alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 10.12

                                 PROMISSORY NOTE



   $250,000.00
-------------------------


                                            Greenville, South Carolina
                                            August 14, 2001




              FOR VALUE RECEIVED   RSI Holdings, Inc.
                                   ---------------------------------------------

             28 EAST COURT STREET, GREENVILLE, SOUTH CAROLINA 29601
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

promises to pay               Minor H. Mickel
                 ---------------------------------------------------------------

the sum of         Two Hundred Fifty Thousand Dollars and No/100 ($250,000.00)
                 ---------------------------------------------------------------

with interest thereon from            date         at the rate of     8.00%
---------------------------  ---------------------                -------------

per centum per annum, to be computed and paid quarterly until paid in full on or
before August 14, 2006.  Interest to be paid  quarterly  beginning  November 30,
2001 and at the end of each fiscal quarter thereafter.




                                            RSI Holdings, Inc.




                                            By:  /s/ Buck A. Mickel
                                                 --------------------------
                                            Buck A. Mickel, President and CEO
March 6, 2001

23401

#### State v. Lacey

Affirmed
Record of Ex Parte Contacts

Docket No. FAA-2011-1414 Directorate Identifier: 2011-NM-227-AD

With whom outside the FAA has this AD action been discussed (i.e., Design Approval Holder, 

manufacturer, ATA, NBAA, RAA, AOPA, ALPA, GAMA, etc)? (You might need to submit a 

separate record to the Rules Docket. The AD Manual defines “Ex Parte Contacts.”) 

ORGANIZATION PERSON 

CONTACTED

DATE RESPONSE

Cessna Aircraft 

Company

Various Various Concur.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Other/Additional Information:
#### TEAM RENTAL GROUP, INC. *v.*ITT HARTFORD GROUP, INC., ET AL.

(AC 19206)

Lavery, C. J., and Spear and Cretella, Js.

Argued March 28

officially released August 1, 2000

*Brendan T. Canty,*with whom, on the brief, was *Seth J. Antin,*for the appellant (plaintiff).

*Andrew J. O’Keefe,*with whom were, *Joseph M. Busker, Jr.,*and, on the brief, *Peter K. O’Keefe,*for the appellees (defendants).

*111PER CURIAM.

In this action, the plaintiff, Team Rental Group, Inc., a car rental company, seeks to recover damages from the defendant insurance carriers1 of Felix Velez, to whom a vehicle had been rented. The vehicle sustained damage when it was involved in an accident while being operated without permission by the grandson of Velez. The defendants allege that the policy of Velez does not afford coverage under the facts here and that they have no liability to the plaintiff. The trial court agreed and rendered a summary judgment for the defendants.

In its thorough analysis of the facts and applicable law, the trial court found that coverage was excluded under the provisions of the policy for damages to a nonowned vehicle rented to Velez for his sole use that was operated by his grandson with no reasonable belief that he was entitled to do so.

The court also examined and rejected the claim of the plaintiff that Velez was covered under that portion of the policy relating to damage to his own auto. We agree.

Our examination of the record and briefs, together with oral argument of the parties, persuades us that the judgment of the trial court should be affirmed. The memorandum of decision of the trial court is detailed, thoughtful and comprehensive. Its analysis is consistent with our applicable law and precedents, and we therefore adopt the court’s well reasoned decision. See *Team Rental Group, Inc.*v. *ITT Hartford Group, Inc.,*46 Conn. Sup. 480, 755 A.2d 382 (1998). It would serve no useful purpose to repeat the discussion contained therein. See *Keyes*v. *Pennsylvania General Accident Ins. Co.,*45 Conn. App. 140, 142, 695 A.2d 548 (1997); *McCommic*v. *Commissioner of Correction,*44 Conn. App. 470, 471, 689 A.2d 526 (1997).

The judgment is affirmed.

