to immediate possession. See Marshall v. Housing Auth. of the City of San Antonio , 198 S.W .3d 782, 787 (Tex. 2006); see also Tex. R. Civ. P. 510.3(e) (“only issue” befor e justice court in eviction case s is “right to actua l possession and not title”). Fa ilure to superse de a forc ible-deta iner judgme nt willnot divest appellant of the rig ht to appea l, but the judgme nt may be enfor ced including the issuance

of a writ of possession evicting the tenant from the premises. Marshall , 198 S.W .3d at 786-87. An appea l from a f

orcible- detainer

action bec omes moot if appellant is no long er in possession of t he proper ty , unless the appellant holds and asser ts “a potentially meritorious claim of rig ht to curr ent, actua l possession” of the prope rty
. Id . at 787.

He re , McDona ld did not superse de the judgme nt and FNMA has had possess i o n of the proper

ty since Fe bruar

y 21, 2014, when the writ of possession was executed. FNMA filed a motion to dismiss the appeal, and this Court reque sted that McDona ld file a response to FNMA ’s motion by Marc h 10, 2014. McDona ld failed t o file any response , and as such, has not asser ted

a potentially meritorious claim of rig ht to curr ent, actua l possession of the proper ty
. See Marshall , 198 S.W .3d at 787; Rady v. Citi Mortgage, Inc ., No. 03-11-00734- CV, 2012 Tex. App. L EXI S 1933, at *2 (Te x . App.—Austin Mar. 9, 2012, no pet.) (me m. op.) (conc luding that a ppellant who fa iled to respond to a

ppellee’ s motion to di smiss failed to assert potentially meritorious claim of right to
curr ent, ac tual possession of proper ty). Acc ording ly , we grant F NMA’s motion and dismiss thi s appea l as moot.

J eff Rose, J ustice Be fore Chief Justice Jones, J ustices Pemberton a nd Rose Dismissed as Moot Filed: Apr il 10, 2014

2
391 A.2d 679

#### Commonwealth v. Divins, Appellant.

Submitted September 12, 1977.

Judith B. Chomsky and Robert G. Schwartz, for appellant; J. Michael Eakin, Assistant District Attorney, for Commonwealth, appellee.

Order affirmed.

WATKINS, former P. J., did not participate in the consideration or decision of this case.
AMS Cooked Diced Chicken Contractor Indicator Organism Performance - Fiscal Year: 20221/,2/

Standard Plate Count3/ Total Coliforms4/ Generic E. coli5/ S. aureus6/

Contractor

# Sub-lots 

Produced 

(% of Total)

# Exceeding 

Critical Limit

% Exceeding 

Critical Limit

# Exceeding 

Critical Limit

% Exceeding 

Critical Limit

# Exceeding 

Critical Limit

% Exceeding 

Critical Limit

# Exceeding 

Critical Limit

% Exceeding 

Critical Limit

C1 696 (86.4) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

C4 110 (13.6) 2 1.81 6 5.45 1 0.91 0 0

Total 806 (100.0) 2 0.25 6 0.74 1 0.12 0 0

1/A full description of the cooked diced chicken purchase program specification is available at https://www.ams.usda.gov/selling-food/product-specs#chicken. 2/Production Dates: October 1, 2021 to September 30, 2022. 3/Standard Plate Count Critical Limit: 1,000 CFU/g.

4/Total Coliforms Critical Limit: 50 CFU/g.

5/Generic E. coli Critical Limit: 10 CFU/g. 6/S. aureus Critical Limit: 10 CFU/g.
[No. 14595-6-III.

Division Three.

August 29, 1996.]

#### *In the Matter of the Marriage of*Sherry R. Groom, *Respondent,*and Larry D. Groom, *Appellant.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for Walla Walla County, No. 94-3-00105-6, Donald W. Schacht, J., entered December 12, 1994. *Reversed*by unpublished opinion per Sweeney, C.J., concurred in by Munson and Schultheis, JJ.
AMS Boneless Beef Supplier Pathogen Performance - Fiscal Year: 20211/,2/