1

 The other defendant in this action is the Hartford Insurance Company of the Midwest, Inc.
# C_2018161EN.01006701.xml

| 7.5.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 161/67 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.5.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 161/67

---

Action brought on 8 March 2018 — Mutondo v Council

(Case T-174/18)

(2018/C 161/82)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Kalev Mutondo (Kinshasa, Democratic Republic of the Congo) (represented by: T. Bontinck, P. De Wolf, M. Forgeois and A. Guillerme, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | Annul Council Decision (CFSP) 2017/2282 of 11 December 2017 amending Decision 2010/788/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against the Democratic Republic of the Congo, in so far as the applicant remains at No 16 in Annex II to Decision 2010/788/CFSP and No 16 in Annex Ia to Regulation (EC) No 1183/2005; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul Council Decision (CFSP) 2017/2282 of 11 December 2017 amending Decision 2010/788/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against the Democratic Republic of the Congo, in so far as the applicant remains at No 16 in Annex II to Decision 2010/788/CFSP and No 16 in Annex Ia to Regulation (EC) No 1183/2005;

| — | Rule that the provisions of Articles 3(2)(b) of Decision 2010/788/CFSP, as amended by Decision 2016/2231/CFSP, and 2b(1)(b) of Regulation [No] 1183/2005/EC are unlawful; |
| --- | --- |

—

Rule that the provisions of Articles 3(2)(b) of Decision 2010/788/CFSP, as amended by Decision 2016/2231/CFSP, and 2b(1)(b) of Regulation [No] 1183/2005/EC are unlawful;

| — | Order the Council to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the Council to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on four pleas in law, which are in essence identical or similar to those raised in Case T-163/18, Amisi Kumba v Council.

Amisi Kumba

Council

---
# C_2018455EN.01002401.xml

| 17.12.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 455/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.12.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 455/24

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sofiyski gradski sad (Bulgaria) lodged on 8 October 2018 — EN, FM, GL v Ryanair Designated Activity Company

(Case C-629/18)

(2018/C 455/34)

Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Sofiyski gradski sad

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: EN, FM, GL

Defendant: Ryanair Designated Activity Company

Question referred

Does Article 25 of Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council allow jurisdiction to be established on the basis of an agreement, concluded before a dispute arises, with regard to the examination of claims based on Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 (2) of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 295/91?

---

(1)  Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (OJ.2012 L 351, p. 1).

(2)  OJ 2004 L 46, p. 1.

---
#### Robert Earl LEWIS, Plaintiff in Error, v. The STATE of Oklahoma, Defendant in Error.

No. A-12547.

Criminal Court of Appeals of Oklahoma.

Feb. 26, 1958.

Elmore A. Page, Tulsa, for plaintiff in error.

Mac Q. Williamson, Atty. Gen., Sam H. Lattimore, Asst. Atty. Gen., for defendant in error.

BRETT, Presiding Judge.

Plaintiff in error, Robert Earl Lewis, defendant below, was charged by information in the District Court of Tulsa County, Oklahoma, with the crime of unlawful possession of narcotics in violation of 63 O.S.1951 § 402. A jury was waived and the case tried to the court. The defendant was found guilty and sentenced to a term of five years in the state penitentiary. 63 O.S.Supp.1953 § 420. Judgment and sentence were entered accordingly, from which this appeal has been perfected.

The evidence disclosed the' defendant was possessed of a considerable quantity of narcotics consisting of codeine, morphine, and other forms of narcotics. The case was orally argued, but no briefs were filed. We have examined the record and find that the principal question raised is that the trial court erred in overruling the defendant’s motion to suppress the evi*425dence based on an alleged illegal search. This matter presented a judicial question for the determination of the trial court. Roberts v. State, 95 Okl.Cr. 365, 245 P.2d 759; Fulbright v. State, 96 Okl.Cr. 36, 248 P.2d 651. The trial court determined the issue against the defendant and we find there is sufficient evidence to support the trial court’s finding.

An examination of the record discloses no fundamental error prejudicial to the defendant. Furthermore, counsel for the plaintiff in error must not only assert error, but must support his contention by citation of authorities. When the case was orally argued, the defendant cited no authorities in support of his position. Where it appears the defendant was not deprived of any fundamental rights, the Court will not search for authorities to support asserted error. Cope v. State, 15 Okl.Cr. 437, 177 P. 920.

The judgment and sentence is affirmed.

POWELL and NIX, JJ., concur.
SI()-l()03()4-()42 

WBIU C Grass AJrpQrt 

LEXINGTON-FAYETTE URBAN COUNTY AIRPORT BOARD 

February 24,2010 

The Honorable Raymond H. LaHood 

Secretary 

U.S, Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Ave, SE 

Washington, DC 20590 

Docket DOT-OST-2010-0034 

Dear Mr. Secretary: 

Thank you for the opportunity to express my support for the application for antitrust immunity and 

proposed joint business agreement filed by American Airlines and Japan Airlines. The proposed alliance 

between these two airlines is vital for the oneworld alliance to compete effectively with the Star and 

SkyTeam alliances. This increased alliance competition will in turn enhance the benefits of the 

Department's Open Skies policy - first by solidifying U.S. - Japan Open Skies, then by serving as a 

foundation for further liberalization across Asia. 