# Lots Produced(% 

E. coli O157:H73/ Salmonella4/

Supplier ofTotal) #Positive %Positive #Positive %Positive

S1 1,258 (4.6) 0 0 36 2.86

- - - - S2 -

S4 10, 347 ( 38.1) 3 0.03 121 1.17

S5 - - - - -

S6 78 (0.03) 0 0 0 0

S10 3, 9 4 8 (14.5) 0 0 29 0.73

S11 - - - - -

S14 7,261 (26.7) 2 0.03 16 0.22

S21 2 , 8 3 4 (10.4) 2 0.07 61 2.15

S29 369 (1.4) 0 0 8 2.17

S43 682(2.5) 0 0 27 3.96

S44 400 (1.5) 0 0 1 0.25

Total 2 7 , 1 7 7 (100) 7 0.03 299 1.10

1/A full description of the boneless beef purchase program specification is available at https://www.ams.usda.gov/selling-food/product-specs#Beef. 2/Production Dates: October 1, 2020 to September 30, 2021. 3/E. coli O157:H7 Critical Limit: Positive (+) Result / 325g. 4/Salmonella Critical Limit: Positive (+) Result / 325g.
AMS Ground Beef Contractor Pathogen Performance - Fiscal Year: 20201/,2/ 

E. coli O157:H73/ Salm

Contractor Sub-lots Produced (% of Total) # Positive % Positive # Positive 

C1 595 (12.3) 2 0.34 19 

C3 --- --- --- --- C4 2,254 (46.8) 0 0 1 

C5 265 (5.5) 0 0 0 

C9 1,616 (33.5) 0 0 49 

C18 --- --- --- --- C23 --- --- --- --- C29 87 (1.8) 1 1.15 9 

C33 1 (0.0) 0 0 0 C37 --- --- --- --- 

Total 4,818 (100.0) 3 0.06 78 

1/A full description of the ground beef purchase program specification is available at https://www.ams.usda.gov/selling-food/product-specs#Beef. 2/Production Dates: October 1, 2019 to September 30, 2020. 3/E. coli O157:H7 Critical Limit: Positive (+) Result / 325g. 4/Salmonella Critical Limit: Positive (+) Result / 325g.
**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO**

**18 U.S.C.  §1350,**

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Roebling Financial Corp, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended December 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, we, Frank J. Travea, III, President and Chief Executive Officer, and Janice A. Summers, Senior Vice President, Chief Operating Officer and Chief Financial Officer, certify,            pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §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) 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. |
|--------|-----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

A signed original of this statement required by Section 906 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.

 

 

 

| /s/ Frank J. Travea, III              |   | /s/ Janice A. Summers                                                      |
|---------------------------------------|--------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Frank J. Travea, III                  |   | Janice A. Summers                                                          |
| President and Chief Executive Officer |   | Senior Vice President, Chief Operating Officer and Chief Financial Officer |
|                                  |   |                                                                       |

 

| Date: | February 17, 2009 |
|-------|-------------------|
[No. 37166-5-I.

Division One.

June 17, 1996.]

#### The State of Washington, *Respondent,*v. Thomas Ryman, *Appellant.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for King County, No. 95-1-00771-2, Stephen G. Scott, J., entered July 31, 1995. *Reversed*by unpublished per curiam opinion.
**EXHIBIT
      32.1**




**CERTIFICATION
      OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER**




**PURSUANT
      TO**




**18
      U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**




**AS
      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**




**SECTION
      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**









I,
      Peter
      C. Mann, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
      Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that this quarterly report of
      Prestige Brands Holdings, Inc. on Form 10-Q for the period ended December 31,
      2005 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
      Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as applicable, and that information contained
      in such quarterly report fairly presents in all material respects the financial
      condition and results of operations of Prestige Brands Holdings,
      Inc.




**/s/
                P****eter****C. M****ann**Name:Peter
                C. MannTitle:Chairman,
                President and Chief Executive OfficerDate:February
                14, 2006
EXHIBIT 31.1
 CERTIFICATIONS
  1.
    
    I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of IASIS Healthcare LLC;
 2.
    
    Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain 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 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(s) and I are responsible for establishing and
maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and
15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules
13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the registrant and have:
     5.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent
evaluation of internal 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):
    /s/ David R. WhiteDavid R. WhiteChairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer
**Final Listing of Questionnaire Files for Steam Electric Rulemaking Record**

**Plant ID 05043**  **Removed from Public**  **(Non-CBI) Docket** **1 Copyright** 

**Flag 2**  **File Name Description**  05043\05043_ HardcopyLog.doc EPA log of hardcopy documents submitted x 05043\05043_Part A.xls Plant submitted survey file x 05043\05043_Part B.xls Plant submitted survey file x 05043\05043_Part C.xls Plant submitted survey file x 05043\05043_Part D.xls Plant submitted survey file x 05043\05043_Part H.xls Plant submitted survey file

05043\Supporting Documents\05043_Wansley certification statement.pdf Plant certification statement 05043\Supporting Documents\05043_Transmittal letter - Georgia Power.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey 05043\Supporting Documents\05043_Wansley A2-3 EIS.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey 05043\Supporting Documents\05043_Wansley Diagram C2-31-1.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey 05043\Supporting Documents\05043_Wansley Diagram C2-31-2.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey x 05043\Supporting Documents\05043_Wansley Diagram C2-31-3.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey x 05043\Supporting Documents\05043_Wansley Diagram C2-31-4.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey x 05043\Supporting Documents\05043_Wansley Diagram D-1.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey x 05043\Supporting Documents\05043_Wansley Diagram D-2.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey x 05043\Supporting Documents\05043_Wansley Diagram WB-1.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

05043\Supporting Documents\05043_Wansley Map-1.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey 05043\Supporting Documents\05043_Wansley Map-2.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey x 05043\05043_Checklist.xls EPA Technical Review Checklist Workbook

05043\05043_ Completeness Checklist.xls EPA Completeness Review Checklist

1Final reviewed survey responses are located in the Steam Electric Technical Questionnaire Database

. 2Copyright documents are available from the docket.
**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT 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 FalconTarget, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-QSB for the fiscal quarter ended June 30, 2004, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the undersigned’s knowledge: 

(a) the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; 

and 

(b) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.  

FalconTarget, Inc.

Date: January 26, 2005 

By:   /s/   Serge Atlan 

    Serge Atlan

    Chairman

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

* A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 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.
III 

115TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. RES. 75 

Recognizing the 100th anniversary of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics, 

the largest organization of food and nutrition professionals in the world. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MARCH 1, 2017 

Mr. PORTMAN (for himself and Mr. BROWN) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and 

Forestry 

RESOLUTION 

Recognizing the 100th anniversary of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics, the largest organization of food and 

nutrition professionals in the world. 

Whereas, on October 20, 1917, dietitians met in Cleveland, 

Ohio, to identify ways in which food and nutrition professionals could help the United States Government conserve food and improve public health and nutrition during World War I; 

Whereas the foundational meeting on October 20, 1917, led 

to the creation of the American Dietetics Association, 

now known as the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics 

(referred to in this preamble as the ‘‘Academy’’); 

Whereas, since the inception of the Academy, the Academy 

has grown from a charter membership of 58 individuals 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with BILLS
2 

•SRES 75 IS 

to the largest organization of food and nutrition professionals in the world, with a membership as of January 

2017 of more than 75,000 individuals; 

Whereas the Academy is comprised of a diverse group of registered dietitian nutritionists and technicians, scientists, 

clinicians, educators, students, and other food and nutrition practitioners; and 

Whereas, through evidence-based research and education, 

members of the Academy play an important role in shaping the food choices and nutrition of the people of the 

United States: Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That the Senate— 

2 (1) commemorates October 20, 2017, as the 

3 100th anniversary of the Academy of Nutrition and 

4 Dietetics; and 

5 (2) applauds the Academy of Nutrition and Di6 etetics for its past, present, and future efforts to 

7 champion the principles established by its dietitian 

8 predecessors more than 100 years ago— 

9 (A) to promote food and nutrition profes10 sionals; and 

11 (B) to improve the health and wellness of 

12 all people of the United States through re13 search, education, and advocacy. 

Æ 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with BILLS
REGULATORY EVALUATION

Directorate Identifier: 2013-NM-197-AD

Executive Order 12866:

Could the AD be considered a “significant regulatory action”?

YES ( ) explain NO (X)

DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures:

Is the AD significant?

YES ( ) explain NO (X)

Regulatory Flexibility Act:

Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities?

YES ( ) explain NO (X)

Intrastate Aviation in Alaska:

This AD could affect intrastate aviation in Alaska. Is it appropriate to include specific 

requirements for aircraft operated in Alaska, where aviation might be the only mode of 

transportation?