After a thorough review, I encourage the Department of Transportation to approve this application as it 

would enable these oneworld alliance airlines to work closely together to deliver highly competitive air 

transportation services. Approval for AA/JAL alliance will have 3 positive impact on air travel by offering 

customers more service, scheduling, and pricing options and will help to ensure that customers continue 

to benefit from the competition afforded by three competitive air alliances. 

I urge you to quickly approve this application. 

Sincerely, 

Eric J. FrankI, A.A.E. 

Executive Director 

Blue Grass Airport 

4000 Terminal Drive, Suite 206 

Lexington, KY 40510 

(859) 425-3100 

efrankl<a)bluegrassairport.com 

4000 Terminal Drive • Suite 206 • Lexington, Kentucky 40510 • (859) 425-3100 Fax (859) 233-1822 • wvw.bhicgrassajrportcom
#### Park v. Park

18132

12/29/97

Affirmed
'-'I T ni

- 

# © M i Memorandu m US wDepartmen t o f Transportatio n . 9 ^ \ ' Ul Offic e o f th e Secretar

y o f Transportatio n Subject : Essentia l Ai r

Servic e a t Hydaburg , Alask aDate : Jun e 9 , 201 1 (Docke t DOT-OST-1999-6245 ) Repl y Denni s J . DeVany , Chie f

^ t o Michae l Martin , X-5 3 From : EA S & Domesti c Analysis , X-5 3 Attn . Ext . 6649 4 of : To : Docket s Operations , M-3 0 B y Orde r 2011-5-9 , Ma

y 9 , 2011 , w e requeste dproposal s for essentia l ai r

servic e (EAS ) a

t Hydaburg , Alaska , n o late r thanJun e 16 , 2011 . B y phon e conversatio no nJun e 9 , th e consultin g fin npreparin g th e proposal for Ventur e Trave l LLC , operatin g a s Taqua nAi r Servic e (TaquanAir) , requeste dthat w e exten dth e du e dat e for proposal s t o Monday , Jun e 27 , 2011 . W e hav e decide dt o gran t th e reques t

an dal l partie s mus t no w fil e competitiv e proposal s for EA S a t Hydabur g n o late r

thanJun e 27 , 2011 .
## F I F T H 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________ Case No. 5D 2 3

- 3619 LT Case No. 2014

- CFDB

- 303621

_____________________________
M ESHAC M. A BENTEGO , Appellant,

v.

S TAT E OF F LORIDA , Appellee.

_____________________________

3.850 A ppeal from the Circuit Court for Volusia County

. Raul A. Zambrano , Judge

. Meshac Abentego
, Chipley, pro se

. No Appearance for Appellee.

F ebruary 6, 2024

P ER C URIAM

.
A FFIRMED

.
L AMBERT , J AY and M AC I VER , JJ., concur

.2 _____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331

.

_____________________________
#### State v. Branco

20589

5/14/98

Vacated & Remanded
APHIS-22-022 Ι Issued May 2022 

Highly pathogenic avian influenza (HPAI) is a very 

contagious, deadly disease of birds. Everyone who owns 

or works with birds needs to know how to safeguard them 

from this devastating disease. This includes facilities 

regulated under the Animal Welfare Act. Whether at a large 

zoo or wildlife rehabilitation facility, strong biosecurity 

measures can prevent an HPAI introduction and keep your 

birds healthy. 

Biosecurity Measures

• Separate and compartmentalize your birds to prevent 

contact with free-ranging (non-captive) wild birds.

• Test and quarantine all sick birds and newly acquired 

birds to prevent the spread of illness.

• Clean and disinfect enclosures and equipment used 

for captive birds.

• Prevent cross-contamination via personnel (staff, 

volunteers, veterinarians) by wearing personal 

protective equipment or dedicated facility clothing 

and shoes and showering before and after contact 

with birds.

Report Sick Birds

HPAI can strike with little to no warning—sudden death, 

decreased food and water consumption, and lethargy are 

common signs. Early detection is vital to keep the disease 

from spreading. If you see any sign of illness in your birds, 

immediately report it to your State veterinarian or the 

U.S. Department of Agriculture (1-866-536-7593). 