YES ( ) explain NO (X)
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460 

Simon Lie and Tim Holey 

c/o Aerospace Industries Association 

1000 Wilson Boulevard, Suite 1700 

Arlington, Virginia 22209-3928 

Dear Mr. Lie and Mr. Holey: 

FEB 1 7 2016 

OFFICE OF 

AIR AND RADIATION 

I am writing in response to your letter of December 18, 2015 to U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) Acting Assistant Administrator Janet McCabe ofthe Office of Air and Radiation 

and Assistant Administrator James Jones ofthe Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution 

Prevention, in which you requested EPA's expedited review and approval of the chemical 2-

bromo-3,3,3-trifluoropropene (2-BTP) for handheld fire extinguishers on commercial aircraft. 

Your letter discussed the International Civil Aviation Organization's (ICAO's) requirement for 

halon-free handheld extinguishers in new aircraft type designs after December 31 , 2016. You 

shared the concerns of the aircraft original equipment manufacturers within the ICCAIA 

Airworthiness Committee with meeting this deadline, given the time that they believe would be 

needed to develop, certify and introduce aviation-approved equipment using 2-BTP, and given 

pending decisions by EPA on its production and use. 

EPA understands the importance to the industry of2-BTP as an option for use in aviation fire 

suppression applications and, in particular, the time constraints the industry is facing. As you 

may be aware, AMPAC originally submitted 2-BTP for review on September 25, 2014, to EPA's 

Significant New Alternatives Policy (SNAP) Program in the Office of Air and Radiation. As a 

new chemical, 2-BTP was also submitted as a Toxic Substance Control Act (TSCA) 

Premanufacture Notice (PMN) for review by EPA's New Chemicals Program in the Office of 

Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention. Both programs have worked closely to coordinate our 

reviews, as is our practice when such reviews involve the same chemical. Both programs have 

also held numerous meetings with the submitter, AMP AC, to ensure the completeness of our 

information on 2-BTP and our understanding of its use. As a result, we are nearing completion of 

these reviews. The New Chemicals Program is in the process of completing a TSCA section 5(e) 

consent order with the PMN submitter. 

Internet Address (URL) • http //www epa gov 

Recycled/Recyc lable • Pnnted w1th Vegetable Oil Based Inks on 100% Postconsumer Process Chlonne Free Recycled Paper 
I appreciate your interest in our review and look forward to your continued cooperation in our 

efforts on ozone protection. If you have further questions, please contact Cindy Newberg, Chief 

of the Alternatives and Emission Reduction Branch, at (202) 343-9729 or 

newberg.cindy@epa.gov, or Kenneth Moss, Team Leader for the New Chemicals Program, at 

(202) 564-9232 or moss.kenneth@epa.gov. 

Sincerely, 

Sarah Dunham, Director 

Office of Atmospheric Programs
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 January 29, 2014

d0122

Order 

Clerk

January 29, 2014

147508

In re ESTATE OF GEORGE EUGENE STAN.

_________________________________________

GEORGIANN STAN, Personal Representative of

the ESTATE OF GEORGE EUGENE STAN,

Petitioner-Appellant,

v SC: 147508

COA: 309958

Wayne PC: 2011-770208-DE

CHRISTINE S. STAN,

Respondent-Appellee. 

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the June 20, 2013 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.

MARKMAN, J. (dissenting). 

MCL 700.3905 provides that “a provision in a will purporting to penalize an 

interested person for contesting the will or instituting another proceeding relating to the 

estate shall not be given effect if probable cause exists for instituting a proceeding 

contesting the will or another proceeding relating to the estate.” (Emphasis added.) I 

would grant leave to appeal to consider whether the beneficiary of a will relying on this 

statutory exception to the enforcement of a no-contest clause can establish “probable 

cause” for a legal challenge if he or she did not ultimately prevail in the challenge.
391 A.2d 692

#### Commonwealth v. Reginald Mays, Appellant.

Argued March 24, 1977.

Michael C. Rainone, for appellant; Deborah E. Glass, Assistant District Attorney,- *619and F. Emmett Fitzpatrick, District Attorney, for Commonwealth, appellee.

Judgment of sentence affirmed.

WATKINS, former P. J., did not participate in the consideration or decision of this case.