Depopulation is NOT required for exhibit flocks with 

HPAI-infected birds. However, if HPAI is suspected in your 

birds, you will need to follow quarantine requirements and 

use proper biosecurity to prevent disease spread.

Resources

• Animal Care Tech Note—Protecting Captive Wild Birds 

From Highly Pathogenic Avian Influenza: 

aphis.usda.gov/publications/animal_welfare/ac-tech-notecaptive-wild-bird-biosecurity-508.pdf 

• USDA’s Defend the Flock outreach campaign—free 

resources and other information on biosecurity: 

aphis.usda.gov/animalhealth/defendtheflock 

• Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 

recommendations on potential biosecurity solutions 

ranked from most to least effective: 

cdc.gov/niosh/topics/hierarchy

Learn More

If you have questions about protecting captive wild birds from 

HPAI, call us at (970) 494-7478 or email animalcare@usda.gov.

For general information, visit aphis.usda.gov and search 

“avian influenza.” Find out where HPAI has been detected in 

commercial poultry, backyard flocks, and free-ranging wild 

birds. You can also search “HPAI response” to learn how USDA 

responds to HPAI outbreaks. 

epartment of culture is an equal opportunity provider, employer, der.

Guidance for Zoos and Captive Wildlife Facilities: 

Protecting Birds From Highly Pathogenic Avian Influenza

Animal Care

USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer, and lender.
# C_2019148EN.01005001.xml

| 29.4.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 148/50 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.4.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 148/50

---

Judgment of the General Court of 12 March 2019 — France v Commission

(Case T-26/18) (1)

(EAGF and EAFRD - Expenditure excluded from financing - Expenditure incurred by France - One-off and flat-rate financial corrections - Area-related aid scheme - Land Parcel Identification System - Determination of eligible areas - Maintenance of agricultural land in good agricultural and environmental condition - Landscape features - Grazable heathland - National monitoring system based on a non-compliant definition of eligible areas - Proportionality - Obligation to state reasons - Conformity Clearance - Most likely error - Error of law)

(2019/C 148/47)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: French Republic (represented by: F. Alabrune, D. Colas, A.-L. Desjonquères and S. Horrenberger, acting as Agents)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: A. Lewis and D. Triantafyllou, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application pursuant to Article 263 TFEU seeking the partial annulment of Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2017/2014 of 8 November 2017 excluding from European Union financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) (OJ 2017 L 292, p. 61).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders the French Republic to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the French Republic to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 112, 26.3.2018.

---
Exhibit 32

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE

SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

The undersigned executive officers of Ameriana Bancorp (the Registrant) hereby certify that this Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2008 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements
of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Registrant.



By:

/s/ Jerome J. GassenName:

Jerome J. GassenTitle:

President and Chief Executive OfficerBy:

/s/ John J. LetterName:

John J. LetterTitle:

Principal Financial and Accounting Officer


Date: March 27, 2009
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                             944
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  288,380
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               290,677
<PP&E>                                       6,033,071
<DEPRECIATION>                               1,945,375
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               4,382,271
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           23,052
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 4,382,271
<SALES>                                        395,911
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               397,264
<CGS>                                           68,023
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  168,382
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                228,882
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            228,882
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   228,882
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM R. P.
SCHERER CORPORATION'S ANNUAL REPORT ON FORM 10-K FOR THE YEAR ENDED MARCH 31,
1998 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FORM 10-K FILING.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                          33,312
<SECURITIES>                                     2,662
<RECEIVABLES>                                  166,584
<ALLOWANCES>                                     3,200
<INVENTORY>                                     68,857
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               276,444
<PP&E>                                         497,970
<DEPRECIATION>                                 130,436
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 821,597
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          149,597
<BONDS>                                        168,163
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           240
<OTHER-SE>                                     398,637
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   821,597
<SALES>                                        620,716
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               620,716
<CGS>                                          409,162
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  512,735
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               9,263
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                100,601
<INCOME-TAX>                                    15,972
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             69,746
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    69,746
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     2.89
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     2.81
        

</TABLE>
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATIONS 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 Perfumania Holdings, Inc. (the
Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending October 30, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), I, Donna Dellomo, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my 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.
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



By:

By: /S/ Donna DellomoDonna DellomoChief Financial OfficerDecember 13, 2010
October 20, 1999

22018

#### State v. Malakha

Affirmed
#### Omoto v. Tanaka

16504, 16740

11/23/94

Affirmed